Originally Posted by
Denny Crane
Bar,
Isn't one of the tenets of ALPA merger policy that is supposed to be considered career progression? Couldn't the arbitrators have looked at the NW retirements and their dilution caused by the merger as lost career progression? If so, I do not see that any precedent was set other than their interpretation of ALPA merger policy.
Denny
Nope, that is not what it says. Here's a cut and paste:
5. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, in no particular order:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
I'm just pointing out that:
(1) The award failed to adequately consider status quo, meaning relative seniority by category and class.
(2) The career long manipulations to the list were already substantially invalidated within eight months of the award.
Also, not complaining about this merger. This one is done. Just getting my "I told you guys that you were not going to like where this is taking us" prior to the Alaska, or part of US Air, or United, or who knows what sort of transaction.
Nu wrote a very even assessment of the merger outcome. My concern is how this precedent is applied going forward.