SO - Where's the SLI?
07-13-2016, 11:13 AM
#381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 940
Did anyone else find it interesting that near the end of the arbitration the arbs asked a question on how a particular adjustment to the integrated list would effect the ordering of the list and the LAA witness said if he could have a 15 minute break he would tell them? After returning from break the witness told the arbs the answer to their question. The arbs immediately asked how did you do that so quick? The witness said, oh, (paraphrase) we developed a program that can tell you anything. The arbs asked for everything it adjusted for. LOS? Yes. DOH? Yes. LWB flying? Yes. On and on they asked and the witness responded yes to everything.
Was it just a coincidence the LAA group had quietly developed a program that could manipulate the entire integrated list particularly if the NIC wasn't used? It's especially interesting given that it could easily be used by the arbs to help them construct the list? Arbs like simplification.
07-13-2016, 11:21 AM
#382
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Not sure if you actually had a little bird talk to you or not, but your very specific on the possible proposal. I might add, I think your post "could be" accurate. It would make sense if you really look at it.
We are all flailing around trying to figure out what it might be. As said before the individuals in the know have remained amazingly quiet. However, it's human nature to want to tell someone if you have a secret. There are those that know outside the circle. But who? Reading this thread there was one poster early on that did a very good job of predicting the next announcement - DarinFred. But after making some very bold statements early on he disappeared. Why?
As to the proposals we can all guess and all criticize why they did what they did. I personally think each group served their constituents well.
The East backed off DOH but placed a very good argument in front of the arbs on why not to use the NIC. The rest of their proposal, and they knew it, was a reach. But if in their argument they only succeeded in killing the NIC that would be a major victory. Everything after that would be icing on the cake because their placement on the combined list in any respect will end up better against the West group than if the NIC had been used.
The West stuck to the use of the NIC. As they should. But its use presented a very tough dilemma in front of the arbs given the parameters set forth by MB.
Disregarding the battle between the West and East it was hard to contemplate how a West pilot who never had access to LWB (except for a brief stint of 747 flying) would be placed in front of a LAA pilot that was hired before them. Yes I understand the DOH argument but I also understand as of December 2013 the West group had no access to LWB flying, Europe flying, Asia flying, etc. It would seem the arbs providing access to LWB alone would be a victory for the West group. How could the arbs rationalize doing it at the expense of the LAA group by then putting those pilots with less LOS senior to the LAA pilots with more LOS? Seemed a tough hill, but who knows this is an arbitration. Maybe that's the LOS adjustment you posted above.
The "superior" LAA group argument. When they first proposed the NIC I thought they had thrown their group under the bus. But in hindsight it "may" have been a very good strategy. By using the NIC as their basis for an integration they were able to completely argue the good and bad points of the NIC. It many respects their arguments demonstrated why using the NIC amongst the three groups couldn't work.
On the other hand if the arbs were going to be inclined to use the NIC then they had hedged their case of how it should be adjusted to not negatively impact the LAA group. If they had not used the NIC they would never had been able to so thoroughly vet the use of the NIC during the arbitration.
So was their strategy all along to want to use the NIC or to help the East try to kill the use of the NIC?
Did anyone else find it interesting that near the end of the arbitration the arbs asked a question on how a particular adjustment to the integrated list would effect the ordering of the list and the LAA witness said if he could have a 15 minute break he would tell them? After returning from break the witness told the arbs the answer to their question. The arbs immediately asked how did you do that so quick? The witness said, oh, (paraphrase) we developed a program that can tell you anything. The arbs asked for everything it adjusted for. LOS? Yes. DOH? Yes. LWB flying? Yes. On and on they asked and the witness responded yes to everything.
Was it just a coincidence the LAA group had quietly developed a program that could manipulate the entire integrated list particularly if the NIC wasn't used? It's especially interesting given that it could easily be used by the arbs to help them construct the list? Arbs like simplification.
Did anyone else notice the arbs called the SLI committees together to help them for a couple of weeks in May? Was it to plug and play with the LAA program?
My point is this. Everyone keeps bashing their opposing parties committees. I personally think each committee did very well in their arguments. In the end no group will be completely happy. Obviously, depending on the use or lack of use of the NIC the East or West group will likely go nuclear to some degree.
The consistent theme amongst all rumors is the NIC was not used. If true we won't know for sure until August. There will be LWB fences between LAA and LUS groups (who knows how between East and West).
