Eddie, would you be alright with everyone holding the same percentage on the same equipment post-merger they did pre-merger (less retirements)?

No. That's straight relative seniority, which gives absolutely zero credit for status, class, category, and longevity. You know, the things that actually ARE specifically mentioned in ALPA merger policy.

Also, what date are you suggesting using? LCAL keeps throwing around April 2013, which is a VERY different seniority picture than the 2010 merger date. The company started retiring LUAL 757's since they had LCAL 737's to replace them with. Not much to talk about until and unless we are talking about the 2010 seniority list

But they talk about the today list, with 500 United pilots counting as "pilots below them". So they want it to sound worse than it is.

We are all aware that absent of a merger, CAL would not have magically opened bases in DEN, ORD, and LAX, and started flying UAL routes they had never flown before.

The new flying that CAL has picked up is UAL flying, and being flown by UAL pilots who will not end up at the bottom of the combined seniority list. They will be integrated with weighting given for their longevity, some as many as 7 years worth.

I can't predict exactly what the SLI will be, no one can. But I can predict a few things that WON't be in it.

Each SLI decision is used in the future to fine tune ALPA merger policy and to set precendents that are also used in future SLI's.

So what do I think absolutely will not be used in our SLI?

For one, a snapshot date any later than Oct 2010. Why? It would set a horrible precedent. If 2013 is used, the l-CAL side gets rewarded for sandbagging and delaying the JCBA. Heck, why not drag it out a bit farther? 2020? All the l-UAL pilots will be pulling gear on CAL jets. They have to use a 2010 date or all future SLI's and JCBA's will be delayed as long as possible by whichever side has the short term advantage.

There is one other factor about setting precedents that I would be very worried about if I were a l-CAL pilot. The CAL merger committee lied for 3 years about the unavailability of actual l-CAL date of hire information. They presented CALex DOH for a lot of pilots without designating it as such, in a "certified" employment data list. In effect, they attempted to harm the SLI position of all l-UAL pilots with falsified data.

For the arbitrators to NOT somehow punish the bad behavior of the CAL merger committee might set a bad precedent. Allowing lying and deceipt to go unpunished, might promote such behavior in future SLI's.

If it were a court of law and not an arbitration committee, someone would be severely punished for the actions of their committee.

I can also see ALPA merger policy being modified to be specific about snapshot dates, and maybe having ALPA national being more involved in the JCBA negotiations.

What has gone on for the last 3 years at UCH has been an abortion.

You make a couple of good points. Furthermore, there are two scenarios that could cause ALPA national to reject the agreement. One is complete ignoring of a ALPA merger guideline. (Example: Longevity). The other, is, as you said, the rewarding of delaying the SLI by the use of a later snapshot date.

Lets hope that that doesn't happen.

What does binding arbitration mean to you? It doesn't mean a rejection of the arbitrators ruling...that's the risk, and we all will have to live with it and move on...

GB, I'll make this simpler and give an example since what I wrote was misinterpreted.

Is it reasonable to expect to hold the same position you held pre-merger after the SLI?

Example: On May 3, 2010 your seniority was that of a WB FO, regardless of what you actually held ("above" your seniority, i.e. Captain, or "below" your seniority, i.e. NB FO). On November 3, 2013 would it be reasonable to expect to be a WB FO (or better due to intervening retirements)? I'm including status and category and using a single 2010 "snapshot." I'm not including longevity because I'm interested in hearing the how and why it should be used beyond "it's ALPA merger policy."

I agree with you.

For the record, I don't think the arbitrators will go so far off the reservation as to substantiate an appeal to ALPA national.

I was just agreeing with the post saying that the arbitrators would stray far from precedent and policy if they followed the Continental proposal's view of snapshot date and longevity. And my point is that it would be a lose-lose for everyone.

............not even worth the response "Gilligan"............with apologies to Bob Denver.

NEW faces in the next combined MEC is a must
Tell both ex UAL and ex CAL executive and local officers

"Thanks but you got to go"