PurpleTurtle

To keep selling $675 ties one must keep the marketing spin alive.

The land grab is not politically based. /sarch off

404yxl

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ua...traffic-2.html

Look at what the arbitrator ruled in the UAL/CAL SLI to get an idea how they may rule in this case. Since it is the most recent large merger SLI arbitrated, it is a good one to look at.

The arbitrator may use the Nic, but the UAL/CAL SLI had UAL furloughs receiving credit despite being furloughed and some of them were placed above CAL pilots never furloughed. It wouldn't be something out the realm of possibilities to see applied in this one.

PurpleTurtle

Both the west and LAA propose using the Nic as a springboard. The west to rocket past LUS and then leap frog their peers at LAA... LAA wants to use Nic to push the west into an obvious unfair advantage against the LAA guys to act as a lever to then push down all LUS pilots (a leap frog in reverse).

Who knows what the BOA will see as fair and equitable. Who knows? Not anyone here!

eaglefly

Guessing correctly obviously isn't your forte.

svergin

I honestly can't image the Nic not being used. The only reason it wasn't implemented is because the US pilots were more in number and they decided to change unions. I'd be shocked to see the Arbitrators not use the list that another group of Arbitrators created. Its an easy decision. Use the Nic, treat US and AA as two airlines, and put them together.

Especially with 2 of the 3 parties to the arbitration asking for it, and the other because they have a creative one they'd rather use.

This entire "not creating windfalls" is BS. LUA guys tell me I got a great deal because I'm senior to pilots hired 7 years before me and I have Ex-Cons that tell me they got screwed because some 99 hire UA guy on furlough was put ahead of them.

They all think the other side got a windfall. Don't believe me? Just ask them.

cactiboss

You understand that the west proposal is based on ual/cal right?

eaglefly

The concept of avoiding windfalls is well documented as not just an ancillary hope, but a primary goal. Of course, it is subjective depending on one's position and beliefs. In the UAL/CAL merger/SLI, you were a much closer match of equals whose individual seniority issues were easier to mix despite conflicts. The Nic creates a monsterous imbalance when used that either must be compensated for or modified (read not used in pure form) to better balance the greater pre-merger INequities present in this merger/SLI.

Is the primary goal of this arbitration to correct a past wrong but in the process, produce severe collateral damage and create a new group of victims several times the size of those rewarded or instead, find the best solution to minimize any one groups advantage or disadvantage while rewarding the most possible with maximum future advancement, but that might require moving outside the box to achieve and in doing so not adopting a previous arbitration award never consummated ?

I would argue it should be the latter. Hopefully, the arbitrators will see it that way too. The West wants their interests placed as primary above both other parties and that is why their proposal is engineered the way it is - maximum advantage to one group above both others, each of whom will pay to watch 12% of the pre-merger pilots soar, while most of the remaining 88% are crushed.

Nevets

Yes, but no one is saying that that didn't happen. The email just explains the status and category used in previous arbitration award and each committee's position.

404yxl

What do you think this means...

I know the CAL pilots proposed furloughs to the bottom, but the final SLI had UAL furloughs mixed with active pilots. The west argument above states the final UAL/CAL SLI Award had furloughs at the bottom. That is not true. They are trying to argue the NIC was similar to the furloughs as was the UAL/CAL SLI, when it wasn't.

I do wonder if the NIC award would have come out like the final UAL/CAL SLI, you may have not seen the East fight it like they have.

Nevets

It means that those status and categories were used in the development of the final list. It does NOT mean that that is how the final list came out. It does not say that that is the final award. The final awards are dozens of pages long. This is just part of the award that deals with status and category. This is not the only aspect they draw out from those previous arbitrations as a contrast. They also discuss longevity, hybrid methodology, career expectations, fences, and other conditions and restrictions from those previous arbitration awards. They are just comparing and contrasting all the different aspects of each of those previous arbitration awards to the positions argued by each committee in this proceeding.