SO - Where's the SLI?
07-21-2016, 05:35 AM
#741
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: A330
Posts: 173
I expect no windfalls and no "hammering" aside from the likelihood of the Nic not being adopted because its use is too destabilizing due to the complexities of balancing the forward and backward looking equities of three groups as opposed to two. I see a "hybrid" list that is fairly homogenous in mixture based on the above goals and that's simply one opinion. The only difference seems to be sedate patience by the West and LAA while the East sounds like they are barking like dogs in the crew rooms, cockpits and on line with gleeful joy at their impending boons.
07-21-2016, 05:37 AM
#742
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
I think that is the misrepresentation. There are those that are saying the East swept the board. Don't think that is exactly what they are meaning. Everyone expected the East to get hammered in this process more than the other two groups. By not using the NIC and by getting LOS adjustments they made out much better than anyone expected.
That is not saying they "swept the board" or that the LAA pilots or West pilots got hammered to the point the East got everything. Read between the lines. It's still going to be a category/class percentage merge with heavy LOS weighting. That's what moves the East up the list. But remember they are an older group therefore they will retire rather quickly so I don't see how this "hammers" the West and LAA groups like some are stating. Not using the NIC is an obvious loss for the West.
That is not saying they "swept the board" or that the LAA pilots or West pilots got hammered to the point the East got everything. Read between the lines. It's still going to be a category/class percentage merge with heavy LOS weighting. That's what moves the East up the list. But remember they are an older group therefore they will retire rather quickly so I don't see how this "hammers" the West and LAA groups like some are stating. Not using the NIC is an obvious loss for the West.
But if you set all this aside for a moment, just a brief moment to look at the rest of the situation, what do these three separate parties bring? One thing we can say for certain, adding US Airways to American created instant, record profitability. This probably -- just speculation on my part -- wasn't because the new American finally had the all important PHX-MCO route, or any other PHX route. I'm not saying that PHX is irrelevant because it's all part of the network, but let's be honest with each other and say that the East is where the majority of US Airways' profits came from and was in large part where the value of this merger resides. Fair enough?
Now, look at what the AWA brain trust did to themselves: they demanded to be separated from the "eastholes," (as they so often and so maturely refer to us) at the bargaining table. They wanted no part of us, because they knew we wouldn't support the ALPA bargaining proposal from a previous merger in this new merger. Based on LOGIC and not EMOTION, anyone should be able to draw the conclusion that the ALPA bargaining proposal based on a 2005 snapshot of two airlines might be less than appropriate for use in 2016 to merge three lists into one for the New American Airlines. So, knowing that their only chance for world dominance was to be separate, they gambled on "Nic-or-Nothing."
And today we await the answer to "How did that work out for ya?"
07-21-2016, 05:39 AM
#743
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
No, I don't believe that. The arbs will craft their OWN proposal, but when compared to anything presented, the closest again, just in my opinion, would be the AAPSIC's initial one. Unlike others though, I fully understand I could be wrong as I have no idea what is in the minds of the arbitrators or what logic they will adopt.
Last edited by eaglefly; 07-21-2016 at 06:11 AM.
07-21-2016, 05:44 AM
#744
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
I expect no windfalls and no "hammering" aside from the likelihood of the Nic not being adopted because its use is too destabilizing due to the complexities of balancing the forward and backward looking equities of three groups as opposed to two. I see a "hybrid" list that is fairly homogenous in mixture based on the above goals and that's simply one opinion. The only difference seems to be sedate patience by the West and LAA while the East sounds like they are barking like dogs in the crew rooms, cockpits and on line with gleeful joy at their impending boons.
)
Last edited by Saul Rosenberg; 07-21-2016 at 05:45 AM. Reason: typo
07-21-2016, 05:54 AM
#745
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
That's exactly what I said. What I meant is that since none of the three final proposals will not be adopted (which by default likely means Nic although it's still possible to use it and not the 3 FP's) and that since the East and West didn't change their proposals much, if at all, that means of all the proposals, I think the arbs hybrid list will most closely resemble AAPSIC's initial proposal (non Nic). Does that mean THAT proposal will be adopted ?
No, I don't believe that. The arbs will craft their OWN proposal, but when compared to anything presented, the closest again, just in my opinion, would be the AAPSIC's initial one. Unlike others though, I fully understand I could be wrong as I have no idea what is in the minds of the arbitrators or what logic they will adopt.
No, I don't believe that. The arbs will craft their OWN proposal, but when compared to anything presented, the closest again, just in my opinion, would be the AAPSIC's initial one. Unlike others though, I fully understand I could be wrong as I have no idea what is in the minds of the arbitrators or what logic they will adopt.
Not sure if you were saying otherwise, but just to be clear: There was a VAST difference in the EPSIC proposal compared to the USAPA proposal. Comparing the two, the EPSIC proposal moved me DOWN over 1800 numbers while simultaneously moving the AWA pilot nearest me UP 120 numbers and the AA pilot nearest me UP 425. It was a completely different type of list generated by a completely different program, and while I'll say that I certainly wasn't happy about what I considered a low-ball proposal, if what we are hearing is true then I'll defer to the process and be glad that a Fair and Equitable result between the three parties was reached. The East has always been flexible and willing to negotiate and compromise, and the record shows that. This might be a final acknowledgement that it was the right course; time will tell.
07-21-2016, 05:57 AM
#746
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: A330
Posts: 173
That's exactly what I said. What I meant is that since none of the three final proposals will not be adopted (which by default likely means Nic although it's still possible to use it and not the 3 FP's) and that since the East and West didn't change their proposals much, if at all, that means of all the proposals, I think the arbs hybrid list will most closely resemble AAPSIC's initial proposal (non Nic). Does that mean THAT proposal will be adopted ?
No, I don't believe that. The arbs will craft their OWN proposal, but when compared to anything presented, the closest again, just in my opinion, would be the AAPSIC's initial one. Unlike others though, I fully understand I could be wrong as I have no idea what is in the minds of the arbitrators or what logic they will adopt.
No, I don't believe that. The arbs will craft their OWN proposal, but when compared to anything presented, the closest again, just in my opinion, would be the AAPSIC's initial one. Unlike others though, I fully understand I could be wrong as I have no idea what is in the minds of the arbitrators or what logic they will adopt.
07-21-2016, 06:15 AM
#747
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
What you describe when talking about the lists is the EPSIC proposal. What you describe when referencing barking dogs is snarky and disrespectful, and especially so if you think of (or know anything about) the abhorrent behavior of the average AWA Internet keyboard jockey that we've all endured for over a decade (much of which I missed completely due to having a really wonderful life )
)
07-21-2016, 06:17 AM
#748
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Not sure if you were saying otherwise, but just to be clear: There was a VAST difference in the EPSIC proposal compared to the USAPA proposal. Comparing the two, the EPSIC proposal moved me DOWN over 1800 numbers while simultaneously moving the AWA pilot nearest me UP 120 numbers and the AA pilot nearest me UP 425. It was a completely different type of list generated by a completely different program, and while I'll say that I certainly wasn't happy about what I considered a low-ball proposal, if what we are hearing is true then I'll defer to the process and be glad that a Fair and Equitable result between the three parties was reached. The East has always been flexible and willing to negotiate and compromise, and the record shows that. This might be a final acknowledgement that it was the right course; time will tell.
07-21-2016, 06:27 AM
#749
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: A330
Posts: 173
Sorry, I just call it how I see it based on the very statements being made here by the East. You simply cannot do what you are doing and more importantly HOW you are doing it and Motrin the risk of such a perception. I'd be just a critical of the West or even LAA pilots if they were taking this tack.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
