Arbitrator's Motive?

[nycbusdriver]

This is just a thought that crossed my mind, and maybe someone more knowledgeable with the process can weigh in.

George Nicolau is 85 years old. Up until now, he has been in great demand as a mediator/arbitrator. When the process starts, each side gets to strike out arbitrators that they do not want until there is only one left.

The really bad ones (based on previous decisions) get knocked out early in the game. In our case, Nicolau was the last man standing. And, being popular, it seems to have happened to him a lot.

That being said, maybe at age 85 he wants to take it easy, but still remain on the panel of arbitrators (and likely get paid a minimum salary for "being available" and qualified.) By issuing a really bad, poorly reasoned award, he basically takes himself out of the play (out of the real work) because now he will be one of the arbitrators struck early in any future process.

In effect, he likely just semi-retired himself by screwing the USAirways pilots. And he will likely keep his job and salary until the undertaker arrives.

Just a thought. Follow the money.

 

[exB717Flyer]

In our case, Nicolau was the last man standing.

Not correct. Nicolau was chosen on the third strike out of five or six choices.

 

[ussnark]

Just a thought. Follow the money.

Consider, also, the pilot neutral from UAL, our next mergee.

In order to get those pesky US pilots to present less of an obstacle for an up-coming merger, likely getting the most vocal to resign from ALPA further neutering the "fair" doctrine of seniority (DOH vs assignment by financial manager) and helping set up the biggest merger yet.

Note the UAL neutral made no comment about a stream of conciousness that would seriously advantage the UAL pilots in a US-UAL merger. The only dissent was from CAL, who, IMO, was truly a neutral having no likely dog in this fight.

 

[700UW]

Maybe he did not like Capt Laurance Chip Munn?

 

[safety stud]

Maybe he did not like Capt Laurance Chip Munn?

Come on now, did anybody really like Chippy...?

 

[TechBoy]

I think that you guys are starting to grasp at a few too many straws here. All 3 members of the panel agreed on 90+% of the decision. They gave a reasoned opinion on why they did what they did. That doesn't mean that there are no good arguments for doing it differently, it just means that they did come up with a logical rationale for their decision. I can understand why many East FOs are very unhappy with the decision. But that does not mean that there is a some great conspiracy against you.

Personally, I think the decision is fairly reasonable with one exception. I think that the slotting ratios on the bottom half of the list should have been more favorable to East. Although it is likely that many of the East FOs would have been furloughed without the merger (at least 15%), it is also true that the high retirement rate in an unmerged East would have pulled them up the list faster (after they had a couple of years of furlough). I think that calls for a higher slotting ratio.

A significant amount of the problem was East's insistance on DOH, which would have been extremely unfair to West. Indeed, that would have been much worse than the problems with the current decision.

It strikes me that the best solution for this problem is to get rid of the ridiculous pay system that pilots have. Tying so much of pay to size of aircraft makes no sense. It doesn't take any more skill or effort to fly a 767 than a 737. It doesn't make any sense to pay more for it. (Don't give me the productivity argument -- if that's true, then you should get paid by the number of pax and weight of cargo.) If the new contract got rid of this anachronism and paid by seat and seniority, then it wouldn't matter much whether you made it to a widebody or not. Not to mention that it would save significant retraining costs -- savings that could be put into pilot's pockets. Think about it . . .

 

[nycbusdriver]

It strikes me that the best solution for this problem is to get rid of the ridiculous pay system that pilots have. Tying so much of pay to size of aircraft makes no sense. It doesn't take any more skill or effort to fly a 767 than a 737. It doesn't make any sense to pay more for it. (Don't give me the productivity argument -- if that's true, then you should get paid by the number of pax and weight of cargo.) If the new contract got rid of this anachronism and paid by seat and seniority, then it wouldn't matter much whether you made it to a widebody or not. Not to mention that it would save significant retraining costs -- savings that could be put into pilot's pockets. Think about it . . .

