OK ... I will play that game .... we are all aware that absent a merger, UAL would not be magically flying L-CAL routes today that they had never flown before ... YOU GUYS JUST CAN'T ACCEPT ANOTHER PERCEPTION OF REALITY ... UAL had no protections at all in their contract w/respect to merger flying hour ratios, but you got them in the TP&A, and the company did not violate those ratios ... so how is it that we stole your flying??? If anything is true, when the company moved flying around, you gained WB flying at our expense.

There is no smoking gun in any of the transcripts w/regards to ALPA's intentions when they changed the merger policy, and specifically why longevity was added ... nothing at all in the testimony to support the UAL proposition of a 50% longevity credit ... nothing at all. If the merger policy review committe had intended longevity to be credited as UAL proposes, why didn't they spell that out, or why didn't your MC bring forth a witness or witnesses to support this claim?? In fact, if you read the testimony from both sides (direct case of each side), both sides pretty much testifed that merger policy was a. changed as a result of US/AWA, b. that the policy wording was "cleaned up" to three factors, and c. the focus is on fair and equitable; fair and equitable are the thresholds, not the three factors. Furthermore, read the Pinnacle award; longevity really didn't play much of a factor in that integration; certainly not to the extent that the UAL MC has proposed. I just don't understand how so many can be so convinced in the longevity argument. I hope that the arbs do use longevity, but it has to be balanced with the bidding power of each pilot on the list ... do you want to lose 30% bidding power day one after SLI??