Originally Posted by
larryiah
Hey, our opinions are swayed by our own situations. When this merger was announced, these two companies were competitors. Everybody had the opportunity to apply to both of these companies at one time or another. We live with the decisions we make. Sometimes these decisions work out, sometimes they don't. I don't deserve the effects of your decision as you don't deserve mine. Longevity will be a very small piece of the equation.
Well at least the three stated facets of the ALPA merger policy were APPLIED in the LUAL proposal. The LCAL proposal was just some pie in the sky dream list based on... well.... nothing. Question: Do you think that the current ALPA merger policy (which the LUAL list was based on) should be cast aside and the LCAL methodology adopted as the NEW ALPA merger policy? If so, let's examine what it says:
Take the LCAL merger policy and apply it to a merger of, say, Alaska. They are profitable, strong, and healthy. They have around 1,500 pilots, and we have 12,000. Using the LCAL methodology, you go 1 for 1 until you run out of Alaska pilots, then you staple the rest of the United pilots underneath. So the pilot that was hired in 2013 the day before the merger would go to #3000 on the combined list, and would probably be able to instantly hold widebody Captain.
Fair?
And Ben Salley, if you are reading this, I noticed in your update that not one word was mentioned about how RIDICULOUS this LCAL proposal is. Just castigated our furloughed pilots for not licking your boots in thanks. And all this under the guise of being a "team player".