I agree that the most likely scenario to ameliorate the mess that Nicolau casued will be pay-based. It won't solve all the problems or assuage the outrage felt by most of the east pilots, but more money always helps.

But, I will give you the "productivity argument" just as a matter of historical perspective. When I was hired almost 30 years ago, we WERE paid by aircraft speed and gross weight! It was there in the contracts. ALPA (from regulated days) had developed a formula based on these criteria. So, effectively, we have been paid by the number of seats and weight of the cargo, which are both figured into the gross weight criteria.

These formulas (which have been abandoned) were the reason why the pilots who were flying the DC-6s, -7s, Boeing 377s and Super Connies back in the 1950s had a windfall pay raise when the 707s, DC-8s and CV-880s came on line. The new speeds and weights were order of magnitude higher than what they had been flying, so their paychecks were also raised by orders of magnitude.

 

[oldcrow]

One thing that has not been mentioned, didn't Nicolau come back and ask both parties if they couldn't work out a deal or help him to work out a deal several weeks after the hearings ended ? Why would an arbitrator make that request several weeks after the final hearings ? Seems like he was having trouble making a fair decision on his own. Didn't the east attorney Katz tell Nicolau that we will stay with our original position ? Not sure what the west side told him.

Could it be the east side appeared arrogant and overconfident and Nicolau said to himself "I'll show you" ?

Just points to ponder.

 

[Benz M-100]

""Could it be the east side appeared arrogant and overconfident and Nicolau said to himself "I'll show you" ?""

It seems to me that if that were the case and it could somehow be proven, the award should immediately be vacated. The arbitrator's job isn't to "show" or punish either side simply based on a percieved attitude.

 

[AWA320]

It strikes me that the best solution for this problem is to get rid of the ridiculous pay system that pilots have. Tying so much of pay to size of aircraft makes no sense. It doesn't take any more skill or effort to fly a 767 than a 737. It doesn't make any sense to pay more for it. (Don't give me the productivity argument -- if that's true, then you should get paid by the number of pax and weight of cargo.)

I agree with SOME of your analogy however a crew flying long haul int'l should be paid more than just an overide.

Now how do you get there is the question? When you have single pay you eliminate ship jumping as most will follow the dollar. I wouldn't want to fly to europe, china or any 8plus hour destination for the same pay I could get flying domestic.

What we all need to focus on is the fact that the seniority case is now over. We really need to turn all of our attention on getting this group to Pre BK rates and work rules. Money won't solve all the problems but it will sure take care of 98% of them

AWA320

One thing that has not been mentioned, didn't Nicolau come back and ask both parties if they couldn't work out a deal or help him to work out a deal several weeks after the hearings ended ? Why would an arbitrator make that request several weeks after the final hearings ? Seems like he was having trouble making a fair decision on his own. Didn't the east attorney Katz tell Nicolau that we will stay with our original position ? Not sure what the west side told him.

Yes this did take place in Feb where both sides were asked to come back. AAA returned to that meeting with the same DOH position. AWA came in with room for movement from our original position.

Could it be the east side appeared arrogant and overconfident and Nicolau said to himself "I'll show you" ?

Just points to ponder.

Not likely at all...

Case now closed on this subject time to go get those pre BK rats and work rules!!!!!!

I agree with SOME of your analogy however a crew flying long haul int'l should be paid more than just an overide.

Now how do you get there is the question? When you have single pay you eliminate ship jumping as most will follow the dollar. I wouldn't want to fly to europe, china or any 8plus hour destination for the same pay I could get flying domestic.

What we all need to focus on is the fact that the seniority case is now over. We really need to turn all of our attention on getting this group to Pre BK rates and work rules. Money won't solve all the problems but it will sure take care of 98% of them

AWA320
Case now closed on this subject time to go get those pre BK rates and work rules!!!!!!

 

[safety stud]

I agree with SOME of your analogy however a crew flying long haul int'l should be paid more than just an overide.

Now how do you get there is the question? When you have single pay you eliminate ship jumping as most will follow the dollar. I wouldn't want to fly to europe, china or any 8plus hour destination for the same pay I could get flying domestic.

