Everytime I read your post it is no wonder your group has had the reputation that it does. I know all of the folks there are not like you but it sure doesnt help reading your input.

You might want to check the transcript.

Really? Well they have been coming back and still are. Many of them had more longevity on the merger date than a 2005 hire.

Plus those pesky 1995-1998 hires (about 3,500 of them) that were never furloughed and have 15-18 years of longevity. You can't really think a 2005 hire at the "narrow body gauge airline" is going to be granted an additional 10 years of longevity over the pilots from the "widebody airline".

I'm betting the arbitrators use ALPA merger policy. Others are praying they completely ignore it.

It's this kind of lie (or cluelessness?) that makes you look foolish.

And by many, I think you mean all of them except perhaps the bottom ~200 hired in 2007-2008 which have nearly identical longevity as the 147 furloughed CAL pilots of the same period.

again with the namecalling when losing a discussion:) you guys crack me up...the crayola crayon comparison is making its stereotype justified

Pot meet kettle.

Ok, I went to the ALPA.org site and, of course, couldn't find the new merger policy. The old policy had, if I remember correctly, 5 things that they considered. Could someone post what the new policy contains. Also keep in mind, that while you want the arbitrators to follow ALPA merger policy they can essentially do what they want now that it is in their hands. That was the big drawback that was explained to us over and over. That is also why we wanted three arbitrators versus just one.

Yup, the 5 required factors for consideration are now 3. Of interest, DAL suggested a solution that generally followed policy while NWA suggested DOH (not in policy). We all know how that turned out.

Here's an article from ALPA that summarizes the revised policy.

FWIW, one of the three arbitrators in DAL/NWA is the head arbitrator in our case so what is old is new again.

Sorry...I didn't mean to upset your delicate sensibilities. How about I just say "Please read some accurate historical records with an open mind, re-evaluate your assumptions and beliefs, and then make more believable contributions to this forum. Or else you will continue to appear less than credible. Thank you for kindly considering my observations."