Originally Posted by
Scott Stoops
Actually, it also substantially increases the longevity credit for many CAL pilots (nearly 3 years to be exact) while the corporation was being managed by a single entity. There is no way to predict what would have been for either company post Oct 2010 (merger closing date) sans merger. We can all presuppose to our heart's delight based on the color of our respective uniforms, but there is no precedence for what the CAL side proposed in that matter. What happened after that date should have no bearing (has not ever in any merger to the best of my knowledge, nor has a date later than the merger closing date ever been used by an arbitration panel) on the SLI process. We'll see if the arb panel agrees. Scott
Not that anything we say will matter to the arbs, or to each other (mostly), but there is also ZERO precedent in any board using the proposed UAL methodology. As far as a single management ... Why does that matter when that single entity was managing each side IAW the contract in place and the TP&A, meaning, each side was still operating with the equities they had on MAD, so the time from MAD to JCBA complete is a just representation of what those equities produced. Again, it really doesn't matter ... The arbs will reach the fair and equitable threshold no doubt.
When the award is published, folks won't be using MAD to judge the award's fairness; they will look at where they currently sit, and where the award puts them; when the award becomes effective, the effect of the award won't somehow be "magically" metered back to MAD, but rather, the effect on one's QOL will immediately be triggered to one's current position. Using the MAD or MCD only benefits the UAL side, and will crush the CAL side.