Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 1394372)

You mean the last one that was in January 2011, had a total of 8 posts back to Oct 2010, then nothing until May of 2008. Really?

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1394673)

Quality post Mr. Special . . .

quality.

I guess it was entertaining for you though so good work. Sorry if my optimism is upsetting to your delicately balanced global cynicism. I'll work harder next time to be more negative with my posts. I'd hate to be accused of changing the mood on APC.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1394718)

I'm afraid you misunderstand my post. I completely agree with you. After the ISL there will be plenty of opportunities for us. The high number of retirements will create bids and advancement. Once the true economic value of the merger comes to fruition, will strongly compete with DAL and AMR resulting in a UAL growth platform for many years to come.

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1394755)

Well that wouldn't be the first or last mistake I've made for sure.

My sincere apologies; I thought you were trying to say I was a cute cheerleader and we all know that's hitting below the belt :D

Originally Posted by Maxepr1 (Post 1393448)

Looks like the Ual guy is wrapped up in the seniority list at cal, even mentioned Litigation on it.. Funny how he found something to dwell on, there ya go. Looks like a law suit coming from the UAl side. Take long as you like. Sounds like US air all over again.Go ahead and sue no imotional impact here. When's the next bid due out?;)

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1394624)

You can not alter the number of wb aircraft in your fleet and historically that has been the single biggest factor in deciding ISLs.


In recent history:

USAir/Am West, category/class/ratio
DAL/NWA category/class ratioed,
Pinnable/Mesaba/Colgan category/class DOH (that's the most recent ISL under the "new" ALPA merger policy).


You can argue that 767-400s are the same as 747s until you are blue in the face. You can debate career expectations until you are blue in the face. You can debate who had better financials until you are blue in the face, but remember USAir was on the verge of liquidation, they had zero career expectaion and they got category/class ratioed. Pinnacle bought Mesaba and Delta told Mesaba they were eliminating 75% of their fleet, they had zero career expectation, and still the arbitrators went with category and class and DOH. Turns out career expectations are really hard to quantify and adjust for, but category and class is really easy to count.


There are most definitely absolutes you can't alter, UAL had more WBs and longer longevity on average. Those are absolutes. Argue that CAL deserves credit for better future expectations all you want; it won't change the absolute facts.

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1394624)

But,

I could be wrong

Originally Posted by 13n144e (Post 1394783)

You seem to have convinced yourself of the unassailable superiority of your position. Good for you to be so open minded. I'm not entering anymore futile, fruitless debates on the percieved equities of one side or the other. I wouldn't want to dampen your false sense of security. However no single merger has had such a simplistic resolution as you suggest. That's why arbitration generally lasts several months, the awards run near 100 pages, and neither side is ever completely happy with the result. I'll grant you one absolute; it's absolutely clear that the "new merger policy" that is the mantra of s-UAL, absolutely provided for binding arbitration by placing the UPA ahead of the ISL. Binding arbitration will actually be binding. Out of curiosity, what is your source for the Bloch Award for Colgan-Mesaba-Pinnacle. Have you actually seen the award is that more useless ACP crap your so fond of interpreting? If you've actually seen the award, please provide a link.



You are.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by 13n144e (Post 1394783)

Out of curiosity, what is your source for the Bloch Award for Colgan-Mesaba-Pinnacle.