Originally Posted by
SEDPA
So contrary to the popular blue side mantra, there was an immediate swing of up to 25ish% in relative seniority when the reference point is pre merger policy change precedents and pre-JCBA contracts.
No there wasn't. No where did anyone move close to this.
I've heard the comparisons which are CAL 2013 list that has 600+ LUAL pilots on the bottom of it, compared to the UAL 2010 list without furloughees. That's called "skewed" and not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Also....
Let me ask you this. Does longevity mean anything? if so, does it skew relative seniority. What does policy say about longevity?
Also, does "status and category" mean anything? If so, does it skew relative seniority? Would you be happy with a relative seniority merger with Expressjet?
I think the "relative seniority" list that was put out in 2010 by someone set the benchmark for a relative seniority merger. That seems to be all I hear about.
Relative seniority doesn't mean anything. The only reason DAL/NWA was close overall was because longevity was not part of merger policy, and both carriers were close in types and ratios of airplanes they flew from top to bottom.
Maybe if the CAL proposal was relative seniority, the arbitrators would have accepted it. But that wasn't proposed.
Also, ALPA didn't force the CAL MC to put forth a proposal that was so far out of policy, it was likely (and ultimately) to be completely disregarded.