Boom!
09-20-2015, 08:07 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Sorry, simultaneous posts. Didn't see your previous answers. I know you think I am being unreasonable like Eaglefly did but I am just pressing so I can understand your views.
I think the first point I don't agree with is that the Nic list is "the" LUS list. I agree that the 9th required USAPA to endorse the use of the list if they were to participate in the SLI proceedings but that's all. Until the Arbs issue an award using the Nic list no one knows if the list will be used or not. Just because West and LAA support the use of the Nic list it still doesn't guarantee its use.
LAA's change in position would obviously seem to indicate they agree with your assessment that the Nic will ultimately be used. Or it's their intent to kill the use of the Nic list. LAA is obviously not walking blindly or boldly into these proceedings thinking their proposal will be the proposal, so what is their intent? They are not as dumb as we all would like to think. I personally think there is much much more to it than what meets the eye.
In the end I do not see how the Arbs give the West everything they propose, Nic and CAL/UAL methodology that puts West pilots much further up on the list than what they could have received in a three list integration given it was this merger not the AWA/US merger that effected the Nic award (if the Arbs do so). This would put the entire onous of this merger on the LAA pilots. In the view of the LAA pilots what did this merger bring them? I know the West group would not admit this but a Nic integration vs non-Nic integration ends up providing an entirely different career path for LAA guys from what I can see.
All this over something the LAA pilots had nothing to do with. As the LAA group said this merger and the West/East dispute should not be at the expense of the LAA pilots.
The issue I need clarification on is do you think if the Arbs do not adopt the Nic list but they do use the CAL/UAL methodology on three separate groups that the West group would do as well given their lack of LWB aircraft and few SWB aircraft and shorter longevity as compared to the LAA group? It appears to me West pilots would be nowhere as high on the list if three lists were used with no Nic. That's the one issue I see as troubling for the Arbs because if they do integrate a list from a previous arbitration then that entirely changes the status quo they were presented and then it appears to harm the LAA group.
I think the LAA "superiority" argument will fall flat to some degree but I can't see how they have nothing in their proposal that changes the Arbs view of the West's proposal.
I think the first point I don't agree with is that the Nic list is "the" LUS list. I agree that the 9th required USAPA to endorse the use of the list if they were to participate in the SLI proceedings but that's all. Until the Arbs issue an award using the Nic list no one knows if the list will be used or not. Just because West and LAA support the use of the Nic list it still doesn't guarantee its use.
LAA's change in position would obviously seem to indicate they agree with your assessment that the Nic will ultimately be used. Or it's their intent to kill the use of the Nic list. LAA is obviously not walking blindly or boldly into these proceedings thinking their proposal will be the proposal, so what is their intent? They are not as dumb as we all would like to think. I personally think there is much much more to it than what meets the eye.
In the end I do not see how the Arbs give the West everything they propose, Nic and CAL/UAL methodology that puts West pilots much further up on the list than what they could have received in a three list integration given it was this merger not the AWA/US merger that effected the Nic award (if the Arbs do so). This would put the entire onous of this merger on the LAA pilots. In the view of the LAA pilots what did this merger bring them? I know the West group would not admit this but a Nic integration vs non-Nic integration ends up providing an entirely different career path for LAA guys from what I can see.
All this over something the LAA pilots had nothing to do with. As the LAA group said this merger and the West/East dispute should not be at the expense of the LAA pilots.
The issue I need clarification on is do you think if the Arbs do not adopt the Nic list but they do use the CAL/UAL methodology on three separate groups that the West group would do as well given their lack of LWB aircraft and few SWB aircraft and shorter longevity as compared to the LAA group? It appears to me West pilots would be nowhere as high on the list if three lists were used with no Nic. That's the one issue I see as troubling for the Arbs because if they do integrate a list from a previous arbitration then that entirely changes the status quo they were presented and then it appears to harm the LAA group.
I think the LAA "superiority" argument will fall flat to some degree but I can't see how they have nothing in their proposal that changes the Arbs view of the West's proposal.
09-20-2015, 08:17 PM
#72
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Sorry, simultaneous posts. Didn't see your previous answers. I know you think I am being unreasonable like Eaglefly did but I am just pressing so I can understand your views.
