Mr. SpecialTracking is right on point...chill out and enjoy the ride. It's all spelled out in the policy.

Most would do well to read it.

 

What many are doing is defining a pre-determined outcome. Then they either manipulate current ALPA merger policy or completely disregard it in favor of past precedent prior to policy revision. They do this to achieve their desired SLI scenario to benefit them at the expense of others.

What do I want? First and foremost, I want to choke the proverbial golden goose til it lays those eggs. Second, I want a SLI born of the current policy. If the outcome is the result of those parameters, then so be it.

 

I believe your placing too much emphasis on the "changes" in the "new" merger policy to define your own pre-determined outcome. The only "change " in the policy was the addition of longevity as one of the factors that may be considered. Having spoken to the person responsible for this addition, it was meant simply to further clarify the policy that was already in place. And, yes, he will be on hand at our SLI arbitration to point this out. Nothing in the previous terminology prevented longevity from consideration and nothing in the current version singles it out. Just the opposite. If you read through the DAL/NWA arbitrator's decision, particularly the arbitrator's analysis, I haven't found any evidence of where this additional term would have made much of a difference. With all it's "in no particular order and no particular weight" and "shall include but not be limited to", the language in paragraph (e) of our merger policy still remains intentionally vague.

 

Like I said, within the bounds of the current merger policy. I am neither discounting nor emphasizing anything within it. That is for the arbitrators. Placing too much emphasis on the changes? Really, what scares you CAL guys the most?

 

Mostly your flight attendants.

 

Is that a Momma complex or you just don't know what to do with the ladies?

 

Wow, finally something both UAL and CAL can agree on. Ground breaking. Negotiations should go smoothly now.

 

You have to look at the source. The guy has no clue!

 

Thanks for interjecting more of your senseless, irrelevant drivel, Dexim. BTW, the whole "Slick" thing is really getting old.

 

OK, seriously. I can't speak for all CAL guys, but as for myself, I'm most afraid of a USAIR-type scenario where ineffectual, paralyzing lawsuits drag on for the duration of my career. I think having realistic expectations of the process on both sides will help minimize the potential for this scenario, but I keep hearing a lot of misinformation - particularly in regards to the "new" merger policy that was changed "because of" the NWA/DAL decision. That's simply not the case. ALPA formed the Merger Policy Review Committee (MPRC) in Oct 2007 and charged it "to review, evaluate, and make recommendations" regarding existing ALPA merger policy. One of the members of the MPRC will be present at our ISL arbitration. Most of the changes recommended by the MPRC actually refer to the processthe MEC's and MC's follow to arrive at arbitration and actually implement some of the positive developments of the NWA/DAL decision. We're seeing the effects of a lot of these decisions now, i.e. the JCBA. The sole change to actual integration considerations (the addition of "longevity" to the factors that may be considered) wasn't made as a knee-jerk reaction to some perceived ground swell of dissatisfaction with the NWA/DAL decision. It was just made as a step to give some further clarification to the extremely nebulous guidance on seniority integration. We would all do well to keep in mind that it is still exceptionally vague and remains that way intentionally to give the arbitrator(s) a great deal of latitude in reaching his/ their conclusions (not coincidentally minimizing ALPA's liability). The minor "changes" in the actual integration guidance don't do anything in particular to reinforce NWA/DAL but it certainly doesn't do anything to minimize it as a precedent either.