2015 Pilot Discussion.

[FWAAA]

What are your thoughts please of foot note 12?

I'm not a West pilot, but you're grasping at straws. Footnotes generally don't contain the holding of written appellate opinions, and this one is no different.

Footnote 12 merely explains that the 9th Cir is unwilling to order the SLI arbitration panel that the NIC list is the only permissible means of combining the East and West pilots. Instead, the 9th Cir merely prohibited the USAPA from arguing any other method other than the NIC list (the USAPA is enjoined from arguing DOH). Nobody will be there arguing DOH for the East and West combination.

As a practical matter, the court didn't need to order the SLI arbitration panel to start with the NIC list - it's fairly obvious that the arbitration panel will likely begin with the NIC list anyway and then combine the NIC list with the APA list, as many have predicted since the date the US-AA merger was announced (and even when the US-AA merger was just a rumour).

Arbitration panels aren't going to ignore a previous arbitrated result, especially in this instance. The USAPA was a success in delaying the inevitable for several years, but eventually, the NIC and APA lists will be combined. My prediction is that the final result is NIC-like, given that APA's employer was in bankruptcy at the time of the merger. APA won't be very happy with it, but there won't be anything they can do about it.

 

[Claxon]

I'm not a West pilot, but you're grasping at straws. Footnotes generally don't contain the holding of written appellate opinions, and this one is no different.

Footnote 12 merely explains that the 9th Cir is unwilling to order the SLI arbitration panel that the NIC list is the only permissible means of combining the East and West pilots.

The only one fact you mentioned in your post, the rest is your speculation.
 
The footnote of course is not an order, it just highlights the fact that in the remedy phase
there is no injunction that says the nic has to be used.

 

[snapthis]

I'm not a West pilot, but you're grasping at straws. Footnotes generally don't contain the holding of written appellate opinions, and this one is no different.Footnote 12 merely explains that the 9th Cir is unwilling to order the SLI arbitration panel that the NIC list is the only permissible means of combining the East and West pilots. Instead, the 9th Cir merely prohibited the USAPA from arguing any other method other than the NIC list (the USAPA is enjoined from arguing DOH). Nobody will be there arguing DOH for the East and West combination.As a practical matter, the court didn't need to order the SLI arbitration panel to start with the NIC list - it's fairly obvious that the arbitration panel will likely begin with the NIC list anyway and then combine the NIC list with the APA list, as many have predicted since the date the US-AA merger was announced (and even when the US-AA merger was just a rumour).Arbitration panels aren't going to ignore a previous arbitrated result, especially in this instance. The USAPA was a success in delaying the inevitable for several years, but eventually, the NIC and APA lists will be combined. My prediction is that the final result is NIC-like, given that APA's employer was in bankruptcy at the time of the merger. APA won't be very happy with it, but there won't be anything they can do about it.

Very good synopsis.

I'll add to Claxon's about the no injunction..He left out the word..yet.

 

[FWAAA]

The only one fact you mentioned in your post, the rest is your speculation.
 
The footnote of course is not an order, it just highlights the fact that in the remedy phase
there is no injunction that says the nic has to be used.

Sure, it's mostly speculation. Given how few facts are ever posted on this forum, most of what is posted is sheer speculation. Well, plus a lot of ad hominem invective on this pilot thread.

No need to order the non-parties to Addington II (like the SLI arbitration panel) to use the NIC list, when you can probably accomplish the same thing by prohibiting the party to Addington II (USAPA) from arguing for any method other than the NIC list. I doubt that APA is going to argue that East and West should be combined using DOH, and I doubt that the West will argue DOH, so that probably results in East and West being combined in some fashion that is not DOH.

And while it's speculation, the arbitration panel is probably going to look at the NIC list and say "G Nicolau already did the heavy lifting in combining the East and West lists, so let's start with that and combine it with the APA list."

Like I said, the USAPA won a several year delay at a huge annual cost in lost income for all US pilots, but it's fairly obvious to outside observers that the NIC list will probably be the basis of the current SLI arbitration. Note that the outside observers don't have any emotional attachment or investment in the outcome like the East and West pilots do. I'm merely predicting the way I think it will play out, but I may be incorrect.

 

[Claxon]

Sure, it's mostly speculation. Given how few facts are ever posted on this forum, most of what is posted is sheer speculation. Well, plus a lot of ad hominem invective on this pilot thread.
.......
And while it's speculation, ......

but I may be incorrect............

Name one post I had in the last two pages that was not factual?

 

[FWAAA]

Name one post I had in the last two pages that was not factual?

I didn't say that your posts were all non-factual, merely that very few facts are ever posted on this website. Even if all of your posts are 100% true, that doesn't contradict my assertion.

 

[Black Swan]

Exactly what was in the remedy of the 9th that you gained? Be specific.
Sounds like you accidentally hit yourself in the head with that rhetorical club judge Bybee gave you.