I think the first point I don't agree with is that the Nic list is "the" LUS list. I agree that the 9th required USAPA to endorse the use of the list if they were to participate in the SLI proceedings but that's all. Until the Arbs issue an award using the Nic list no one knows if the list will be used or not. Just because West and LAA support the use of the Nic list it still doesn't guarantee its use.
LAA's change in position would obviously seem to indicate they agree with your assessment that the Nic will ultimately be used. Or it's their intent to kill the use of the Nic list. LAA is obviously not walking blindly or boldly into these proceedings thinking their proposal will be the proposal, so what is their intent? They are not as dumb as we all would like to think. I personally think there is much much more to it than what meets the eye.
In the end I do not see how the Arbs give the West everything they propose, Nic and CAL/UAL methodology that puts West pilots much further up on the list than what they could have received in a three list integration given it was this merger not the AWA/US merger that effected the Nic award (if the Arbs do so). This would put the entire onous of this merger on the LAA pilots. In the view of the LAA pilots what did this merger bring them? I know the West group would not admit this but a Nic integration vs non-Nic integration ends up providing an entirely different career path for LAA guys from what I can see.
All this over something the LAA pilots had nothing to do with. As the LAA group said this merger and the West/East dispute should not be at the expense of the LAA pilots.
The issue I need clarification on is do you think if the Arbs do not adopt the Nic list but they do use the CAL/UAL methodology on three separate groups that the West group would do as well given their lack of LWB aircraft and few SWB aircraft and shorter longevity as compared to the LAA group? It appears to me West pilots would be nowhere as high on the list if three lists were used with no Nic. That's the one issue I see as troubling for the Arbs because if they do integrate a list from a previous arbitration then that entirely changes the status quo they were presented and then it appears to harm the LAA group.
I think the LAA "superiority" argument will fall flat to some degree but I can't see how they have nothing in their proposal that changes the Arbs view of the West's proposal.
I think the first point I don't agree with is that the Nic list is "the" LUS list. I agree that the 9th required USAPA to endorse the use of the list if they were to participate in the SLI proceedings but that's all. Until the Arbs issue an award using the Nic list no one knows if the list will be used or not. Just because West and LAA support the use of the Nic list it still doesn't guarantee its use.
LAA's change in position would obviously seem to indicate they agree with your assessment that the Nic will ultimately be used. Or it's their intent to kill the use of the Nic list. LAA is obviously not walking blindly or boldly into these proceedings thinking their proposal will be the proposal, so what is their intent? They are not as dumb as we all would like to think. I personally think there is much much more to it than what meets the eye.
In the end I do not see how the Arbs give the West everything they propose, Nic and CAL/UAL methodology that puts West pilots much further up on the list than what they could have received in a three list integration given it was this merger not the AWA/US merger that effected the Nic award (if the Arbs do so). This would put the entire onous of this merger on the LAA pilots. In the view of the LAA pilots what did this merger bring them? I know the West group would not admit this but a Nic integration vs non-Nic integration ends up providing an entirely different career path for LAA guys from what I can see.
All this over something the LAA pilots had nothing to do with. As the LAA group said this merger and the West/East dispute should not be at the expense of the LAA pilots.
The issue I need clarification on is do you think if the Arbs do not adopt the Nic list but they do use the CAL/UAL methodology on three separate groups that the West group would do as well given their lack of LWB aircraft and few SWB aircraft and shorter longevity as compared to the LAA group? It appears to me West pilots would be nowhere as high on the list if three lists were used with no Nic. That's the one issue I see as troubling for the Arbs because if they do integrate a list from a previous arbitration then that entirely changes the status quo they were presented and then it appears to harm the LAA group.
I think the LAA "superiority" argument will fall flat to some degree but I can't see how they have nothing in their proposal that changes the Arbs view of the West's proposal.
09-20-2015, 08:47 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Step 1 start with Nic. As lus list, step 2 stove pipe the Nic., step 3 blend the stove piped Nic. With stove piped laa list using a formula that accounts for what each property brings. So if you look at it in this light, the west proposal is the fairest but you MUST accept the Nicolau as the list in order for it to work. Now as for the Aapsic, there is no secret as to their motivations, it's the same motivation every pilot group has had since the beginning of arbitrations. The Aapsic has decided to try to get as much as possible for two simple reasons, political cover and throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. I suggest you carefully read the Aapsic position paper where their lawyer explains why the Nic is the list to get more clarity.
