APC225,

While there certainly could be any possible twist in the approach taken by an arbitration board, aircraft not on the property at either airline have never been considered germane by boards in their final decisions. Again, it is who is on both lists, where they sit, and what equipment that is present at the snap shot that develops the hypothetical picture going forward in the "career expectation" evaluation and determination of the SLI.

Case in point, had the merger happened a few years ago when UAL still had hard 320 orders of 40 or so and 20 options (cancelled for I can't remember how much) they wouldn't have played squat into the arbitration. Sure either side can argue for those "promised" aircraft and career expectation.......then the arbitrator will dismiss it when the SLI is determined.

Current number of pilots, aircraft, percentages of wide bodies vs narrow at the time stamp determined will be the baseline that exists in a vacuum for the rest of the process. Yeah, they assume that the 747 will be around for the most junior UAL guy on the list to retire on if that was his/her expectation when the picture was taken (i.e. UAL will continue to have the same fleet size and ratio of WB/NB). We all know and so do they that the aircraft won't be there. But, there is no better way to approach the issue without making baseless assumptions. Airline X is made up of this number of pilots and percent of wide/narrow bodies. Airline Y is....... Now, they begin the process.

This isn't addressing modifications to ALPA merger policy but stating that aircraft on property are just that. And, aircraft on order are the same. They don't exist and are but promises. They might come, they might not come. To assume either outcome as true disadvantages one side over another based on an assumption. Therefore, they go with the status quo as their "given" in the equation they are trying to solve.

Go read a few decisions and find the "we got X aircraft order" means nothing in this arena. You can't possibly treat both sides "fairly" based on assumptions of aircraft on order. Lawsuits would multiply by a factor of ten over what they probably will be. Rather you make a baseline based on today and a perhaps fictitious, yet legal assumption, of status quo through out the career of aircraft type and ratios to come up with the final answer to try and balance the equation to result in the same career expectation and/or the damage inflicted to both sides to be equal. Isn't right or wrong. There is just no better answer.

The board might think UAL will tank in 12 months due to the economy and fuel prices when the time comes for SLI. Doesn't matter. They'll approach it as I have stated and come up with their best answer based on the facts existing at that time.

Frats,
Lee