Originally Posted by 13n144e

I believe your placing to 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 in clude but not be limited to", the language in paragraph (e) of our merger policy still remains intentionally vague.