Page 21 &22..."Conclusions about the Build Models"

[PCL_128]

Agreed. Which is why I was in favor of the new policy overall. My area of disagreement is in including longevity as a factor, which I don't believe should enter into a seniority equation.

 

[eaglesview]

The lack of longevity in the policy is what lead to the most fair award in the AAA/AWA case. Including longevity would have created a windfall for the AAA pilots at the expense of the AWA pilots. We were attempting to fix something that wasn't broken just because a bunch of entitlement-minded a-holes at AAA threw a temper tantrum. There are many good elements in the new policy, such as JCBA before SLI, but bringing longevity back into the mix isn't something that I favored.

That said, I think the arbitration panel did a great job of including longevity, but not allowing it to skew the award and create a windfall. Their acceptance of the hybrid methodology, but tilting it more towards category and status, was an excellent way of going about things. Hence why arbitration and allowing a panel of neutrals to make decisions on this subject is always the best way to go.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the fairness of the USAir arbitration. I am not about to get into that old and tired subject.

 

[eaglesview]

Agreed. Which is why I was in favor of the new policy overall. My area of disagreement is in including longevity as a factor, which I don't believe should enter into a seniority equation.

Longevity should be a factor and a big one. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[St. Nic]

DOH = No questions asked

 

[Crzipilot]

He doesn't like longevity 'cause he paid for his job, and has attempted to leap frog his whole career......longevity would sink him

 

[canadflyau]

I too am trying to understand the award. Depending on which side of the ISL you are sitting on, depends on which aggregate works best for you. I've been trying to just stay within the confines of the arbitrators. Restricting down solely to 10/2010. No credit or discredit for any other assumptions, and evaluate the result by looking back through relative percentages, and assume the 10/2010 are finite constants into infinity. I'm sure some will find fault with this methodology, but it is a lookback trying to apply soley the 10/2010 snapshot.

10/2010 Constants: Total Pilots-12,155 Total active jobs 10938.
Total CAL 4786, Total CAL active pilot jobs 4639, (147 invol fur)
Total UAL 7699, Total UAL active pilot jobs 6299, (1228 invol fur, 172 vol fur)

preISL------CAL-------UAL1--------UAL2------delta between CAL/UAL1
90%---10208/92.1%-8963/80.9%-9122/82.3%-----1245/11.2%
80%---9330/84.2----7674/69.2---7905/76.3-------1656/15%
60%---7333/66.2----5727/51.7---5863/52.9-------1606/14.5
40%---4201/40.0----4074/36.8---4198/37.9-------154/3.2
20%---2107/19.0----1902/17.2---1956/17.6-------205/1.8
10%---1127/10.2----901/8.1------933/8.4---------226/2.1

*UAL1 accounts for 172 vol furloughs (double bid), assumes 6299jobs
*UAL2 assumes jobs from 10/2010 snapshot to UAL Sen#6471

Most senior UAL Furloughee on 10/2010, ISL sen#10415
Most senior CAL Furloughee on 10/2010, ISL sen#11301

 

[ultrarunner]

At this point, it's a waste of time to sit here and argue about who's right and who's wrong so lets just call it a day and move on.

Unless of course a majority doesn't like it, and votes in their own club, right?

As USAir East has shown, an arbitrated decision really doesn't matter now, does it? Could drag on for another decade....