Originally Posted by Sink r8

That doesn't actually make sense to me, so I'll try to pull up facts to support my disagreement...

The policy was changed in 2009, the only time I remember this happening as a Delta pilot. It's now based on three factors (from a thread on the DAL forum):

Administration Manual Section 45 Merger and Fragmentation changed 04/30/2009 Section 45.C. 4.e. 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 integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:
§ Career expectations.

§ Longevity.

§ Status and category.

If I look up Bond-McCaskill (Airline Legal Alert: Allegheny-Mohawk LPP Amendment Added to FAA Reauthorization Bill - Ford Harrison - Labor and Employment Attorneys), this is the standard:

A requirement that provisions be made for the integration of seniority lists "in a fair and equitable manner," including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the airlines and the representatives of the employees affected. The LPPs did not define "fair and equitable."

So, one standard has three factors just validated through a recent arbitration (UCAL), to define "fair and equitable". The other has, as best I can tell, no actual standard beyond "fair and equitable". Both require arbitration in the absence of a settlement (as if).

As discussed in the other posts, above, SWA didn't get the upper hand on AirTran because because they're independent, they gained the upper hand because a) their management was playing on their side, and b) when AirTran was independent, they didn't negotiate a suitable fragmentation clause, therefore they could not force an integration under Bond-McCaskill. They brought in ALPA late in the game, which didn't change their contract in time.

The companies we're talking about (PD thought Alaska) have fragmentation language. In fact, I believe Alaska just bought themselves more fragmentation language in their latest TA. I think they can force an integration with an acquiring company. Under that scenario, the question becomes whether we want to be arbitrated under the merger policy, or Bond-McCaskill.

Clearly, the better choice is to have the equities defined as career expectations, longevity, and status + category. Think about how the Delta pilot compares to the Alaska pilot under those standards, vs. just "fair and equitable".

If we were to make our choice on representation purely on the hypothesis that we're going to merge with Alaska, we would not pick DPA. If anything, the Alaska guys, if they were sure a merger might come, and this was their only factor in picking representation, they would try to get out from the ALPA merger policy.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

Of course, as 80 pointed out, it's easy to refuse what's never been asked.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I'm not aware that's ever been asked of them, but I'm no expert. Prove me wrong.

I'm not being sarcastic: I just don't know of any example.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Again, this is only the latest change to ALPA merger policy. It was changed prior to the UAL/CAL merger...which is currently a hot topic on those threads. The claim is that the UAL MEC pushed for the changes and got them to disadvantage CAL guys.

The fact that the policy has changed so many times over the years makes it a political football. Can't really count on it.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I thought they took Muse Air, and Morris Air, the way a python merges with a mouse. One if the two, not sure which, they didn't take the people. My history doesn't go that far back.

So, they've had straight-up acquisitions (assimilations, really). No outsourcing attempts, right?

Originally Posted by Sink r8

So we agree it changed once, four years ago. One of the three qualifiers, anyway. Bond-McCaskill has no qualifiers. And it's not been tested via arbitration for a major yet.

The merger policy got tested just last week.

If you were shopping for a product proven to integrate airlines, you would go for the merger policy. In fact, both before AND after the change (two words), I would think a Delta pilot would naturally prefer the policy, and a pilit group with a single airplane, low longevity group, would prefer Bond-McCaskill.

I don't think this topic favors DPA at all. You have made better cases on other issues.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I've never tried to make it a case for DPA. I wouldn't change from ALPA if this was the only point of contention.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

But again, I don't like this whole discussion of trying to portray other independent unions as 'not as successful as they appear', so ALPA can look better.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

People keep saying an independent union is not as strong as ALPA, their aren't really any cases or examples where that can be proven.