Bingo, and the group you and I find us in have been down this road far too many times my friend.

The CAL side here on the forum really doesn't understand the history or mindset of what is left of the 2172/1473 group. I for one, will actively participate in any litigation action towards ALPA if we find ourselves STAPLED. Thats not a beef against the CAL pilots, but they pay dues into ALPA just as much.

So why even bring this up here? Well, yes, an arbitrator will make a binding decision. However, it cannot bind what both sides have already mutually agreed upon is in the best interest of all parties. A CAL MEC that does not acknowledge that a 1999 UAL type not be placed behind a 2007 CAL type ala staple job, for example, in an attempt to grab as much for its own group as possible, is just as GUILTY as a UAL MEC which refuses to defend the junior with as much fervor and skill as it would a senior 747 captain. This is exactly what the ALPA Merger Policy is supposed to safe guard against. Unfortunately, as Coto has said, we as a union have a very poor track record of corporately defending all of its constituents. This is not a slam against the average line pilot, except for their silence in speaking out, especially when it might mean that they not gain everything in which they feel individually entitled to.

The best outcome is one in which all parties win, or lose the least. You would think we as a union would be the first to grasp that versus standing in front of an arbitration panel in heavily entrenched positions.

KC