You, sir, clearly have no clue. I have read the ENTIRE award, and just because I don't agree with YOUR interpretations, as I would guess MANY don't as well, you have no right to call anyone names. If you can't make an intelligent argument, as is demonstrated by your juvenile, elementary school style of debate, you should educate yourself. I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall. Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side. I guess we'll see who prevails soon enough, and my money is not on the West. No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this.
I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!
So you claim to have read the ENTIRE award. (and YOU claim that I employ a juvinile, elementry school style of debate.)
"I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall."
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the word windfall means. The arbitrator clearly found that taking a pilot who held a captain seat and subjecting him to downgrade and furlough while at the same time taking a pilot who was currently furloughed and placing him in a position where he could hold that same captain seat, while the first pilot was on the street, was clearly a demonstratable windfall by one at the expense of another.
Some of those pilots on the bottom of the AWA list had actually quit USAir (ie not furloughed, they quit because they saw no future there) and decided to cast their lot with AWA. This is indicitave of how the two carriers were viewed. (For all the claims about what a world class place USAir was and how fantasic and real the career expectaions were, there is not a single example of an AWA pilot making the opposite migration.)
Leaving all that aside, YOU see a windfall in the fact that a pilot with less than a year was placed ahead of a 17 year pilot. I must ask, what gain did the west pilot experience and what loss did the east pilot feel in this situation? Did the west pilot's bid position in terms of pay, equipment, schedule etc. change in any way? Similarly did the east pilot's? The answer is no. The two pilots could hold the same schedules, seats etc after the award as before. If you knew anything about arbitrations you would know that arbitrators do not like to pretend that they can see very far into the future. A fair decision to them is one in which results can be measured as much in the here and now as possible. By this measure the final award resulted in the smallest ripple in the pond. That is to say the day after the Nicolau award was theroetically adopted there would be very little if any change to the seniority effects for any pilot on the combined list. The same can not be said of the east proposal, however.
"Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side."
Really, the list the arbitrator used was incorrect? (excuse me, INCORRECT) Please explain to me why and how this list was incorrect. The east did not dispute the west list once during the arbitration process. As I pointed out earlier even the east's final combined list showed the disputed pilots as inactive. Please point out to me where in the award, or the arbitration transcripts, the arbitrator decided to use the west list over the east's. You can't, because in fact the seniority lists used were agreed to ahead of time and were exactly the same.
"No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this."
Thank you for urging me to "get educated." I, in turn, urge you to learn how to express yourself using english. "No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator" I am not sure what concept you are trying to convey here but I will surmise it is a ham handed attempt to call into question the arbitrator's impartiality. I believe you are claiming that either ALPA national or the west had some form of direct input into the final deliberations of the arbitration panel and that no one will acknowledge that it happened, or did not happen, and who is the they that the phrase "no-one" represents? Very confusing.
"I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!"
Believe me, I am not the one who should be embarassed by this exchange.
I will however correct my final statement; You have now tied for the most idiotic post of the day and both of them are yours. I congratulate you on this achievement as it would have been difficult to achieve even if you intended to win the award.
