Originally Posted by Upsddown

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.

Originally Posted by esadof

Well have you thought about the fact that there is only one proposal that doesn't include the Nic.? I think that is a powerful statement. In the aapsic first proposal they recognized the Nic. as a west "equity" but didn't give it its full weight, in the second they recognize it 100%. The epsic not only doesn't recognize the Nic but they pretty much threaten the BOA against its use.

Originally Posted by Upsddown

Yes I have. And based on that, the BOA didn't have an agreement on its use. So we are at square one in that the BOA must use the facts of this integration to develop its award. That's the powerful statement.

Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle

No court has ever required anyone to use the Nic. Never.

If any court had indeed required the Nic to be used by anybody for anything, then it would have been used. They never did, and they never will. Any pleadings to the court to force use of the Nic would be a waste of money, but I fully expect there will be some lawyers (Summit law school graduates) convincing some Westies to waste more money very soon.

Originally Posted by cactusboy53

Here's what the NMB says about changing collective bargaining agents:

The National Mediation Board on the subject of contract continuity:

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement”

Originally Posted by esadof

Funny, I certainly don't see it as square one. I see as 2 committees in agreement and one out in the weeds. Usapa withdrew because they refused to honor the 9th order, the epsic followed suit, maybe I'm biased but that seems damning to me.

Originally Posted by esadof

Aapsic had me at a better position than either usapa or epsic

Originally Posted by cactusboy53

Here's what the NMB says about changing collective bargaining agents:

The National Mediation Board on the subject of contract continuity:

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement”

Originally Posted by Saul Rosenberg

Irrelevant to what I said. I'm suggesting that you might soon compare the results of the SLI against what USAPA proposed and see that USAPA's data driven proposal was better for you than what you end up with.

And while I'm at it, let me tell you what I think of the oft repeated fact that you guys hang so much of your argument on, that "two parties proposed the NIC": Not much. It's my opinion that AAPSIC proposed the NIC for self serving reasons, namely, an attempt to place as many older USAir guys with considerable LOS as far below them as possible. I've never thought they did it because they believe in the sanctity of arbitration, or that they really liked America West, or that they necessarily thought that the NIC was particularly fair and/or equitable. They did it for themselves. If it doesn't get used, I think they might regret using this particular tactic. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by esadof

The aapsic proposed the Nic. because they believe the arbs will use it do to the 9th's ruling, they didn't want to use it, but they did to protect their pilots. Now I know you and most beasties have this fantasy the aapsic adopted the Nic just to show the arbs how "unfair" it was to use it in this integration so they came up with this hare brained scheme of giving themselves 75% status/cat in an effort to show the Nic is unworkable. They would be lunatics to gamble the sli in this way.