[QUOTE=SoCalGuy;1138573]As you say, "That's all well and good....."

This thread started by presenting the question/asking the opinion of what should come first.....SLI vs JCBA. As stated earlier, it's black/white per a standing policy. Until that is reformed formally by way of policy change, everything else resides in the same zip-code as Fantasy Land. As the two groups work together to get something by way of an industry leading JCBA, the whole is greater than the two halfs. Inject the SLI prior to obtaining that JCBA (especially when some rattle sabers of future litigation), it will by most accounts fall by the way side of what we've seen prior in the USAirways Merger. In my opinion.....could be worse.....MGT-1 vs UA/CAL-0

************************************************** *************************************************
As far as being "black/white", if you read the ALPA Merger Policy, that may not me entirely correct. Here's the excerpt from the policy. So far JCBA then SLI is the process that UAL/CAL is working by, but the way I read it they can agree on another method. Not saying anything will change, just pointing out that there is flexibility if agreed to that's all.
************************************************** *************************************************

ALPA Merger Policy...

"This policy establishes processes based on these premises, to be followed by pilot groups from the outset through the completion of the merger. However, broad authority is provided to MECs to design and agree on alternative processes that meet their own needs. The basic policy serves as a “governing” process in the event that the MECs do not desire to or cannot reach such agreements.

The policy recognizes that MECs may be required to deal with a variety of types of corporate transactions and that innovation by MECs dealing with different types of corporate transactions may best serve the interests of their pilot groups and ALPA. MECs are strongly encouraged to consider using flexible arrangements available under policy to design processes tailored to the needs of their particular pilot groups and transaction. MECs are encouraged to keep in mind that flexibility is made available in recognition that a “one size fits all” process is not the best approach when dealingwith transactions.

This policy provides at the outset that its scope (Part 2B 1) should not be defined in terms of particular types of transactions or the timing or announcement of transactions, all of which are controlled by corporate interests, but rather in terms of situations when there is a need to protect employee interests.

Thus, a “merger” is defined as a situation where there is a reasonable probability of sufficient operational integration between or among two or more ALPA airlines that there is or will be a need for an integrated seniority list, a JCBA and a merged MEC to adequately protect the employment interests of the flight deck crew members. Its scope also recognizes that MECs may desire to make agreements “at any time” – for example, before there is a “merger” as defined by policy – to enable A successful merger requires the full support of ALPA MEC and Local Council leadership for its implementation.

ALPA members will be kept informed and up to date through responsible communications, and an environment developed to foster unity and strength in negotiating the JCBA. Unity of purpose, based on close cooperation among Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) members and between the participating MECs, is essential to bringing about a work force that will obtain benefit from the merger through successful negotiations.

Integration of seniority lists is one step in the entire merger process; the merger is one transaction, consisting of the seniority integration process, the contract negotiation process, the ratification process, and the transition process (both as to the carriers and ALPA governance), all leading to a single pilot group and MEC.

The policy provides for its implementation using either of two methods.

Under one method, the involved MECs may determine “at any time” (Part 2B 2) that it is in the best interests of their flight deck crew members to enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration, negotiating a JCBA or both. If this determination is made, with the approval of the President, the MECs have wide latitude to fashion their own process, subject only to meeting certain fundamental requirements of policy (Parts 2B 2 and 2C 1).

This feature of the policy provides the MECs with the flexibility to deal with their particular situation. It is also important that these policy provisions enable MECs to make these agreements “at any time,” even before there is a “merger” as defined by policy, so that cooperating MECs can be involved in a potential merger at an early stage.

Under the second method, if there is a “merger” as defined by policy and the MECs do not enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration and negotiating a JCBA, the policy is implemented through a “Process Implementation Date” (PID). The policy calls for the PID to be established on the earlier of the date on which the Executive Council, in its judgment, determines there is a merger or the date on which the President agrees with the determination of all involved MECs that there is a merger (Part 2B 3)."
************************************************** ************************************************
Sorry for the bad formatting!