eaglefly

...and give up my fish tie ?

NEVER !

PurpleTurtle

The East MC didn't even exist at the time of the supposed DFR violation, i.e. the trial. The East MC has never had a DFR to West pilots.

Silver is sure to put on a great show in her dicta, but even she will find it hard to name the East MC in her actual ruling. On the otherhand, maybe Wake would do it in a drop of the hat.

cactiboss

Except the "contractual fact" was illegal. You keep saying this is the "west's position", it is not, it is the position of a federal appeals court. The apa has a dfr and contractual duty to the west to implement the nic. on the lus side. That duty is independent of and has zero to do with the sli and is borne of the contract the apa is now administering.

eaglefly

Yes, this confuses me too. Again, the reality is that at merger snapshot date, like it or not, three separate groups existed. I can understand neutrality being required of the pre-merger unions and thus the surviving union and even buy the requirement for USAPA to not advocate anything other then the Nic (which may allow them to take no position at all just like APA), but each committee should be free to argue anything it so chooses (even at their own peril) considering the reality is that pre-merger there were three separate pilot groups with three distinct interests, separate equities and positions on the various aspects of SLI.

dynap09

No question west may make out big time if this goes there way. But what has this to do with LAA folks? This is all east/west stuff.

West folks stand to both jump up the list AND if there is credit given to expected US Airways attrition they may ALSO capture those benefits. In other words the east attrition will benefit the west.

The only thing that would make west happier is if they get a bunch of attorney fees back in their case against the east pilots.

So we agree if west proposal carriers some west pilots are going to see big jumps. But for AA folks what's the impact? APA and West both agree that this is an east/west issue.

eaglefly

I think you are making too far a reach (at this point) at least IMO that any claim of "illegality" in the contractual aspects of this integration means APA has a DFR to not only recognize the Nic, but to require it. From my understanding, the 9th compelled no one other then USAPA to do or not do anything. In fact, they went to great pain to ensure their ruling would not be construed as doing anything other then that.

So..........for the umpteenth time (now +2), I understand your assertion, but do not agree with it. I'm trying my best to make this clear in the hope you cease pulling the string in your back in perpetuity......or is that an Energizer battery ?

cactiboss

Dude, it's not "my" assertion, it's the 9th's. You are confusing 2 separate things here. Two things happened, in laymans terms, the 9th found the mou/pa language violated the law and the 9th refused to tie the boa hands. Forcing usapa to show up with the nic is no different than saying the nic. is the lus list but the boa can do whatever they want just as they can with the laa list. It's not my "assertion", it's the LAW now.

PurpleTurtle

If you would just cut and paste this supposed federal court "fact" then we would all quit laughing at you, "boss".

Arado 234

Are you an APC moderator? If not, keep the comments to yourself and let the mods do their job.

eaglefly

With the West's proposal, their pilots have incredible bidding power in LAA statuses. Bidding power that comparable pre-merger LAA pilots won't have. IF the Nic is JUST an East/West issue, then both those committees (well, IF the East shows) should then have no problem with acceptable post merger fences both narrow and wide body to protect LAA pilots pre-merger equities along with making any resolution to the Nic dispute pure in that West pilots realize whatever overdue benefit the arbitrators see fit to award them in East statuses. This would truly isolates the issue to pre-merger LUS and thus makes the SLI more equitable.

Of course, neither of the LUS initial proposals included any such consideration. The East was based on a "merger of equals" and the West, a forward only looking model based on the pure Nic as a reality, instead of an unconsummated hypothetical ONLY in play now due to this merger and little or no limitations on exercising their new windfall. Both proposals not only offered no post merger protections recognizing the different pre-merger equities, but refused to even acknowledge those pre-merger equities and thus no fences. That's why I call it the "hat trick".

GOAL 1 : Get the Pure Nic.

* this is a maximum result for the West against the East and virtually nothing is left to argue in this respect. They consider this goal an entitlement.

GOAL 2 : Use that now real list (formerly hypothetical) as the foundation of a model that maximizes gains against LAA (they've already clobbered the East), especially the longevity component with 1200 native furloughees and 600 or so AE flow-thru's.

* This was successful for the principle legal strategist of the West committee in UAL/CAL, but has been modified for maximum effect due to specifics of LAA pilots.

GOAL 3 (AKA "for the win") : Argue for minimum impedance in ability to use their past two goals for maximum benefit system wide as in no fences. The West is then free to scatter in all directions into LAA status while many LAA pilots watch (I'm sure some in recoiled horror and stunned disbelief) who in some instances now years away from statuses they may have held in short order pre-merger/post bankruptcy.