Slowplay,

I am confused at what you're point is. If it's that DAL is more likely to win with the arbitraitors and they shouldn't compromise because you're sure to win but a win for either side would be a loss for both then wouldn't that contradict you're premise of not moving from your position?

Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded. Further, our argument that we have no desire to bid DAL equipment for ten years was to demonstrate to the arbitraitors that we are not looking for a windfall.

My point, and let me clear on this, is that I do not feel that neither Date of Hire nor Relative Seniority would be good for the combined airline. A move to the middle where we split our differences, and I personally would lose 850 numbers of seniority per DOH under that scenario, would be preferable to having either an arbritration board dictate our seniority or having one side win out. Neither side wants 5000 plus pilots or 7000 plus pilot disgrumbled and disenfranchised for the next twenty years.

My vote is we go to the middle. Any takers?