cactiboss

We demand NOTHING from the aapsic, as a matter of fact the west is ecstatic by the aapsic proposal.

eaglefly

Yup. ALL the AAPSIC did was likely highlight what would have to occur (perhaps even likely to occur) by using a pure Nic and STILL protecting the pre-merger career expectations of LAA pilots.

I assume, it's not pretty is it (I still have read a single letter or looked at a single list) ? So, the best tack for an East committee is to reject the lures of West pilots to team up against LAA which really is just Seppuku as it uses the pure Nic and make your OWN argument and position as to why you think whatever you propose is fair and equitable. I still think it likely (especially in consideration of what a pure Nic inclusion might look like as whatever has come out apparently demonstrates) a pure Nic inclusion will NOT be included in the arbitrators final ISL, but that's just my opinion.

It seems more divisive overall on too many fronts and more destabilizing to the over pilot group going forward, something that arbitrators are sensitive to for the same reason they think fences maintain and fester division longer.

eaglefly

You demand everything, it's just you're being sneaky about it in a roundabout way. If you (personally) weren't, you'd not be claiming the AASPIC has committed some form of suicide by simply crafting an integration model using the Nic that still protects LAA pilots PMCE, nor shamelessly attempting to now lure the East to your skirmish line (after gutting them with the Nic, of course).

Please Cacti.............I can read.

cactiboss

The only thing I have ever demanded is the Nicolau award as the rightful lus list, your aapsic now agrees that the Nicolau should be the lus list and I am very happy about that. Now I love your assumption that the aapsic proposal is so bad just because of the Nic. you know better than that. Just because I comment on how bad the aapsic is doesn't mean I'm demanding something from them, believe me, the aapsic proposal is very, very good for the west.

eaglefly

Now you see the ramification of the pure Nic, if LAA pilots are to truly see protection of PMCE. Again, not pretty, I'm sure and all the more proof using the pure Nic is a bad solution to a thorny problem. Of course there IS another option.

Fences. LONG fences.

In mergers, arbitrators have the option to integrate pilots by whatever method they see fit to protect pilots pre-merger career expectations (based on the equities they brought) and avoid windfalls to any one group. That's it. Does the pure Nic achieve either goal or impede those ideals ?

I think it's obvious to all now and hopefully the arbitrators will do what I suspect will ultimately occur and that's to craft their own hybrid list that uses none of the three parties models (and the East would be colossal fools to allow themselves to be lured in by the West to attack LAA), nor the pure Nic.

Listen to you.............you state, "there's just no way around it" when confirming that 10,000 LAA pilots will simply have to take it on the chin for the interests of 1600 West pilot's ?

Hey, I've been saying all along that was your goal and now you freely admit that, which is quite mature of you. But, I don't think the arbitrators will throw that grenade at this carrier and the best way NOT to do that is craft a model that stays true to their principles (and one they can best defend) and that is to determine the pre-merger career expectations of all three pilots groups both absent this merger and equitably after it, provide that more to the most pilots it can and ensure to the best of their ability no windfall occurs to any one group.

IF the Nic in pure form is used, then again, 2 things should occur as a result of that IF LAA pilots PMCE are to be realized and that a different feathering methodology to off set that (which sounds like what the AAPSIC chose) or long fences which arbitrators dislike.

Laker24

I think the AA proposal is a home run for the West. I wouldn't have thought this possible before today but I think they simultaneously discredited themselves and the East in one day.

They made a solid argument that the NIC should be used as the starting point. An argument buttressed by opinion from the 9th, multiple quotes from George N. himself, and contract law. They tore the east argument to shreds and coming from a third party it has that much more power.


Then they argue category and class with some adjustments. Essentially the same argument that the West is making. Until the very end where they go off the rails and say we are superior and want to elevate our position in each category and class above 75% of Us Airways (east and west) pilots. An epic last minute fail that won't go over well with the arbitrators.

eaglefly

I don't think they necessarily agree the Nic should be used by including it (which I'm taking your word for as I have yet to see their model or anyone else's), but are simply acknowledging its relevance in that should the arbitrators use (or indirectly be forced to use) it, then the arbitrators simply MUST have some position then on how the AAPSIC believes it's use would still protect LAA pilots PMCE. By including a proposal without the Nic, the arbitrators would have no basis as to AAPSIC's position should they want to (or have to) use it and thus that leaves LAA pilots vulnerable.

With a non-Nic proposal and thus simply a fence based proposal, the arbs would have little idea just how the AAPSIC believes a fair and equitable integration should occur absent including that. They chose compensating for the Nic with order and the arbs can more easily revert to fences without input vs. the other way around. I think this is relatively meaningless as again, I don't think the arbs will use ANY committees pure position and model and will surprise us all, some perhaps more then others depending on the reasonableness of their expectations.

eaglefly

I disagree. I think the arbs will know the untenable position both APA and AAPSIC are in regarding the Wests jihad on hijacking this process to achieve their hat trick shutout and will be the professionals they are noted for being by disregarding nonsense and looking at the facts and ruling on that basis. No one will be "punished" and they will ferret out what is reasonable with regard to what is equitable and will avoid windfalls. In fact, if anything, I think the arbs may soon understand that pressure wave from the jihad front themselves and might just bristle at it being over played to the detriment of all and making their jobs that much more difficult.

eaglefly

Excessive emotion is never a good thing. Hopefully, your committee won't throw any tantrums in the hearings.

cactiboss

Do yourself a favor and read the west and aapsic position statements, I think it will bring a little clarity to you.