bigscrillywilli

When exactly is the award due to come out? Was that pushed back since the initial hearings were pushed back after Usapa withdrew?

eaglefly

Nothing surprising in that update, simply a reiteration of their strategy to maximize gain for West pilots. It is mostly geared towards LAA pilots as the adoption of the Nicolau cleanly takes care of the East making two pre-merger groups one. End of story for that direction.

Most effort must then be directed at both rationalizing their position while concurrently diluting the AAPSIC's position, hence most of this "overview" is directed at bolstering use of non-applicable ALPA merger policy components that are most beneficial to their goals and how other ALPA carriers used S & C and of course most importantly maximum relative use of the concept of longevity which they know impacts their target more so then themselves. It is interesting (but not surprising)) to note they only include ALPA carriers in mergers/SLI's with much more balance in their pre-merger equities and PMCE, as opposed to non-ALPA merger/SLI's like Southwest/Air Tran. Considering ALPA merger policy is inapplicable here and the more disparate pre-merger equities and much closer PMCE (especially concerning the West) in those two merger/SLI's, you'd think it would be just as apt to include other mergers/SLI's more applicable to this one like Southwest/AirTran, etc., but that of course, isn't a good strategy move.

On the PMCE component, the West committee seeks to define this to be an "unrealistic" quantifier and subjective, but you can't blame them for seeking to turn the arbitrators heads away from this as ironically, the most certain PMCE of the three pre-merger groups is the fact that absent this merger/SLI, the West pilots would be to this day (and most realistically in perpetuity) still a one-domicile pilot group with no mechanism in play to obtain flexible basing, Group IV accessibility or pay scales anywhere near not only what they have already achieved, but will achieve by unimpeded seniority spring-boarding with what would, should this proposal be adopted, result in the biggest windfall of any pre-merger pilot group in the history of this profession.

PurpleTurtle

Emotional, greedy, irrational... arbitrations were invented as the only way to move past nut jobs like this.

...And message boards were invented to give them a place to feel they can be heard and understood.

Sliceback

LAA PMCE has running along as expected. On track, running true, running hot.

The West can't pooh-pah reality.

cactiboss

Non applicable Alpa policy? Airtran/swa? Ignore past precedent in DAL/Nwa and Cal/Ual? You guys are a barrel of laughs. I'm sure past precedent and a union policy based on Allegheny Mohawk llp's will have absolutely no bearing on this arbitration...... That west lead attorney sure must be one dumb bird not include swa/airtran where seniority was dictated by swapa vs an arbitration....

eaglefly

Where is it written or generally accepted that two recent SLI's that were based on a merger policy of the specific union involved (that isn't either of THESE unions) are "past precedent" for every succeeding SLI ?

If that were the case, the SWA/AirTran SLI among others would have followed this supposed "past precedent" and essentially all future SLI's would adopt ALPA merger policy as well, even if not applicable by virtue of the absence of ALPA.

I'm not saying your lead strategist is a "dumb bird", only a myopic one. He has simply engineered the strategy that maximizes the interests of West pilots and even a member of your negotiating team essentially admits exactly that on C & R. Part of that strategy is painting this SLI as no different then their chosen models and that the award should thus follow those chosen models. The reality is that this merger/SLI has more differences then similarities with those mergers/SLI's.

The arbitrators will decide whose claims and model not only produce the fairest integration result, but most importantly, the most equitable one.

cactiboss

It isn't written anywhere, it's just how legal matters and specifically arbitrations work, modified for this particular case of course. swa/AirTran never went to arbitration and is irrelevant. As far as what Mitch says on c&r, common sense that's all.

eaglefly

Legal matters ?

That sounds like something the cat would say to the canary just before he goes down the gullet. Anyway, what does any arbitration have to do with selecting ALPA merger policy components to maximize pre-merger West pilots position against pre-merger LAA ?

Both committees have agreed on the use of the Nic, so that is a constant. The variables chosen by your bird are neither written, assumed nor required. They are simply just selected positions of advantage.

cactiboss

Look, Alpa merger policy and allegheny/Mohawk are essentially the same, no one is selecting Alpa policy just using Alpa arbitrations as precedent. The arbitrators are attorneys and everything they do is precedent based to some extent. notice how they always cite prior cases in their arbitration decisions?

eaglefly

But they also like to quote ol' George himself and it's a quote that supercedes any other specifics or past cases and that's "Each case turns on its own facts". Many of the facts of this case are not the same as the the West advantageous components your bird has chosen.