As to the rest, I've heard everything from what DarinFred posted to what PurpleTurtle posted. And everything in between. Trying to be pragmatic about this I can see PurpleTurtle's little bird as having the closest solution to adhering to the requirement's of the MB that I've heard so far.
We are all flailing around trying to figure out what it might be. As said before the individuals in the know have remained amazingly quiet. However, it's human nature to want to tell someone if you have a secret. There are those that know outside the circle. But who? Reading this thread there was one poster early on that did a very good job of predicting the next announcement - DarinFred. But after making some very bold statements early on he disappeared. Why?
As to the proposals we can all guess and all criticize why they did what they did. I personally think each group served their constituents well.
The East backed off DOH but placed a very good argument in front of the arbs on why not to use the NIC. The rest of their proposal, and they knew it, was a reach. But if in their argument they only succeeded in killing the NIC that would be a major victory. Everything after that would be icing on the cake because their placement on the combined list in any respect will end up better against the West group than if the NIC had been used.
The West stuck to the use of the NIC. As they should. But its use presented a very tough dilemma in front of the arbs given the parameters set forth by MB.
Disregarding the battle between the West and East it was hard to contemplate how a West pilot who never had access to LWB (except for a brief stint of 747 flying) would be placed in front of a LAA pilot that was hired before them. Yes I understand the DOH argument but I also understand as of December 2013 the West group had no access to LWB flying, Europe flying, Asia flying, etc. It would seem the arbs providing access to LWB alone would be a victory for the West group. How could the arbs rationalize doing it at the expense of the LAA group by then putting those pilots with less LOS senior to the LAA pilots with more LOS? Seemed a tough hill, but who knows this is an arbitration. Maybe that's the LOS adjustment you posted above.
The "superior" LAA group argument. When they first proposed the NIC I thought they had thrown their group under the bus. But in hindsight it "may" have been a very good strategy. By using the NIC as their basis for an integration they were able to completely argue the good and bad points of the NIC. It many respects their arguments demonstrated why using the NIC amongst the three groups couldn't work.
On the other hand if the arbs were going to be inclined to use the NIC then they had hedged their case of how it should be adjusted to not negatively impact the LAA group. If they had not used the NIC they would never had been able to so thoroughly vet the use of the NIC during the arbitration.
So was their strategy all along to want to use the NIC or to help the East try to kill the use of the NIC?
Did anyone else find it interesting that near the end of the arbitration the arbs asked a question on how a particular adjustment to the integrated list would effect the ordering of the list and the LAA witness said if he could have a 15 minute break he would tell them? After returning from break the witness told the arbs the answer to their question. The arbs immediately asked how did you do that so quick? The witness said, oh, (paraphrase) we developed a program that can tell you anything. The arbs asked for everything it adjusted for. LOS? Yes. DOH? Yes. LWB flying? Yes. On and on they asked and the witness responded yes to everything.
Was it just a coincidence the LAA group had quietly developed a program that could manipulate the entire integrated list particularly if the NIC wasn't used? It's especially interesting given that it could easily be used by the arbs to help them construct the list? Arbs like simplification.
Did anyone else notice the arbs called the SLI committees together to help them for a couple of weeks in May? Was it to plug and play with the LAA program?
My point is this. Everyone keeps bashing their opposing parties committees. I personally think each committee did very well in their arguments. In the end no group will be completely happy. Obviously, depending on the use or lack of use of the NIC the East or West group will likely go nuclear to some degree.
The consistent theme amongst all rumors is the NIC was not used. If true we won't know for sure until August. There will be LWB fences between LAA and LUS groups (who knows how between East and West).
As to the rest, I've heard everything from what DarinFred posted to what PurpleTurtle posted. And everything in between. Trying to be pragmatic about this I can see PurpleTurtle's little bird as having the closest solution to adhering to the requirement's of the MB that I've heard so far.
So far, after reading all 3 arguments, related transcripts and proposed SLI's, I 've found nothing to move me off my belief that the Nic will not be used in pure form and none of the three committee proposals (the final revised submissions) will be used. That leaves a hybrid result that either will deviate significantly from anything expected or most closely resemble the first AAPSIC non-NIC proposal.
Then again, the turtle's friendly Blue Jay with the top hat, bow tie and cane might have the complete skinny.
