Wish I could say that's true but many didn't have that kind of seniority. If it fits your revenge plans then go ahead. This has nothing to do with age 65 except for the vindictive.

Ref. The age 65 thing came about by the BPGC and it's mandatory age of 65 for full pay. With pilot mandatory retirement age of 60 this would have been a 5 year hit in pay. The Akaki amendment would have given an exemption for pilots and give 100% pay at 60. They could have afforded that but over time everybody due PBGC benefits would have expected full pay at 60. This they couldn't afford. Simple solution was to raise the pilot mandatory age to 65.

Yes, there will be a temporary downsizing of the 757 base in SFO. However, once ISL is complete, there is a lot of CO 757 flying in SFO that really needs a base. This flying will shift to the combined list, and I bet that the 757 flying in SFO will stabilize after we fly each other's planes. Might take a while, but I'd bet the number of positions will end up about the same as today.

Well if those were ordered for you guys at l-UAL doesn't that un right size you for the merger and would affect your SLI argument about the guys that got furloughed when the 737's were parked? Or maybe parking the 757 was extended right sizing for the merger and you guys should get even more career expectation and longevity credit for further right sizing?

I think that's what I'm gonna like about working with the LUAL guys, you guys can put a positive spin on anything like parking mainline aircraft and adding rj's is a good thing for career expectations. I like working with upbeat people.

Assuming it is done, what is the rationale for ALPA to sit on it till after labor day? Who gains other than more CAL pilots get training dates?

The Arbs haven't yet summoned the 2 "specialists" from both sides to construct the list within their decided upon framework. We are still weeks away from the order and award.

Maybe. Then we can add back in the status and category of another 700 narrowbody Captains, and remove all the "furloughed" status and category pilots.

But the UAL side didn't try to make that stretch. They brought it up as reference. I'd be SHOCKED to see the arbitrators not mention that in their decision.

Actually, in NWA/DAL the statement "mergers do not happen in a vacuum" was used to explain why Katz proposal wasn't valid compared to Freund, who won that integration.

Don't confuse "haven't summoned either of the two CAL specialists" with haven't used any of the specialists. They only use them if needed.

What would you think it means if they have questioned the UAL specialists, but not the CAL ones?

Just wondering...

I think it means nothing, as denoted by Eischen in his closing remarks:

"Each of the Committees has designated
qualified individuals to serve as their members of the Technical Assistance Team at the request of this Board of Arbitration.
The mission of that team is to assist the Board in number crunching and running of some various and sundry alternative views of a potential ISL and dot charts.
All judgments concerning the instructions and assumptions for those various alternatives will be made by this Board.
All judgments concerning fairness and equitability are reserved exclusively for this Board.
Our Technical Assistance Team colleagues are charged with following instructions from us, and are not going to be called upon and should not be -- should not have impugned to them any judgments concerning what they're being asked to do."

Both "Merger Committees' Technical Teams are running various lists for the panel this week and have been asked to remain available for further list construction through the end of the month."
That's a quote from a member of the CAL Merger Committee last week.
Since you were wondering...

It takes a technical specialist to "fine tune" a 1 for 1 list.

LMAO