I really don't think the 9th ruling is all that bad. The West is pushing an argument that Eischen already addressed as troublesome in the last big merge. The Legacy AA pilots will say the Nic is not fair. Let the West push the Nic. The arbitrators are not in any way obligated to it. They know they will ruin their reputations if they produce a list which will be called unfair and flawed. I place my money on an award very similar to UAL- CO regardless of any arguments the three groups make. The West saying they are getting the Nic after all is said and done is most likely not true. Nor will the East or LAA get what they want. This process is already so screwed up that the arbs are going to take it and run on their own regardless of the three positions.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

What is going on with Airlineforums.com today? Some sane and thoughtful posts with critical thinking on full display here.
 
I agree with FWAAA here. I have been looking from afar and following this train wreck of a seniority integration process. I believe the only way any neutral party will rule is by incorporating the Nic with the APA list.
 
Good luck to all.

 

[Black Swan]

Sure, it's mostly speculation. Given how few facts are ever posted on this forum, most of what is posted is sheer speculation. Well, plus a lot of ad hominem invective on this pilot thread.No need to order the non-parties to Addington II (like the SLI arbitration panel) to use the NIC list, when you can probably accomplish the same thing by prohibiting the party to Addington II (USAPA) from arguing for any method other than the NIC list. I doubt that APA is going to argue that East and West should be combined using DOH, and I doubt that the West will argue DOH, so that probably results in East and West being combined in some fashion that is not DOH.And while it's speculation, the arbitration panel is probably going to look at the NIC list and say "G Nicolau already did the heavy lifting in combining the East and West lists, so let's start with that and combine it with the APA list."Like I said, the USAPA won a several year delay at a huge annual cost in lost income for all US pilots, but it's fairly obvious to outside observers that the NIC list will probably be the basis of the current SLI arbitration. Note that the outside observers don't have any emotional attachment or investment in the outcome like the East and West pilots do. I'm merely predicting the way I think it will play out, but I may be incorrect.

Google the UAL-Co SLI and insert Nicolau. Dana Eischen made numerous comments regarding the Nicolau Award as being problematic.
I don't see him using it as a template after that. These arbs are under a lot of pressure to produce a fair deal and I think they will.

 

[Black Swan]

What is going on with Airlineforums.com today? Some sane and thoughtful posts with critical thinking on full display here.
 
I agree with FWAAA here. I have been looking from afar and following this train wreck of a seniority integration process. I believe the only way any neutral party will rule is by incorporating the Nic with the APA list.
 
Good luck to all.

Thanks. Did you read the UAL- CO award?

 

[snapthis]

I really don't think the 9th ruling is all that bad. The West is pushing an argument that Eischen already addressed as troublesome in the last big merge. The Legacy AA pilots will say the Nic is not fair. Let the West push the Nic. The arbitrators are not in any way obligated to it. They know they will ruin their reputations if they produce a list which will be called unfair and flawed. I place my money on an award very similar to UAL- CO regardless of any arguments the three groups make. The West saying they are getting the Nic after all is said and done is most likely not true. This process is already so screwed up that the arbs are going to take it and run on their own regardless of the three positions.

 
 

Google the UAL-Co SLI and insert Nicolau. Dana Eischen made numerous comments regarding the Nicolau Award as being problematic.
I don't see him using it as a template after that. These arbs are under a lot of pressure to produce a fair deal and I think they will.

 
That's a very poor display of your understanding of the facts and the law. It's a very good display of a wishful thinking.
 

 

[Black Swan]

That's a very poor display of your understanding of the facts and the law. It's a very good display of a wishful thinking.

None of this is law. This is a process not regulated by law. I am looking at the arbs and what Eischen has done in the past as a clue.
I think the East made a colossal error picking Nicolau and arguing DOH. He never made a DOH award. I say Eischen is going to put his stamp on this, not George Nicolaus'
We shall see.

 

[CactusPilot1]

That's a very poor display of your understanding of the facts and the law. It's a very good display of a wishful thinking.

Isn't that the truth. They are not doing a very good job of convincing the obersevers, the neutrals.

 

[snapthis]

None of this is law. This is a process not regulated by law. I am looking at the arbs and what Eischen has done in the past as a clue.
I think the East made a colossal error picking Nicolau and arguing DOH. He never made a DOH award. I say Eischen is going to put his stamp on this, not George Nicolaus'
We shall see.

 
I'll bet if Nicolau would have accepted the DOH argument, you would have found less errors in ability to be an arbitrator and you would have welcomed his stamp.
 
What labels are you going to place on this set of arbitrators?
 
We shall see.

 

[Claxon]

Isn't that the truth. They are not doing a very good job of convincing the obersevers, the neutrals.

How do you know if a good job is being done to convince the neutrals?
 
We will hear about this Monday, then we will see where things stand.  Bottom line many more years of "leeetigation".