07-13-2016, 11:47 AM
#384
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: CA
Posts: 60
07-13-2016, 01:46 PM
#385
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
Me? I'm happy over here at Jet Blue. When we buy you guys it'll be sweet that y'all obliterated Date-O-Freekin' Hire yet one more time!!! Who cares when you were hired, right?
OooooOOooooOOooooooooooOoooOooooo!
07-13-2016, 02:08 PM
#386
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I have noticed many of the points you make and have posted such over the last year. Do you find it interesting that the AAPSIC likely had that program BEFORE their revised Nic-based conversion and could it resemble much of what their first non-Nic proposal included ? Could it be the arbs wanted to validate that first proposal themselves along with the process used in that program and/or that which achieved the first LAA proposal and may or may not have "tweaked" it in minor ways in some areas ?
So far, after reading all 3 arguments, related transcripts and proposed SLI's, I 've found nothing to move me off my belief that the Nic will not be used in pure form and none of the three committee proposals (the final revised submissions) will be used. That leaves a hybrid result that either will deviate significantly from anything expected or most closely resemble the first AAPSIC non-NIC proposal.
Then again, the turtle's friendly Blue Jay with the top hat, bow tie and cane might have the complete skinny.
So far, after reading all 3 arguments, related transcripts and proposed SLI's, I 've found nothing to move me off my belief that the Nic will not be used in pure form and none of the three committee proposals (the final revised submissions) will be used. That leaves a hybrid result that either will deviate significantly from anything expected or most closely resemble the first AAPSIC non-NIC proposal.
Then again, the turtle's friendly Blue Jay with the top hat, bow tie and cane might have the complete skinny.
Here's one for you. "Fair and equitable.. The Nic was fair and equitable. It was and still is. It will always own the legal monicker of "fair and equitable". To the extent that the West argues the Nic is fair and equitable pursuant to the authority vested in George Nicolau, I agree!
07-13-2016, 02:09 PM
#387
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Yeah, that's what I read, it was LUS who had the program. I don't think the LAA proposal was very much data driven or very high-tech, except that they used spell check for the 81 uses of the word "superior."
Me? I'm happy over here at Jet Blue. When we buy you guys it'll be sweet that y'all obliterated Date-O-Freekin' Hire yet one more time!!! Who cares when you were hired, right?
OooooOOooooOOooooooooooOoooOooooo!
Me? I'm happy over here at Jet Blue. When we buy you guys it'll be sweet that y'all obliterated Date-O-Freekin' Hire yet one more time!!! Who cares when you were hired, right?
OooooOOooooOOooooooooooOoooOooooo!
As far as buying the "new" AA (which is really the old "US Airways" except in name, paint job and uniform), I think the way this airline, its assets and its people are being managed, Jet Blue might indeed acquire some of LAA in a fragmentation scenario in the 4-8 year time frame. Of course, you'll argue that due to your superiority in that situation, all Group IV widebodies should be fully available to the JB pilots since they as the superior entity in that transaction are entitled to them.
Enjoy JB. I had the pleasure of talking to one of your pilots over a cerveza and your senior guys can make some good coin, but man do you work for it. Good luck on your first CBA as well. Until then, lets see what happens here as from all outward appearances, the East has already started their victory lap. Perhaps the finish line will have a tie stand selling ties with a flexed bicep on them ?
07-13-2016, 02:16 PM
#388
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Just for fun. It's all just for fun.
Here's one for you. "Fair and equitable.. The Nic was fair and equitable. It was and still is. It will always own the legal monicker of "fair and equitable". To the extent that the West argues the Nic is fair and equitable pursuant to the authority vested in George Nicolau, I agree!
Here's one for you. "Fair and equitable.. The Nic was fair and equitable. It was and still is. It will always own the legal monicker of "fair and equitable". To the extent that the West argues the Nic is fair and equitable pursuant to the authority vested in George Nicolau, I agree!
Fair and equitable ? Well, fair is in the eye of the beholder and equitable is less subjective based on quantifiable pre-merger equities. I'll just be a bigger man and congratulate you now on another crushing defeat of West pilots and adding another carcass (LAA pilots) to your "fair and equitable" clean sweep world according to USAPA (or its remnants) body pile.
Buy your Blue Jay a beer for me. His joyous chirps of your success must have been heavenly to hear.
07-13-2016, 02:23 PM
#389
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
The west hired and used the UAL program in our technical analysis. We also used the same attorney as the UAL committee
07-13-2016, 02:31 PM
#390
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
