Originally Posted by
LAX Pilot
We are all smart enough here to figure out what the CAL committee was trying to accomplish. Instead of being realistic they "shot for the moon" trying to set a far argument to grab as much seniority as they could. Instead of trying to present a reasonable list, they just went 1 for 1, ignoring everything else.
The list was insulting, immature, and not done in good faith.
Not only is their proposal not likely to even be considered by the panel, it has fostered a sense of anger from the UAL side, as can be witnessed on this forum.
Once again LAX with respect...
Anger over what? It's just a proposal. As sure as most of you are about your place in the SLI, why would it even affect you? Some of you are getting pretty worked up for a group so sure of their career expectations, longevity, and status/category. Is their an underlying sense of uncertainty? Because the reaction indicates there is.
The reality is the merger policy purposely gives immense latitude to the arbitrators because of the potential for uniqueness in a merger. (such as ours) Why do you think the arbitration is binding? Because that "merger policy" could be torn apart by a 1st year law student with a 2.0 GPA if it wasn't.
I also think the reality is we are all smart enough to realize this could end up different than you expect it to. The question is how will we all handle ourselves if it does? The high road and be a professional and do your job, or be a miserable pita for the rest of your career. I know which road I will take.
Thank god this scenario isn't being governed by the RLA. There's no "good faith" required. It's about both sides presenting a case for themselves. You don't think the CAL proposal is fair and equitable.We GET it. That's why 3 neutral's will make the ultimate decision.
Let your side present it's case....then let the arbitrators do their work.