Originally Posted by
SEDPA
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??
You are totally correct. 50% for longevity credit is ridiculous.
UAL's committee should have simply proposed the 100% credit that the arbitrator decided was fair in the prior integration conducted under the "new" policy when he sorted each status/category by straight DOH to account for longevity.
Hopefully the arbitrators in the UAL/CAL case will toss out the outrageous UAL proposal and simply follow the prior precedent established by one of the most respected and experienced arbitrators.
Originally Posted by
SEDPA
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.
Seriously???
The entire Pinnacle award was based on status/category groups sorted by straight DOH. Longevity, as measured by DOH, was the
only thing that sorted each group.