Right now, CAL looks better. UAL has way more retirements coming which would have helped a LOT!

The problem with "relative seniority" is that some guys who are supposed to retire in the top 2% and have a REALLY great last 10 years wouldn't break the top 20% if the CAL guys got their windfall.

I'm just glad relative seniority isn't a player.

Oh my word. You have done gone said it now. Incoming....

First, you might want to look at the retirement schedule in relation to size. Relatively, they are extremely close.

Secondly, you need to look at your "relative seniority" statement, and apply it to how our individual airlines current path was working out. That would change a lot of career expectations.

Thirdly, if you think relative seniority is not a player, you might want to check with your merger committee, both merger committees agreed it is a player.

Lastly, neither side will get a windfall, we will all be disappointed a bit except for #1...

A valid point which many fail to understand, ignore for their benefit, or spin for their own design.

You clearly can't or won't read huh??

This is ONE paragraph of the merger policy, ONE.



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:
(1) Career expectations.
(2) Longevity.
(3) Status and category.

I've read it.

I'm counting on the 3 listed parts of the merger policy to carry the most weight.

You're counting on something that is not mentioned, but in your mind makes perfect sense.

When lawyers get involved with the arbitrators, I would expect what is actually written down to carry the most weight.

Hopefully they'll bring up the CAL pilot who was involved with the USAir merger. He was pushing for DOH. We'll see if he had suddenly changed his mind now that HIS company is involved in a merger!:D

We'll see who's right in the end. A lot may be determined by "back room" deals involving certain pilots selling out others...

"In Arbitration, expect the unexpected"
Jim Brucia
May 2010

A rhetorical question, but why even have a merger policy? Who does ALPA merger policy actually serve?

Ahhh.....the irony considering the "Nicolau" US Airways SLI where Brucia (as a CAL pilot neutral) dissented and wanted to give status for furloughed US Air pilots, specifically:

"I do not agree with the Board's decision, in the particular circumstances of this case, to integrate only working pilots as of the date announcement, leaving all those on furlough at that date on the bottom of the combined seniority list."

Ultimately Nicolau referenced the dissenting opinion and wrote in his decision that he was bound to follow ALPA Merger Policy.

So much for unexpected outcomes in arbitration.

US Airways SLI Opinion and Award

Regardless, (3) gets more asymmetric every week.