For clarity when you say stove pipe the
Nic list with the LAA list based on what each property brings, by property you mean the West group uses the combined property of what the East brings to the Nic list to place West pilots higher on the LAA list than what they would achieve with three lists using the same methodology?
Not trying to be argumentative just trying to verify that under the CAL/UAL methodology the Nic list elevates the West group on the combined list against the LAA group as compared to having to use three lists?
09-20-2015, 09:23 PM
#74
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
I agree about LAA. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out their strategy. I just can't believe it's as simple or dumb as it appears.
For clarity when you say stove pipe the
Nic list with the LAA list based on what each property brings, by property you mean the West group uses the combined property of what the East brings to the Nic list to place West pilots higher on the LAA list than what they would achieve with three lists using the same methodology?
Not trying to be argumentative just trying to verify that under the CAL/UAL methodology the Nic list elevates the West group on the combined list against the LAA group as compared to having to use three lists?
For clarity when you say stove pipe the
Nic list with the LAA list based on what each property brings, by property you mean the West group uses the combined property of what the East brings to the Nic list to place West pilots higher on the LAA list than what they would achieve with three lists using the same methodology?
Not trying to be argumentative just trying to verify that under the CAL/UAL methodology the Nic list elevates the West group on the combined list against the LAA group as compared to having to use three lists?
09-20-2015, 09:28 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 321
I think you have to take the AA brief at face value. I can't imagine they would put forward a dummy argument just to fake out the other groups. They only get to make a first impression once. I expected a stronger opening statement from them.
09-20-2015, 09:59 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Again, you must accept the Nic. As the lus list, that means when the Nic. Is stove piped the west can hold whatever equipment is on usairways property east or west. It has nothing to do with the laa pilots or trying to get over on them, 1 list east and west period, forget about 3 lists, that was a dfr and that is why the 9th said both east and west bring one list, the Nicolau. As for the American committee, it is that simple, no different than what the east did in front of Nicolau or what cal did in front of eischen. Think about it, if you put yourself in a bad spot you want the pilots ****ed at you or the arbs? How many east pilots blame their merger committee for Nicolau? How many blame the arbitrator? There is your answer.
09-20-2015, 10:08 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Cactiboss could be right about the politics but given the gravity of this decision I can't believe the LAA leadership would risk their entire future because of politics knowing what happened with East, NWA and CAL. When it gets that bad internally with a union group it usually boils over into the streets. It sure is quiet as far as rumors about internal turmoil amongst any of the group's right now.
09-21-2015, 12:03 AM
#78
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 771
Don't think it's a dummy argument I just think there is more than what meets the eye. There has to be something deeper. But given the circus so far I could be wrong.
Cactiboss could be right about the politics but given the gravity of this decision I can't believe the LAA leadership would risk their entire future because of politics knowing what happened with East, NWA and CAL. When it gets that bad internally with a union group it usually boils over into the streets. It sure is quiet as far as rumors about internal turmoil amongst any of the group's right now.
Cactiboss could be right about the politics but given the gravity of this decision I can't believe the LAA leadership would risk their entire future because of politics knowing what happened with East, NWA and CAL. When it gets that bad internally with a union group it usually boils over into the streets. It sure is quiet as far as rumors about internal turmoil amongst any of the group's right now.
09-21-2015, 04:31 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Posted this in another thread but thought it was apropos here as well . . .
Food for thought for those who think the Nic will not be used . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
Listen to Cacti. There will be two lists and only two lists. This is not a merger of AA/US/AW. It's AA/US.
P.S. Cactiboss, I look forward to offering you a "High Five" when it's all over. I'm only sad that the USAir pilots were able to hinder the West's careers for so long, and never admitted that they were saved from a Pan Am, TWA, or Eastern fate by a stroke of luck.
Food for thought for those who think the Nic will not be used . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
Listen to Cacti. There will be two lists and only two lists. This is not a merger of AA/US/AW. It's AA/US.
P.S. Cactiboss, I look forward to offering you a "High Five" when it's all over. I'm only sad that the USAir pilots were able to hinder the West's careers for so long, and never admitted that they were saved from a Pan Am, TWA, or Eastern fate by a stroke of luck.
09-21-2015, 04:38 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Do you have any clue, any, of what made up the majority of the new US Airways?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
