Upsddown

Hit enter too quick-

but they have to be smart enough to understand they possibly just put eight years of this struggle behind them and after protecting the East group during that time they may end up with an integrated list much better than they could have ever expected.

Since the MB requires fair and equatable I cannot see how it would be fair to continue this SLI process next week. If they do require all new players then there is no way they could fairly be ready given they cannot have any participation by former USAPA people.

If in fact East is dumb enough to use ANY USAPA people from now until the SLI award is awarded the entire East group should be hung and left out to dry.

Every East pilot should get on the phone today and call their CLT and PHL reps and let them know that if they don't assure that the East complies with this ruling they will personally come after them if they are in any way involved in this misrepresentation by failing to comply with Silver's ruling.

beancounter

Sorry you'll have to explain it to me, I only have two advanced degrees. Didn't the east already disregard the Nic in their proposals? You're not trying to hork down the whole cake again are you?

cactiboss

This has the exact opposite effect, the east now has nothing to sue over, they are free to argue what they want, nothing to sue over.

cactiboss

That makes about as much sense as Silvers ruling.

eaglefly

No, I consider the ultimate application of the result of that quite inequitable pre-merger valuation modest in regards to the actual value a large sub-segment of LAA pilots will realize and that's IF the seniority they ultimately receive from the arbitrators IS NOT diluted further from the AAPSIC's revised proposal. If it is, it would offer virtually nothing in return for application of the Nic against junior LAA pilots and in effect, usher in the very windfall for the West that should not occur at least in so far as who will be paying for that (us), that being use of the Nic by AAPSIC agreement when it is NOT required. That in turn achieves West's goal #1, the Nic, minimal LAA compensation for that and risk of less or none for junior LAA should that model be altered or rejected, which is West goal #2 and agreement for virtually no fence protections of significance and thus West goal #3 thus completion of their hat trick strategy and win of the game. Considering it's the AAPSIC that is almost arguing FOR this result (at least at the potential detriment of junior LAA), it's actually quite astonishing.

IMO, the AAPSIC has in regards to this segment of junior LAA pilots simply left the net and in fact, skated off the ice.

Again, it appears to me that AAPSIC did not apply an even value to all pre-merger LAA pilots PMCE and "equity" brought to the table by adopting the Nic, when comparing it to their first proposal, the primary fundamental difference being inclusion of the Nicolau award. Those more senior seem to get more value and those more junior less proportionate value, when it should be of equal proportion IF the concept of the foundation for that is pre-merger bidding power based on PMCE which has NOTHING to do with a longevity component. Among what appear to be contradictions that seem some form of balancing act to win acceptance is that AAPSIC claims the validity of three pre-merger lists, yet uses only two. AAPSIC claims that doing this requires them to apply a compensatory factor so that LAA pilots do not pay for the damages the West claims. OK, fine so far, but AAPSIC then doesn't appear to apply a uniform value to all LAA pilots, yet claim that the litmus for this application of value to compensate for the Nic is based on pre-merger "bidding power" which has nothing to do with longevity. Again, considering at PRESENT in the AAPSIC model in regards to pilots in my pre-merger seniority range, a comparative pre-merger West pilots who is the same age and has an almost identical hire date (based on my LAA OCC date) and now both of us are at the identical ISL percentage on the AAPSIC's new revised Nic-based model, that to me indicates some form of dilution must have occurred to pilots in my pre-merger range's compensatory equity application as it matches the identical metrics of a West pilot (age/DOH,etc.). LAA pilots only 9 months or so ahead of me gained substantially more relativity on the ISL, but then they drop dramatically in my seniority range (flows and senior native furloughees) to 150 numbers or so vs. a given West pilot.

What caused this ?

Did our longevity (or lack therof) detract from the AAPSIC's belief in the pre-merger valuation of our equity ? If so, why do they argue in their proposal that LAA pilots in general have pre-merger superior equity and thus PMCE based on "bidding power" which internally as a concept at pre-merger LAA bore zero impact to that. Their application to seniority value in my seniority range is in opposition to the vary concept of what supposedly creates pre-merger LAA equity in the first place in their argument. I also note that they completely remove a questionable provision (a footnote in their previous proposal discussing longevity in relationship to previous service at AE), yet the actual application in the negative still seems to appear. Was this done as some effort to mitigate the viability of a DFR suit presently alleged against APA regarding inter alia this issue ? Again, if so, that would seem to indicate AAPSIC placed greater value in APA defense, then uniform application of their own stated principle of argument to all LAA pilot's equally.

AAPSIC states on page 83. that, "...across the board, jobs at American in a given category and status were more valuable than jobs in the same equipment category and status groupings in either the East or West operation, based on the pay, flying opportunities and other working conditions associated with those jobs". That is an argument regarding three lists and three separate PMCE situations to boot .If that is the case, how can a pilot with the same category and status on the West who is the same age move UP 6% percentile from HIS pre-merger list on the AAPSIC model and EQUAL to me, when I move up less then 3% ? It would appear HIS pre-merger equity did more for him, then mine did for me ?

I cannot figure out their logic as it seems to fly in opposition to the foundation of their claims. Again, among the flaws I see in this proposal is one tailored to protect APA more then truly represent the integration interests of ALL their pilots.

LCS25

Yeah, everybody gets it. You have sunk so much money into lawsuits that it had to be ruled exactly how you wanted no matter what.

PurpleTurtle

That right there is funny.

Wasn't the West pilot class the plaintiff in Addington 1, 2, and 3 for the last ten years?

It's hilarious to hear the plaintiffs are now finally relieved that the defendants assuredly won't sue at some future time about something bad that might possibly happen perhaps in the future, now that the plaintiffs have reached the end of the road of their decade long lawsuit.

Your most vaunted success is that the defendants won't sue? Really? All that time and money to preserve the East First Amendment rights to prevent the East defendants from suing

eaglefly

As it should be. Each committee is tasked to represent the interests of their pilots. If anything, it looks like the equation has shifted and the East has been unshackled, yet the AAPSIC has in effect, elected to shackle themselves (and perhaps send many of their junior pilots to jail with no parole date) by taking the "safe" route (for APA) and adopting the Nic, yet in doing so has placed a junior segment of their pilots on the table as smorgasbord should the arbitrators accept their proposal, but dilute it.

Either way, YOU win big. Unless the arbitrators come from a completely different direction, I cannot conceive of how the West will not be the true winners in this merger/SLI considering where you were on December 8, 2013 and even more importantly where you could not go.

My congratulations in advance, at least in all likelihood.

PurpleTurtle

Yes, with any arbitration the risk is always greatest to those who have the most but the possible reward always favors those that have least. Ie. risk highest-to-lowest is LAA LUS LAWA....

The West will never see it though because they think they are entitled to the Nic (thus they actually have the greatest risk)...ergo whatever reward they get (and they surely will) they will still see it as a great loss because it will be less than the pure Nic on 777s.

Oh well, they can always sell more ties to go to court!!!

flyinawa

This is your opinion but a reasonable assertion.

This is complete flamebait.