You're trying hard to make something of this that wasn't said. For starters, here's the exact quote of what was posted:
Does he say that the plan includes ways to mitigate the Nic list through changes to other sections of the joint contract? Yes.
Doesn't that imply that the changes to other sections of the joint contract would more favor the East pilots than the West pilots? Yes (or they wouldn't mitigate the Nic).
Does he say that a single pay scale would benefit the East pilots "almost exclusively"? Yes.
If he's merely talking about putting the West reinstatement rights language into the joint contract, would that be unusual? No, some provisions of East & West contracts will end up in the joint contract so having the same provision for all pilots wouldn't be worth mentioning.
Does he say the reinstatement right provision for East pilots would actually be for East and West pilots? No, only East pilots.
Does he say that any such reinstatement right for East pilots would be a one-time provision for one displacement like the current West language? No, it applies to any East pilot ever displaced.
Does he say that any such reinstatement right for East pilots would not be given to pilots already holding the job displaced from or higher when the joint contract went into effect? No, it would be given to any East pilot that was ever displaced.
Does he say that such a reinstatement right would only apply to the captain job displaced from? No, the only qualifier for exercising the reinstatement right is "a new captain opening." This is in line with giving all East pilots that have ever been displaced a reinstatement right to any new captain opening.
Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots is "use or lose" like the current West language? No.
Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots has priority only over all vacancy bidders? No, it has priority over any West pilots.
Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots is seniority based among pilots holding the same reinstatement right? No, it has priority over any West pilots - some of whom may (or may not if only East pilots get reinstatement rights) have the same reinstatement right and be more senior.
One thing you've shown is why agreements like LOA 93 passed but when everyone learns the details nobody admits to voting for them. The devil is in the details. You assume that details not given aren't there and then assume that changes can be made to make the details more balanced (meaning you realize that the suggested provisions are anti-West but won't admit it). I think I'll go with the anti-West to start with since they're said to be ways to minimize the effect of the Nic and the only way to do that is have anti-West provisions in sections other than 22.
I have absolutely no idea which candidate(s) may be floating these ideas, but my guess is that it's who I think is your choice - Hummel and ticket. You want to present him in the best possible light, which is why you assume that the anti-West details aren't there if they weren't mentioned while at the same time saying that the anti-west details (that aren't there!!!) can be modified to be more balanced.
Jim
You are full of ####. Answer the F'ing question. Have you talked to any of the candidates? Answer that or STFU. I have talked to several of them, except Ferguson, he never called or answered my emails. I spent quite a bit of time with Koontz, so I think I have a better line on their thinking than you.
I asked you if you have more information than what is in Ferguson's blog. No answer. You may be correct about all you posted, but as I said, I talked to Koontz about the very idea and it was nothing like what you have posted. I sent Eric an email, I'll let you know if he answers.
You say it has to benefit the east to mitigate the Nic and that is FALSE. You think that way if you think like the junior west do. The Nic is a potential problem for the senior west captains, the senior west F/Os that were captains, and furloughed pilots that want to get back into PHX. Think back to your experience with PI/US and how PI guys got bumped while out of CLT while US guys came in. I do not see the PHX base growing, and without mitigation I think the few captain vacancies will go to guys like 924PS and the F/O slots will go to east F/Os that are senior to furloughed west F/Os. Depending on the language, first right of refusal could help the west more than the east, but if an east guy was a captain it could help them. I have a friend that was a 737 captain in CLT in 2001, but can't hold it now. That language could help him get back. As I said it just has to be fair to both sides. You can't say that the east guy shouldn't have rights from 11 years ago, but a west guy should from 4 years ago. This could be a win-win situation, but since there is NO trust on either side everyone assumes it is a scheme.
Of course if you do that there are trade offs. Some guys will be pissed because they cannot get into an east or west base. One thing I suggested a while back was a swap provision. If a guy was in the same seat, same category as pilot in another base and they wanted to swap they could without a bid. Maybe it would need to be done by percentages of seniority so that a number 1 guy couldn't swap with the bottom guy thereby pushing everyone down. So say 924PS is in the top 25% of PHL and wants to get into PHX but there are no vacancies. A former west pilot that lives east and is in the top 25% in PHX wants to get into PHL. If they were allowed to swap it really wouldn't have much of an affect on anyone. No training or other cost to the company.
But no one is talking about things like that. It's winner take all. My perception, from talking (and knowing some of them) with the camps that Hummel would be open to more of that type thing than the others.
Since you have not answered the question about talking to the candidates it sounds like you are making assumptions about Hummel. I've talked to him and he absolutely didn't mention anything like that. I pressed him for details about what we could do for this or that and his basic answer was that there are things we can do for both sides. One big thing he said was that when we talked about those things was that WE HAD TO BE AWARE OF THE DFR. And by DFR I'm talking about the duty part, not just the fear of being sued.
I do not think the west slate can solve the problem by telling the east to eat it. It will just flip flop the problem. I think mitigation will be a factor in moving on, for both sides, and the west candidates have been clear that they will have no part of that.
