Upsddown

Does anyone have a legitimate answer (beyond pure opinion) on what would have likely happened in this plausible scenario?

Hypothetical:

NIC award was awarded in April 2007.
After four years of fruitless integration attempts Parker gives up and decides to sell the PHX operation to Alaska airlines in 2011.

After negotiating an agreement to sell the PHX operation (assets, gates, routes, requisite aircraft, etc.) it's now time to determine which pilots will be included in the transfer and in the merger with the Alaska pilots.

Would it be the pilots off the NIC list in volunteer seniority order and reverse order for forced transfer or would it have been the stand alone list of the PHX pilot group (West)?

Seems to me however that would have worked that's what the BOA would conclude.

Sliceback

Since it never happened is there any legitimate answer, or is everything just an opinion?

esadof

Yup, we had the best representation, we gave it the best shot. If we lose the Nic. after all its gone down then you win and we move on.

esadof

I don't know how I can explain it any better to you. The west sued immediately when usapa signed the mou, the west IMMEDIATELY tried to stop the MOU from taking effect and one of our claims was that the 3 list requirement was a DFR. Now Silver screwed up and let usapa proceed with the MOU. The 9th said the MOU was a DFR to the west and Silver should have removed the offending verbiage from MOU. The 9th's remedy effectively made the Nic. the east/west list by ordering usapa to use it. Now imagine if the BOA had not given epsic a seat, would there have been any proposal that didn't have the eas/west in Nicolau order?
No

Read the 9th's decision, usapa was found guilty of many things, being the east's "Stalking horse" among them.

Upsddown

Good point. But there must be some understanding of what might have happened.

Upsddown

I see your point with the first question. Just wondering why Freund would then agree to the procedural ground rules listing three lists then.

Thoughts?

What DFR/Illegal acts did USAPA commit between NIC and drafting of the Protocol agreement? I can't find any ruling that they did.

Can you list the other DFR, illegal acts that the 9th stated USAPA committed?

esadof

Freund had to sign it before the 9th ruled, he did so under protest that we were not party to agreement.

R57 relay

Glad to hear it, me too.

Upsddown

I am not sure why Freund would not sign the Protocol Agreement because it referred to three lists but he did sign the Procedural Ground Rules that referred to the same lists. It would seem he would have kept his stance on the issue consistent. You say he signed under protest. At the end of the day, protest or no protest, he signed it, for whatever reason.

After Addington issued their decision on June 26, 2015 the arbitrators were asked three procedural questions. The second being whether the East Merger Committee was bound by Addington’s decisions. In the BOA’s response it is clear that the BOA did not see the Addington decision as putting any limitations or restrictions on their decision. There are many pertinent statements in their response but one that pertains to what we are discussing is,

“we ultimately will accord the Nicolau Award the weight that we believe it is entitled to receive in the context of the particular seniority integration methodology that we utilize to develop a fair and equitable integrated list."

One issue we both agreed on was that the BOA could not revisit/change items from a previous merger but could only conclude a fair and equitable list methodology from the facts of this merger (their statement above).

The question then becomes during this integration were they ultimately presented three lists or just two?

Their response goes on to quote the Addington decision,

“While enjoining the USAPA Merger Committee from participating in the McCaskill-Bond seniority integration arbitration, except to the extent that it advocates the Nicolau Award, the Addington majority recognized that, given the requirement of a ratification vote by all pilots for any joint collective bargaining agreement, it was unclear whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented fully but for USAPA’s actions. Further, the court expressly declined to order that an unmodified Nicolau Award be used to order the seniority of the East and West pilots in the arbitration”

In the statement above it seems to be clear that the Nicolau Award was never implemented prior to this covered transaction. If it was never implemented then what were the BOA’s left with? Three lists or two lists?

None of us know for sure how this ends up. I just can’t follow your logic that the Addington DFR decision against USAPA requires that the NIC list will/must be used in this MB covered transaction and it, and it alone, is the reason the BOA’s will integrate using the NIC Award.

There are so many other hurdles to overcome, Protocol Agreement containing three lists, Procedural Ground Rules containing three lists (Signed by Frend/Harper), West Committee demands to have separate representation so there are three separate committees, USAPA was never found guilty of any DFR/Illegal action before the start of this MB covered transaction, no legal system, including Addington, required that the NIC list be implemented, the BOA under the required MB legislation must integrate the list based on the facts of “this integration” not any other integration, the MB legislation does not apply to previous transactions, Addington acknowledged the NIC Award was never
implemented.

Based on our exchange I don’t see enough convincing evidence from you to make me believe the BOA must use the NIC list for this integration. They may use it in the end but I see more compelling evidence why not to use it than to use it.

esadof

What? Ok I'll make 2 points and be done with this
1- Freund signed it so we could be part of the sli proceedings.

2- I never, ever said the Nic must be used in this integration. I was responding to your assertion that 3 lists must be used or more clearly you assertion that not using 3 lists is against MB