Originally Posted by
SpecialTracking
What many are doing is defining a pre-determined outcome. Then they either manipulate current ALPA merger policy or completely disregard it in favor of past precedent prior to policy revision. They do this to achieve their desired SLI scenario to benefit them at the expense of others.
What do I want? First and foremost, I want to choke the proverbial golden goose til it lays those eggs. Second, I want a SLI born of the current policy. If the outcome is the result of those parameters, then so be it.
I believe your placing too much emphasis on the "changes" in the "new" merger policy to define your own pre-determined outcome. The only "change " in the policy was the addition of longevity as one of the factors that may be considered. Having spoken to the person responsible for this addition, it was meant simply to further clarify the policy that was already in place. And, yes, he will be on hand at our SLI arbitration to point this out. Nothing in the previous terminology prevented longevity from consideration and nothing in the current version singles it out. Just the opposite. If you read through the DAL/NWA arbitrator's decision, particularly the arbitrator's analysis, I haven't found any evidence of where this additional term would have made much of a difference. With all it's "in no particular order and no particular weight" and "shall include but not be limited to", the language in paragraph (e) of our merger policy still remains intentionally vague.