What we all need to focus on is the fact that the seniority case is now over. We really need to turn all of our attention on getting this group to Pre BK rates and work rules.

Money won't solve all the problems but it will sure take care of 98% of them

AWA320
Case now closed on this subject time to go get those pre BK rats and work rules!!!!!!

For whom AWA320...
you...
This aint over...
Not by a long shot...

Just my opinion...

 

[Groucho]

ALPA national merger policy, prior to 1995, always had some reference to length of service , date of hire or othe measure of the contribution an individual makes to his airline in terms of service time.

A group of United pilots at a Board of Directors meeting in the mid 90's lobbied to change the methodology that had evolved over 60 years to it's current status which has very nebulous terms and no concrete methodology. It totally disregards service time and only state no windfalls and career expectations. What that does is effectively establish only a snapshot of the airline at a praticular time with no regard for past or future conditions. So the past service time of the east pilots and the attrition created by east pilot retirements does not enter into the eqauation.

The arbitrator could not find any precedent to turn to because virtually ALL prior mergers in ALPA gave at least some consideration to these items. What is the precedent of current ALPA merger policy, this award!

ALPA national merger policy will change as a result of this award but I am not sure that this award will change.
No sane pilot wants his entire future to rest on a snapshot at a single praticular time, very likely the worst time in his career, to define the rest of his career and lifetime earnings.

 

[allstrike]

Consider, also, the pilot neutral from UAL, our next mergee.

In order to get those pesky US pilots to present less of an obstacle for an up-coming merger, likely getting the most vocal to resign from ALPA further neutering the "fair" doctrine of seniority (DOH vs assignment by financial manager) and helping set up the biggest merger yet.

Note the UAL neutral made no comment about a stream of conciousness that would seriously advantage the UAL pilots in a US-UAL merger. The only dissent was from CAL, who, IMO, was truly a neutral having no likely dog in this fight.

Oh no here we go again :angry:

 

[AWA320]

AWA320
Case now closed on this subject time to go get those pre BK rats and work rules!!!!!!

For whom AWA320...
you...
This aint over...
Not by a long shot...

Just my opinion...

No Safety Stud it's over, trouble is you just don't know it yet!! I will help you though, it's called BINDING ARBITRATION you agreed to it and you submitted your side. ALPA nation can't step in just because you don't like the award. Consider if you will that ALPA is much larger than your (AAA) pilot group and there is no way in hell that they are going to sacrafice ALL for you. No carrier in the future would ever trust ALPA to do a merger.

You guys need to refocus your energy on getting the industry setting contract we all need.

 

[AWA320]

ALPA national merger policy, prior to 1995, always had some reference to length of service , date of hire or othe measure of the contribution an individual makes to his airline in terms of service time.

A group of United pilots at a Board of Directors meeting in the mid 90's lobbied to change the methodology that had evolved over 60 years to it's current status which has very nebulous terms and no concrete methodology. It totally disregards service time and only state no windfalls and career expectations. What that does is effectively establish only a snapshot of the airline at a praticular time with no regard for past or future conditions. So the past service time of the east pilots and the attrition created by east pilot retirements does not enter into the eqauation.

The arbitrator could not find any precedent to turn to because virtually ALL prior mergers in ALPA gave at least some consideration to these items. What is the precedent of current ALPA merger policy, this award!

ALPA national merger policy will change as a result of this award but I am not sure that this award will change.
No sane pilot wants his entire future to rest on a snapshot at a single praticular time, very likely the worst time in his career, to define the rest of his career and lifetime earnings.

I disagree with your assessment. In the past mergers were conducted between two like carriers. You can not expect a carrier that is 50yrs old and one that is 22yrs old to come together in an DOH environment and believe that's fair. Come on, AAA was weak and on the verge of collapse when we came along. You guys were the SECOND thought as we were going with ATA!!!

I doubt we'll see any changes to the merger policy. What the easties fail to realize is that their relative position really didn't change.