Originally Posted by
Sunvox
A few minor nit-noids . . .
1) Although true the Mccaskill-Bond Statute uses the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions which do not include specifics like the ALPA policy, it does use the same words "fair and equitable" and given Arbitrator Eischen's long history I am confident that Category and Class will carry the day.
2) I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the UAL SLI with regards to longevity. The list was created using a mathematical sorting algorithm provided by UAL-ALPA. In the original UAL proposed ISL I was 500 numbers higher than I ended up. The reason this happened was because the original list was created with a 50/50 weight wherein Category and Class was equal to longevity, but in the final award the arbitrators used the tool to make the ratio 65/35 where longevity accounted for only 35% of the final result. This resulted in my losing over 500 numbers and instead of being mixed with '96 hires I was mixed with '98 hires.
But, like I said, really just nit-noid stuff.
It's a shame most folks have such a pessimistic outlook 'cuz I think this could be good for everybody if you can just somehow get it behind you.
And, you're welcome! It's all just entertainment on the inter-webs anyways and doesn't mean a thing in real life
If you read the award the Arbitrators were bound by ALPA merger policy and fair and equitable was based on that policy.
If you read the Republic-Frontier ISL arbitration, also by Eischen, I believe that approach is similar to our situation except that equipment differences are less disparate than they were at Republic-Frontier. The only equipment not common to both sides in respect of groups are Group I (E-190) aircraft.