[quote=Typhoonpilot;268489]
That sounds so good when somebody who doesn't have a clue about the demographics of the pilot group reads it. It also doesn't take into account the fences that the AAA plan had.

Can you tell me which prior integrations put a value on the age of the pilots in each group?

If the AWA plan had included a component where a specific pilot maintained his relative position based on attrition at his previous expectation then it would have been fair.

Had the AAA MEC plan included a componenet where each pilot maintained his realtive position and bidding rights, with base fences, that would have been fair. As it was, the AAA plan called for the effective stapling of a pilot group with similar aircraft (with the exception of a small number of wide bodied aircraft), a better contract, better pay rates and a stronger company that had not entered into its second bankruptcy in two years.

DOH or LOS with fences were the best answer.

IMHO, relative position with fences is the best answer in this case.

At the end of the day, neither the arbitrator that AAA agreed to, nor either of the pilot nuetrals who participated in this arbitration came to the conclusion that LOS was the best form of integration. After hearing the evidence and arguments of both AAA and AWA, they correctly came to the conclusion that relative position for the seat you hold is the best integration methodology in this case.

That's not to say that relative position is always the best methodolgy, or that in some integrations DOH or LOS might not be the best methodolgy, but in this integration it is.