Originally Posted by Scott Stoops

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.
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