In going through the sequential "steps" that have already delineated via the TPA will only help bolster ALPA's stance concerning any future/potential DFR filed suits that "may" arise.

Regardless if all parties (L-CAL/UAL MEC's) suddenly/mutually agree to "skip" a step(s) in the prior determined TPA (SLI negotiated avenues via direct/mediated/arbitrated paths), it would leave "legal questions" in the future as to why the TPA's (ALPA 'sponsored') outlined path was deviated from during the SLI process.

Having future Plaintiff's say that they were not fairly represented by parties in the process can be "subjective". However, when sequential avenues were completely omitted in the process (even though they were mutual/MEC agreeed) as mentioned above, that could lead to glaring questions as to "WHY" when future DFR suits are heard in court.

Anyway you cut it, ALPA Nat'l is already 0-1 over the last decade when getting sued in a major DFR/Merger suit......a'la TWA v APA. My money's on ALPA legal making sure ALL parties follow the agreement to the "T". It's no secret, today's world is a litigious society.

<sorry about the drift>
Course Corrected.