SO - Where's the SLI?
09-04-2016, 12:26 PM
#1981
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
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
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
After agreeing to be part of this process, it will be interesting to see if the NIC is not used whether Freund would suggest to the West group that they should sue to stop the implementation because they don't agree with the result. Would be reminiscent of what the East did.
We're not sure what is or is not against the MB until we get the BOA's reasoning for their decision. They may conclude using the 2007 NIC Award fell outside this covered transaction and therefore their authority to implement or they may decide it fell within their authority to implement. But since the question is unanswered we have no idea whether the use of three lists is against MB or not for this transaction.
I believe we are where we started. I see no convincing argument one way or another.
09-04-2016, 12:34 PM
#1982
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
He obviously weighed that being involved and signing the Procedural Ground Rules stating there were three lists outweighed not being involved.
After agreeing to be part of this process, it will be interesting to see if the NIC is not used whether Freund would suggest to the West group that they should sue to stop the implementation because they don't agree with the result. Would be reminiscent of what the East did.
We're not sure what is or is not against the MB until we get the BOA's reasoning for their decision. They may conclude using the 2007 NIC Award fell outside this covered transaction and therefore their authority to implement or they may decide it fell within their authority to implement. But since the question is unanswered we have no idea whether the use of three lists is against MB or not for this transaction.
I believe we are where we started. I see no convincing argument one way or another.
After agreeing to be part of this process, it will be interesting to see if the NIC is not used whether Freund would suggest to the West group that they should sue to stop the implementation because they don't agree with the result. Would be reminiscent of what the East did.
We're not sure what is or is not against the MB until we get the BOA's reasoning for their decision. They may conclude using the 2007 NIC Award fell outside this covered transaction and therefore their authority to implement or they may decide it fell within their authority to implement. But since the question is unanswered we have no idea whether the use of three lists is against MB or not for this transaction.
I believe we are where we started. I see no convincing argument one way or another.
09-04-2016, 12:39 PM
#1983
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
Btw, this is all about fairness. Is it fair to punish the west for the east pilots actions especially in he face of a strong worded dfr opinion by an appellate court? Every lawyer thinks the west has a very strong case for their position with legal and sli precedent backing our position. The Arby's might think differently.
09-04-2016, 12:56 PM
#1984
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
Btw, this is all about fairness. Is it fair to punish the west for the east pilots actions especially in he face of a strong worded dfr opinion by an appellate court? Every lawyer thinks the west has a very strong case for their position with legal and sli precedent backing our position. The Arby's might think differently.
Every lawyer says their client has a strong case....just like every flight crew predicts arriving at the planned destination.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-04-2016, 01:00 PM
#1985
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
09-04-2016, 01:22 PM
#1986
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Btw, this is all about fairness. Is it fair to punish the west for the east pilots actions especially in he face of a strong worded dfr opinion by an appellate court? Every lawyer thinks the west has a very strong case for their position with legal and sli precedent backing our position. The Arby's might think differently.
You ask is it fair to punish the West for the actions of the East. You leave out a very major point. You only mention two groups, yet there are three.
The rhetorical question the LAA pilots would ask, is it fair to punish the LAA pilots by implementing a list that was not implemented prior to this merger and using this merger to implement it
and then not affording the protections to protect the LAA pilots from being treated unfairly and unequatably?
I believe that's where the fairness you propose will fall apart with the BOA. To do what you want requires that they do the very thing the LAA group argued against, having the LAA group shoulder the burden of this integration. Unless the LAA group is provided with some very unusual protections that drives East pilots "unfairly" down the list the LAA group would be the ones that are punished in this integration. Do you think that is fair?
Remember the West and the East were not the only signatories to Protocol and Procedural Ground Rules.
To implement the NIC list without major protections the LAA pilots will not receive a fair and equatable proposal based on this MB process. Both the West and the East argued strenuously against the LAA group receiving any protections.
It will be interesting to see if the BOA in your words, punishes the West, or punishes LAA.
I seriously doubt "every" lawyer thinks the West has a strong case.
09-04-2016, 01:31 PM
#1987
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
09-04-2016, 01:51 PM
#1988
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
That's the problem with "this" integration and "its facts".
You ask is it fair to punish the West for the actions of the East. You leave out a very major point. You only mention two groups, yet there are three.
The rhetorical question the LAA pilots would ask, is it fair to punish the LAA pilots by implementing a list that was not implemented prior to this merger and using this merger to implement it
and then not affording the protections to protect the LAA pilots from being treated unfairly and unequatably?
I believe that's where the fairness you propose will fall apart with the BOA. To do what you want requires that they do the very thing the LAA group argued against, having the LAA group shoulder the burden of this integration. Unless the LAA group is provided with some very unusual protections that drives East pilots "unfairly" down the list the LAA group would be the ones that are punished in this integration. Do you think that is fair?
Remember the West and the East were not the only signatories to Protocol and Procedural Ground Rules.
To implement the NIC list without major protections the LAA pilots will not receive a fair and equatable proposal based on this MB process. Both the West and the East argued strenuously against the LAA group receiving any protections.
