We won't be deciding the seniority list, won't have a single thing to say about it, so the point is really pretty moot.

Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.

At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.

For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.