Special,

Personally I could care less what the merger committeeS (plural) argue. All sorts of things are going to be presented by both sides to argue the respective positions. Our side will probably argue positions which offend S-UAL pilots (as referenced by your post) and your side will argue positions that would likely offend S-CAL pilots.

They can argue shoe size, height, weight, bowling score, aircraft type, longevity, golf handicap, earnings, bases, number of commuting pilots, work rules, stronger scope language, etc. etc. for all I care. (The only thing I don't want them to argue is ego as both groups certainly have no monopoly on that as a factor.) I want both sides to argue EVERYTHING that they feel makes their case so that we all know our sides did the best job they can shut down these DFR lawsuit theorists from the start.

Remember this is part is an adversarial process that would likely tick off the majority of the pilots if we were in the room during oral presentations. Luckily, and hopefully, both our sides have calmer, cooler, non-emotional advocates who will do their job making their positions clear without it resorting to personality issues with the other side.