Unical SLI is out...

[MCDU]

looks like Cal was looking for a AWA STYLE WINDFALL.

M

 

[JohnQ]

looks like Cal was looking for a AWA STYLE WINDFALL.

M


No, they did exactly what the arbitrators told the AAA East NOT to do. They swung for a home run and struck out. The UAL side took the "prudent" course, didn't ask for the moon, and got a reasonable result.

The greater bottom line is that this combined group (even the soon-to-be-irate CAL side) learned from both your failed process and our (DAL/NWA) successful one.

1. Get a joint contract agreed to before any SLI resolution.

2. Have a 3-person arbitrator panel make the SLI decision, so you are not bound to the possible quirks of one individual.

AAA/AWA did neither, which is why you all to this day are what is pictured in the dictionary next to the word "dysfunction."

 

[Crzipilot]

Read this award and you'll see just why you should have been scared, and just why people like me were so adamant about going to arbitration. The CAL committee basically made the same arguments you guys have been making since this whole things started ("we make lots more money, our company is more stable, yada, yada, yada"), and the arbitrators basically tossed those arguments aside and said "yeah, that's nice and all, but both companies needed each other to prosper long-term, so we're calling it all a wash and only looking at seniority."

Because longevity was weighted 35% in the arbs decision. Have you even read the decision or just looked at the ISL? I guess that is hosed to you, hosed to me is losing 7 1/2 years longevity. Your RS as of 10/2005 should be very close to RS on the ISL. Also a voluntary furlough may be 25% but not an involuntary.

looks like Cal was looking for a AWA STYLE WINDFALL.

M


No, they did exactly what the arbitrators told the AAA East NOT to do. They swung for a home run and struck out. The UAL side took the "prudent" course, didn't ask for the moon, and got a reasonable result.

The greater bottom line is that this combined group (even the soon-to-be-irate CAL side) learned from both your failed process and our (DAL/NWA) successful one.

1. Get a joint contract agreed to before any SLI resolution.

2. Have a 3-person arbitrator panel make the SLI decision, so you are not bound to the possible quirks of one individual.

AAA/AWA did neither, which is why you all to this day are what is pictured in the dictionary next to the word "dysfunction."

No actually I think the first two quotes put it quite clear what was wrong with the AAA/AWA sli, if it had followed this result, I'm sure they'd be on contract 2 or 3 by now.

 

[densoo]

looks like Cal was looking for a AWA STYLE WINDFALL.

...and looks like UAL got it.

 

[Crzipilot]

So just curious, what were the hire dates of those on the CAL side that are saying they got screwed? Actually would be interesting to see Hire date with DOB compared to those that they got slotted next to. See how unfair this is.

Anyone outside of the merging partners get a copy of the decision yet?

 

[waveflyer]

You should have read ALPA Merger Policy. Longevity is a component that is required to be included. I asked a few months ago why the CAL MC thought that they could get away with not including it at all, and nobody had an answer. Now we know what the result was.

This stuff really gives your self proclaimed expertise a hard on doesnt it? Must really piss you off to not be part of your beloved ALPA-

I could say you've never argued longevity had a place in our SLI- but seriously- let this thread be with CAL/UAL before you go all Internet professor SLI on them-

 

[maxblast72]

Read this award and you'll see just why you should have been scared, and just why people like me were so adamant about going to arbitration. The CAL committee basically made the same arguments you guys have been making since this whole things started ("we make lots more money, our company is more stable, yada, yada, yada"), and the arbitrators basically tossed those arguments aside and said "yeah, that's nice and all, but both companies needed each other to prosper long-term, so we're calling it all a wash and only looking at seniority."

I think you need to reread the award great Nostradamus of pilot seniority arbitration awards. Here are two excerpts from the award that you must have missed:

"The relative value of the airlines is difficult to calculate with precision. According to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, the airlines' joint proxy statement credited United shareholders with 55% of the merged value and Continental shareholders with 45%. 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."

"It is also appropriate to consider mutual gains that flow from the merger. On a
stand-alone basis, United Pilot hourly wage earnings were less than their counterparts at Continental. By contrast, the work rules and various elements of non-wage compensation of United Pilots were superior to those at Continental. On balance, the compensation and working conditions of both groups were elevated by the rising tide of the of the new Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (“United Pilot Agreement” or “JCBA”), signed December 18, 2012 and amendable January 31, 2017 (Joint Exhibit 7)."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the AirTran and Southwest pilots both gain from the Southwest-AirTran JCBA? Did AirTran shareholders get 45% of the merged value of the new company? Trying to compare the United-Continental arbitration award to what a Southwest-AirTran award would have looked like is comparing apples to oranges. You and I both have no idea what an arbitration panel would have done in our case. Here is the quote that the arbitration panel wrapped up the United-Continental award with:

"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. ​

See Federal Express and Flying Tiger Pilots, (1990, at pp. 27-28.)."​

 

[list2002]

......... ...... .... ...

 

[ableone]

looks like Cal was looking for a AWA STYLE WINDFALL.

M

Ah yes a windfall, like the east proposal that furloughed pilots go ahead of lineholding west captains. But that's not a windfall.

 

[TWA Dude]

No actually I think the first two quotes put it quite clear what was wrong with the AAA/AWA sli, if it had followed this result, I'm sure they'd be on contract 2 or 3 by now.

What a shock that you don't understand what went on with this Award. Read it. You'll learn that these three arbitrators probably would've come up with exact same result as Nicolau. They would've fully considered the length of service of the furloughees and concluded their poor career expectation overrode it.

Furthermore, you Easties should learn once again that putting forth an unreasonable proposal only pisses of the arbitrators. After reading the text of this Award I believe it is completely reasonable. Assuming we progress to an AA-US SLI I pray USAPA learns from this since you're obviously incapable of doing so.