We can conclude that both East and West are compelled to use the legal system as the necessary (if not the only) venue to remedy SLI disputes which predate McCaskill-Bond. This is the levelest of level playing fields we will find. There are no voices on this field that can be drowned out by another’s. No numbers advantage. No prejudice. No emotion. And, by deed, we’ve mutually agreed to go this route. It’s at least nice to agree on something.
Independently, we’ll quietly and privately instruct our attorneys to produce and deliver compelling arguments on each our behalf. And, in the interim, we as pilots won’t have to look in the mirror, or at our wives, or at our children and regret that we hadn’t exhausted every possible alternative to achieve what we passionately believe is right.
What is abundantly clear in all of the above is that we are in agreement. From the lower courts all the way to SCOTUS, these will become the necessary venues for remedy. Any argument beyond those walls serves no purpose and will have no impact on any resolution. By exclusion, we’re also in agreement on that point. The decision is made to litigate. We can bottle it, shelve it, and years from now, uncork it to see what we’ve got. But how do we move forward from here? Can we move forward from here... even as we find ourselves confronted by new and immediate challenges?
Gordon Bethune once said, “We don’t put rearview mirrors on airplanes, because it doesn’t matter what’s back there. We have to start looking ahead.”
Looking ahead? Hmm…While the flavors of litigation are fermenting in that bottle on the shelf up there, do think it’s possible we might find a way to move ahead while at the same time agreeing to disagree? You guys are decent critical thinkers when you’re not fighting each other. Some, I’ve sensed, have extraordinary talents in this regard.
Say, we agree on something innovative. Let’s say we agree to insert a placeholder in this book and chapter of East/West SLIs. It’s not surrender, it’s a placeholder. While we’ve agreed to let that bottle of litigation juices ferment, we have nothing to do anyway. We’ve already agreed to let independent counsel do our arguing for us. We’ve apparently agreed that litigation is a necessary cost of doing business. And like any enterprise, we’d probably agree that mitigating business costs is a good thing.
If we subscribe to Bethune’s “move forward” plan, maybe we could etch something on this SLI placeholder – hold that spot, while we turn the page and have a look at the next chapter. Maybe, a temporary integrated seniority list.
Hmmm… The list would not be derived from the potentials of an emotionally charged negotiation, but from unimpassioned statistical methods and metrics – an amalgamation of: The Pre-Nicolau East offer, The Pre-Nicolau West offer, The Nicolau Award, and Wye River. The lists would be a snapshot of non-furloghed pilots at the time of merger, to include MDA.
What if we had, say… A three-man team of independent consultants who would use broadly accepted statistical methodologies: One statistician appointed by the East, One appointed by the West, And a third jointly approved to derive a statistical mean (blended) average of the two results. No bump, no flush, no fences. Equitable population of the etched placeholder list will be accomplished by attrition or voluntary preferential bidding. In the event of legal remedy, East and West would agree that a permanent SL will be repopulated using the same methodology of attrition or preferential bidding until it accurately reflects the legal remedy.
What are the possibilities…? Interim advancement during litigation. Economic reward, during litigation. Opportunity to collectively raise all standards of reward through a leveraged strength via unified negotiations with the company…or APA. East and West might agree that the placeholder list could be submitted as “the intrinsic list” in the event of a merger. A list that will contain an intrinsic legal remedy surviving a merger.
In the absence of an American Air Merger, an agreed upon (placeholder) list would allow LCC an immediate realized synergy of operations. An immediate economic benefit of synergies that should leverage benefit for a unified pilot group. We’ve all paid for it already. And by way of a united effort, we mitigate the expense of SLI litigation. East and West share a mutual benefit. A mutual resolution. Win – Win.
Lorenzo innovated, brainstormed, and exercised critical thinking to rape an airline in bankruptcy.
Siegel and Glass innovated strategy to break the will of labor and purposefully distress and then destroy pension plans.
Parker negotiated with other labor unions during that airlines exclusive right to formulate a POR without interference.
There are no conventions in this business. If you can imagine it, you can do it. No excuses.
