Claxon said:
May I remind you west pilots that you legal advisor for your recent seniority fantasies is Jeff Freund, not Sigmund Freud.
Claxon said:
Regarding your avatar west pilot, who is crying "it's not fair" west pilot? You are. Cry baby.
I'm not shedding any tears over JF's fine job convincing arbitrators with sound arguments. Would you care to view the results of his work?
😉
"While each party to this case argued for tactical reasons that it had a decent future as a stand-alone airline and thus did not need the other, the evidence shows otherwise. Indeed, their respective CEOs viewed their companies' situations realistically and stated frankly that each needed the other to ensure their long-term profitability and even survival.
Unlike some airline mergers and many airline acquisitions, this was not a case of one strong entity swallowing a much weaker one. It was, rather, a case of two solid but troubled entities combining for mutual advantage
The parties' documentary and testimonial evidence conclusively demonstrated that each airline had major strengths and serious limitations. Overall, neither was clearly superior to the other. After trying various strategies through the decade, each independently realized that its long-term profitability, if not its very survival, required merging with a partner whose strengths balanced its weaknesses. After feints in other directions, they concluded that this merger was the best available option. It became a marriage, if not quite of equals, at least of well-balanced partners who filled each others gaps to form a new and stronger entity.
Airline mergers and the attendant pilot seniority integrations have proven to be the most stressful periods in an airlines evolution. That stress manifests itself in a variety of ways that pose serious problems for the respective pilot groups and for ALPA as an institution. The expectations that competing integration proposals create in the minds of the merging pilot groups and the hostility engendered by these competing proposals leave scars that do not heal well, if at all. . . . While there are surely many explanations for the tumult created by the SLI process, the leading culprit is the unrealistic expectations of many of the pilot groups. In our experience, those unrealistic expectations translate into extreme SLI proposals, and those extreme proposals are what allows the rhetoric and the animosity that flows from the fight over a scarce resource a position on a combined seniority list to spiral out of control. . . When an Award fails to call out the fact that one side has made an entirely unreasonable proposal . . . that encourages, or fails to discourage, continuing unreasonable proposals; it also encourages the very conduct that inflames the SLI process and leads to the bitter recrimination that haunts the merged pilot group and ALPA for decades after. . . [W]e urge in the strongest terms that [this Board] say so in its opinion, so that future merger committees will take this Boards admonitions to heart and the damaging consequences of unreasonable posturing will be eliminated or at least minimized in future mergers.
Another defect of the CAL Committee's proposed ISL is that it unjustifiably creates extremely large tiers of pilots from a single airline.
The concept of a constructive notice date ("CND") is not complicated: it is the date after which any pilot hired by either premerger airline is deemed to know that he or she will be working for a combined entity and that his or her career expectations will be a product of the success or failure of the combined airline, irrespective of which airline hired the pilot.
Our review of many prior ISL arbitration decisions teaches that elaborate conditions and restrictions unduly complicate implementation of an Integrated Seniority List. The interminable disputes they generate tend to breed animosity that corrodes flight crew relations. Our Award seeks to achieve its goals of fairness and equity primarily through the construction and creation of the ISL itself, while awarding only standard and necessary conditions and restrictions of limited reach and duration.
George Nicolau's four basic verities of ISL arbitration are as apt and vital today as they were nearly a quarter of a century ago: each case turns on its own facts; the objective is to make the integration fair and equitable; the proposals advanced by those in contest rarely meet that standard; and the end result, no matter how crafted, never commands universal acceptance."