That has normally been the legal basis and definition in the courts.

 

Well it may and if it does that would be unfortunate. It is as you say what it is.

WD at AWA

 

How much seniority did a pilot with 10 years length of service at US Airways have on 19 May 05, relative to the seniority of a pilot with 10 years of service at America West on the same date?

 

The same. LOS is the norm.

 

What you fail to accept is the reality that it doesn't matter what ALPA merger policy WAS if you simply could NOT solidify it with a vote. Even ALPA knew that, tried to explain it to you, and in fact changed not only their merger policy but solidified it but putting the SLI arbitration into the CBA effectuating the outcome AFTER the everything lee in the CBA is in effect?

 

If LOS is the norm the NW guys got screwed in the DL merger.

 

Absolutely. But they had their years of service discounted by ALPA to that's ok.

 

In all honesty, I don't see much difference from the LBFO debacles. Acceptance of the MOU (and even going to Parker) was a risk. The risk was the atmosphere would change in regards to vastly improved industry profitability and AA profitability (the point of the C11) and if it did, we would have few tools to capitalize on that. We'd have to rely on a new boss who wouldn't take advantage of the situation and us. We lost that risk. The new boss is the same (if not worse then) as the old. Over at Envoy the argument against them is that Parker needs competitive costs to level the playing field. Here, we we ask for competitive compensation and his "requirements" change. APA has known that all along and has known they have looked bad to a large percentage of their constituency by promising things they rarely, if ever deliver and last week, another effort was made to rally the troops, only to be deflated in subsequent APA and one specific reps blasts.

The situation is the same as it was last weekend. Any talk of an ILC (Miami) was wishful thinking and counter-productive in seeding unrealistic expectations. The fact is, most of APA list of "wants" will not be achieved and the few that are will be significantly diluted. Most of Parker's wants WILL be achieved, but also have some dilution. Scope is off the table and pay will be at or close to offered and both sides will able to then say what APA is really already saying now, i.e., that this is preferable to arbitration and it's the best achievable.

It will meet the minimum criteria APA needs to "sell" it (a requirement by Parker, just as the LBFO's were) and many will be disappointed, but many relieved. It will pass ratification and that will be that. Personally, I think LOS supporters will get MAYBE a one or two-year bump and (hopefully) duration will be ratcheted back to 2019. Parker will get most if his wants with modifications to the two-hour call out to more surgically address that issue. Some other minor changes are likely, but over all, it will be a compromised offer that let's APA out of the hole they've placed themselves (again), at least in their eyes and Parker still looks strong and savvy to his bosses on the BOD.

 

As for the SLI hijack now in progress, again LOS is but one component of an SLI and to what weight this component will have is undetermined. It was one of 3 chosen in the revised ALPA merger policy (ironically due to the U/AWA disaster), but isn't required in this SLI. It may be adopted and X weight placed on it, but that will be decided in the next fracas after APA and Parker agree to JCBA terms.

 

LOS has never been the norm. Take a look at the history of mergers over the last 40 years.