LCS25

You're a joke. If she had ruled in your favor you'd be singing her praises. A win is not good enough for the west. They want the title to the stadium as well as ownership of the other team too. But..........we had 747s!!!

I think East should make another motion to delay so that they can redo their proposals now that it is officially decided NIC is not binding. Changes the game.

Upsddown

Shouldn't the East and maybe LAA request delay because this does change the game (somewhat) from what was expected?

Isn't East using some agents, attorneys and others from USAPA? How would that be fair and equatable that with seven days notice they have to change the players of their team.

Seems a delay would be reasonable and prudent for this latest development.

eaglefly

I disagree. In reviewing AAPSIC's proposal, I actually think they chose a very CONSERVATIVE application of compensating the LAA pilots with their decision to adopt the Nic (which IS surprising as at the time the revised AAPSIC model was submitted, Silver had yet to rule on the Nic stature in relation to moving forward in the process and now has which upholds the potential propriety of NOT advocating a pure Nic inclusion in the final model). In other words, they shot craps thinking Silver would require the East committee to include the Nic and therefore didn't want to be "off the map" with a proposal that was divergent. Personally, I never thought AAPSIC would (or should) adopt the Nic, but they have. I also get the impression this proposal was designed to protect APA more then benefit ALL LAA pilots, but as Dean believed (and has said), "merger's are painful" and I guess he was silently referring to the segment of LAA pilots that would likely foot that bill. In effect, I think the AAPSIC's proposal is what actors refer to as a "result-oriented performance" in that the actor is more interested in validation and minimal risk and thus success by staying within their comfortable boundaries rather then exploring a more risky portrayal in their eyes, but which stays more true to a character's concept.

What is the end result for LAA pilots in compensation for their clearly............yes, "superior" EQUITY they bring ?

A modest "slide" to compensate for those equities. "75%" sounds draconian, but what does it really mean for LAA pilots ?

Well, that depends where they are on the LAA list. It looks like more senior LAA pilots do much better and those more junior who with the exception of VERY junior, do the worst. In my case and pilots around my seniority as an example, it didn't amount to very much, but since we (be it flow or furloughee), apparently have little "longevity" in ALL the committees eye's including AAPSIC, I guess that's how they feel. I disagree with this. We were "active" LAA pilots whose PMCE was not based on any longevity consideration, but instead our "bidding power" at pre-merger LAA absent this merger which AASPIC even confirms. Longevity had no application in regards to our bidding power at LAA on December 8, 2013 and that is what LAA's pre-merger equity was founded on, or at least should be.

The pilots around my seniority made VERY modest advancement in this new model in comparison to the first LAA proposal which did not include the Nic or any compensatory adjustment for it. In fact, as little as approximately 150 numbers overall jump occurred. Between my present pre-merger LAA position, I gained almost 3% seniority on the new list with a Nicolau usage compensation, which is a very modest credit considering the approximate 75/25 valuation difference and all the equities AAPSIC describes in their proposal. I consider that to be VERY conservative for junior LAA pilots in and around my seniority. The West pilots nearest me on the AAPSIC's revised list by comparison (who are approximately the same age and West seniority dates within a few months of my AA OCC seniority), lost only approximately 6% from their pre-merger non-nic standing and 12% when their elevated Nic positions are applied, which again considering what they brought to the table seems more then fair and only ADDS to the already massive gains the West has gotten in this merger. That West pilot loses only 6% from where he presently is at his pre-merger seniority based on reality. In my case, I'd have been no worse off by my own committees opinion flowing to AWA in 2000 or 2001 instead of AA if that was possible (or being furloughed, hiring on there and retaining all my AA value post merger).

Truly, the West pilots will be the clear-cut victors even if the AAPSIC'S model is adopted by the arbitrators. Of course, IMO, arbitrators would unlikely accept any committees model no matter how appropriate without some tweaking of their own which validates their existence and I believe even if they adopt the argument of the AAPSIC and use the pure Nic, they'll make some modifications. The best place for those IMO, is more senior up the LAA list and very junior to include improvements for more senior East 3rd list pilots. If LAA pilots around my seniority range are further diluted it would essentially negate virtually ANY credit for equity brought to the table by LAA pilots leaving me essentially where I was before the merger/integration and applying all the gains to West pilots instead. The fact no truly significant fences for West pilots is requested by AAPSIC considering their modest..............VERY modest compensation for a large segment of junior LAA only exacerbates most of the West's realized goals in this merger/SLI. I realize though, that STILL isn't enough and many believe they MUST have more...........much, much more.

Personally, I'm disappointed AAPSIC has chosen this tack and done so making their initial proposal a minimal or empty result for many junior LAA pilots should any further dilution occur to that range of their proposed model and that is indeed possible even given their conservative calculations. This model really offers no retraction potential WITHOUT almost completely negating any compensation for PMCE and disparate equities for a substantial segment of junior LAA pilots IMO. They are indeed shooting craps, with many junior LAA as the dice.

cactiboss

You don't have a freakin clue do you? Numb nuts. Silver ruling is an outrage, and no the nic. was never binding on the boa and that wasn't what this ruling was about. Educate yourself.

cactiboss

You think it matters to the east they are using same agents? For god sakes they just changed their name and got away with a dfr, they could'n be less worried about that.

PurpleTurtle

When are you going to start using the "cut and paste" function...?

"The West Pilots appear to make two arguments in seeking a broader injunction. First, they argue “the new East Pilots Merger Committee is merely a continuation of the USAPA Merger Committee; i.e., the new East Merger Committee is just wearing a new nametag (‘APA’).” (Doc. 317 at 5). Thus, a broader injunction would merely recognize that changing names does not prevent the injunction from applying. And second, the West Pilots argue that even if the new East Pilots Merger Committee is distinct from USAPA, the injunction should reach the new committee to preserve the remedy the Ninth Circuit envisioned. Neither argument is convincing." ~~~ The Honorable Judge Silver

cactiboss

You consider a 75/25 valuation of equities "modest" ? Lol

Upsddown

Cactiboss,

Read Silver's ruling. As dumb as you think East is they just won the lotto. I fully expect more litigation from the Hatfield's and McCoys

PurpleTurtle

Ok. I'll bite... What's the next lawsuit about and who initiates it?

I personally am content to let the BOA decide.

LCS25

Hey, I'm just a fan. I think both AA and the east committee should apply for time to revise their proposals. West has a windfall just by being part of this company. Just a lowly masters degree here, but at least didn't trap myself in PHX.