Originally Posted by
SEDPA
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.
There is far less history of a 1:1 slotting and staple the rest that Cal proposed. It literally addressed 1/2 of 1 of the 3 basic tenets of the current ALPA merger policy. We'll know soon enough what the arbs thought of each sides argument.
Originally Posted by
SEDPA
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.
I could care less what folks use to judge the awards fairness (2010, 2012, 2013, current, hell, why not 5 years from now?) The arb's don't either. What there is is precedence, and the setting of precedence for future awards. It won't crush either side, it will simply normalize it to what actually happened when the two companies merged in 2010. Take away delay, divert and leverage and we have 2010 when one management team in a legal sense started making decisions about fleet makeup, structure and staffing.
Scott