svergin

I read the entire West proposal. They are asking for the same thing as CAL/UAL. You have taken one snippet out of context, reported it to be something it isn't, and further demonstrated your lack of knowledge in this area.

Please go home now. You mom is calling you.

eaglefly

I see no benefit in beating the UAL/CAL award like a rented mule, but I suppose that is inevitable. Again, that award was based on the arbitrators adhering as close as possible to ALPA merger policy, which in a stroke of complete irony was revised by ALPA as a result of the Nicolau award's skewed result (at least in the mind of ALPA). Since both UAL/CAL were under the same merger policy, it makes sense the arbitrators would craft their award to stay as true as possible to that.

That policy is wholly inapplicable in this SLI at least as a requirement, other then the fact certain committees WANT to make it applicable because it maximizes their gains. It is not, nor has ever been "precedent" in anything OTHER then a dual-represent ALPA SLI. In the case of the West, a double irony exists in that they not only want to virtually make a carbon copy of an award that was based on revised components because of the very skewed gains THEY achieved as a result of the offending award, they want to then take that award and double-dip in reverse to get a similar skewed result using that altered policy because it now suits their interests and maximizes their gains.

Unfortunately, the AAPSIC has allowed themselves to be led around like an inquisitive, but dopey child by unnecessarily and pre-maturely adopting the Nicolau as a baseline and then doubling down by validating in part the West's desire to anchor any integration by a non-applicable policy that was crafted to avoid the errors of the very award they subsequently adopted and one that maximizes other parties interests. Just as with the LBFO fiascos (plural), the claim disaster, the TTS mess and all the future miss-steps, trips and stumbles you can be sure are coming, LAA pilots must add this to the sad list of clumsy Keystonism they've suffered consistently, but I digress..........

At any rate, since multiple parties have attempted to make that SLI a litmus for this one, in reading the UAL/CAL award (which I have done to the point my copy is now dog-eared), several facts are obvious. First, the idea that a PRE-MERGER SITUATION (page 3) is some murky, unquantifiable aspect that should be minimally considered is misguided and it is surprising the Dream Team's Bird is flapping his wings so aggressively in an attempt to cloud the room with his feathers in the hope the arbitrators will sneeze to the point of missing it. They will not miss it and will certainly quantify each carriers pre-merger situation and hopefully, that of the three individual pilot groups based on the realities of those pre-merger equities and not unconsummated hypotheticals. That is a foundation that is inherent in the very award (UAL/CAL) the West hinges its argument on, but clearly they are cherry-picking beneficial aspects of that award and discounting non-beneficial ones. The same can be said for ECONOMIC STATUS AND PROSPECTS AT MERGER CLOSING DATE (page 7).

Second, that whole award is founded on remaining within an applicable policy subject to both those parties, that while perhaps may be of some value in this situation if they lead to a balanced result that preserves most pilots realistic PMCE and maximizes post-merger benefits for the most possible pilots, is not any requirement if it does not, or worse yet aggravates such a balanced award and it should be used to the minimalist extent possible if it does. Third, while that policy does include Status & Category and Longevity, the arbitrators acknowledge that very policy results in two equities that "pull in different directions" and thus even under ALPA policy, the process "both anticipates and accommodates custom tailoring a list that is responsive to observed equities of the respective parties". The award made adjustments for the differing applications of S & C and Longevity to achieve what they felt was the proper balance. In our situation, since this policy is inapplicable and not precedent, elimination of, or dilution of either component would be apt if doing so produced the most balanced award based on pre-merger equities and PMCE of each of the three separate pilot groups and it is fact that there were three separate pre-merger pilot groups, each with differing equities and PMCE.

The closing of the award is noteworthy in that the arbitrators conclude their award by phrasing this SLI as one of a series of "ALPA merger policy arbitrations". As such, they "made reasoned judgments" as to where each group was going pre-merger, they "attempted to recognize reasonable expectations" of the pre-merger groups, "rejected proposals that could not be reconciled with governing Merger Policy or resulted in untenable windfalls", and finally reiterate that "each case turns on its own facts". Our SLI is not subject to ALPA merger policy and we have many facts not present in that Merger/SLI. Upholding this award as the only foundation for our integration while concurrently skewing it to deviate from many of the principles it was trying to achieve only aggravates the ability to achieve what is truly fair and equitable and that IMO, is a major foundation of the Bird and his Gold Standard dream team. Personally, I think some tenets of this award will be evident in our award, just not bastardized to the degree that the Western Clucksters hope for.

eaglefly

Essentially, the West wants to be seen as UAL in this merger/SLI and why not ? It was the same bird flapping and in that situation, the bird got his way. Arguably, in THAT situation, his flapping was well founded. But here, they want to turn that award sideways and use its best components and disregard its worst. They want to dilute any idea LUS as a whole and them specifically had PMCE any less then LAA or its pilots, then seek to anchor this integration on an inapplicable policy that resulted from their own past victory that was never consummated to produce a super windfall, the capture of that which they were denied in the past to then prop up a new windfall based on cherry-picked aspects of that which was conceived to............you guessed it, avoid windfalls.

flyinawa

You arrogant blowhard. I'm sure you fit right in with the elitist fringe of your AA brothers. Did you start accusing Eagle of stealing all "YOUR" flying on your first day, too?