It will be interesting to see if the BOA in your words, punishes the West, or punishes LAA.
I seriously doubt "every" lawyer thinks the West has a strong case.
You ask is it fair to punish the West for the actions of the East. You leave out a very major point. You only mention two groups, yet there are three.
The rhetorical question the LAA pilots would ask, is it fair to punish the LAA pilots by implementing a list that was not implemented prior to this merger and using this merger to implement it
and then not affording the protections to protect the LAA pilots from being treated unfairly and unequatably?
I believe that's where the fairness you propose will fall apart with the BOA. To do what you want requires that they do the very thing the LAA group argued against, having the LAA group shoulder the burden of this integration. Unless the LAA group is provided with some very unusual protections that drives East pilots "unfairly" down the list the LAA group would be the ones that are punished in this integration. Do you think that is fair?
Remember the West and the East were not the only signatories to Protocol and Procedural Ground Rules.
To implement the NIC list without major protections the LAA pilots will not receive a fair and equatable proposal based on this MB process. Both the West and the East argued strenuously against the LAA group receiving any protections.
It will be interesting to see if the BOA in your words, punishes the West, or punishes LAA.
I seriously doubt "every" lawyer thinks the West has a strong case.
09-04-2016, 02:01 PM
#1989
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
I think you brought up an interesting point that the arbitrators must contend with under the auspices of a fair and equatable integration based on "this covered transaction".
There is no contention that the NIC list was not implemented prior to this merger. There is no contention that BOA's were provided with three separate seniority lists. There is contention of whether the BOA must use three lists or two for this integration.
If the BOA implements the NIC list as the West proposes then the LAA pilots will be unfairly affected by the West's use of more senior (LOS) adjacent East pilots LOS to catapult themselves up the list against a LAA pilot.
If the BOA implements the NIC list as LAA proposes then the East pilots will be unfairly affected by being dragged back on the list by LAA using the lessor LOS of adjacent West pilots to catapult a LAA pilot up the list against a higher LOS East pilot.
Both examples disregard Status/Category shifting for the example.
The problem with using the NIC list now that a third party (LAA) is involved is that without some very complicated and restrictive protections being implemented (as LAA proposed and we all thought was ridiculous) one party will not be treated fair and equatable for this integration.
Given that there were three lists (NIC never implemented) if there was a way to use the NIC list and be as fair and equatable in the result as they could with three separate lists I could see its use.
Based on the structure of the NIC list though the BOA would have to pick one group to be the sacrificial lambs.
If they did that, they would not be complying with fair and equatable to all three groups.
Best way to look at it is to use LAA as the point from which to measure. With the use of the NIC would your position in the integrated list compared to LAA pilots be in the same position (seniority number) as it would if there were three lists used under the Protocol of this covered transaction. If the answer is no, someone was not treated fairly and equatably.
There is no contention that the NIC list was not implemented prior to this merger. There is no contention that BOA's were provided with three separate seniority lists. There is contention of whether the BOA must use three lists or two for this integration.
If the BOA implements the NIC list as the West proposes then the LAA pilots will be unfairly affected by the West's use of more senior (LOS) adjacent East pilots LOS to catapult themselves up the list against a LAA pilot.
If the BOA implements the NIC list as LAA proposes then the East pilots will be unfairly affected by being dragged back on the list by LAA using the lessor LOS of adjacent West pilots to catapult a LAA pilot up the list against a higher LOS East pilot.
Both examples disregard Status/Category shifting for the example.
The problem with using the NIC list now that a third party (LAA) is involved is that without some very complicated and restrictive protections being implemented (as LAA proposed and we all thought was ridiculous) one party will not be treated fair and equatable for this integration.
Given that there were three lists (NIC never implemented) if there was a way to use the NIC list and be as fair and equatable in the result as they could with three separate lists I could see its use.
Based on the structure of the NIC list though the BOA would have to pick one group to be the sacrificial lambs.
If they did that, they would not be complying with fair and equatable to all three groups.
Best way to look at it is to use LAA as the point from which to measure. With the use of the NIC would your position in the integrated list compared to LAA pilots be in the same position (seniority number) as it would if there were three lists used under the Protocol of this covered transaction. If the answer is no, someone was not treated fairly and equatably.
09-04-2016, 02:10 PM
#1990
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Obviously the west doesn't agree, using the Nic punishes no one as there is no bump no flush. This whole idea of the Nic harming LAA is laughable and was debunked by the west in the hearings, all you really have to do is some simple math, LAA pilots get something like 7 out of every 8 vacancies in the west proposal.
If I integrate 1000 pilots in front of you that are ten years older than you or if I integrate 1000 pilots in front of you that are ten years younger than you is it the result the same?
Are you "harmed differently"? It's not just about the number it's what that number in front of you is filled with.
Go read the transcripts. It was never debunked by the West.
Ask any pilot two things and they know both. What's your seniority number? What number are you going to be when you retire?
You don't think the NIC has a material effect on the latter to East and LAA pilots? If not, you need to go see a shrink. It's laughable all right that anyone would even suggest it causes no harm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