Western Clucksters? Really? I'm former Eagle too...get over yourself.

eaglefly

Hey, I'm a bird too, just of a different feather.

My apologies then. I guess I should have just toed the West line and referred to them as the "Gold Standard" then. I think you're wound too tight, but I stand behind the rest of my assessment, although I'm sure you disagree and that's fine. I notice you don't fill Cacti with birdshot for his venomous attacks of East pilots or even LAA. I guess subjectivity makes some comments understandable and others not, eh ?

flyinawa

If Cacti and BUtB hurt your feelings, that's between you and them. I find AA's proposal wildly out of the realm of reasonable (and frankly, a little insulting) but I also understand that is exactly what it is...a proposal. You're brain trust legal team is doing what they think will give you the best outcome and you pay handsomely to get the best outcome, not the fairest. Therefore, I didn't feel like I had to run to the nearest computer and pound out an angry rant against AA and East pilots when the proposals came out. The only opinions that matter are the Arbiters and frankly I don't see why you give two spitz what the other pilot groups think is or isn't fair. Personally, I don't find the West proposal radical, but I'm on the West and that shouldn't surprise you. If they gets your panties all wound up and you have to lash out at the other groups, then don't read their opposing points of view.

EskimoJoe

The AAPSIC changed their proposal regarding the Nic as a direct result of the 9th circuit ruling outlining, in crystal clear detail, the illegal behavior perpetrated by the East Pilots. That behavior was not lost on George Nicolau, the Courts, a Jury, The APA, ALPA, and the Company. USAPA was always alone on their DOH island. That behavior won't be lost on this arbitration panel either. You can write all the deperate 1000+ word essay you want on the matter, it's not going to change anything. Everyone knows the East Screwed the West. Everyone. Especially the USAPA Scum. Their efforts will not be further rewarded.

eaglefly

Obviously I hurt YOUR feelings and I apologized for that. My opinions on your proposal have nothing to do with feelings, just facts as I see them. There is no anger in my "rant" (a description implying negative emotion in the one making it), again just opinion. I see more anger in your post(s) then I do in mine, but that too is subjective. I see you refer to the AAPSIC as our "brain trust" and we both know that too is a sarcastic, condescending insult, but again, I suppose two different standards are in play between us. Yours is acceptable, mine apparently not. You'll note though, in many ways I agree with you on that assessment. I'm aware that the only opinions that count are the arbitrators and have stated that previously and frankly, I don't see why you give two spitz what I think, me being such an arrogant blowhard and all (another term implying upset just like you now claim I wear panties). I think you're worked up a bit too much.

On the arrogant point, don't you think it's a bit arrogant for a fellow West pilot to claim his legal team and I suppose some of you guys too are indeed a "Dream Team" and the arbitral "Gold Standard" and in fact, imply so much so, that the arbitrators in general and Eischen in particular will cast aside facts and disregard fairness because of who your team is led by and consists of ?

Seems to me, that is the Gold Standard of arrogance, yes ?

I see no equal criticism of that, nor have you even taken the first step of putting panties on him either. Plenty of arrogance on C & R from West pilots as well. Of course these are proposals, but that is the only litmus to evaluate the other parties position and being airline pilots, you KNOW (or should) that there's no way these will go un contested or unchallenged. It's all part of the process.

eaglefly

Yes, I'm so desperate I think my opinions will change the outcome.

They changed their proposal prior to the reaffirmation by Silver that the Nic was required to be recognized by no one except USAPA as collective bargaining agent. It was a self-serving political move to minimize future litigation that even if won, would be expensive. They rolled the dice that Silver would enjoin APA, but shot snake eyes when she didn't. Compare the two AAPSIC proposals and you'll note what little value AAPSIC believes junior LAA is worth for adopting the Nic. In many cases a couple of hundred seniority numbers. Most who know me here know I wouldn't validate what USAPA did. They were wrong then IMO and accepting binding arbitration is an agreement to abide by the result however perceived unfair. That is the standard I'm holding to myself, provided the arbitrators have all applicable and relevant information to make their decision.

But getting justice against the East isn't the same as nor justifies using that as a springboard to obtain a windfall at the expense of LAA pilots, especially junior and that is IMO what your "Gold Standard" is attempting to do. Claiming it is just a proposal (which it is) doesn't mean that they cannot be criticized for what it appears they are trying to achieve with it.

PurpleTurtle

The courts did not change the three lists or the protocol agreement... We've read everyones' proposals, and nothing has changed.

Why the "West" update. Nothing new.