Originally Posted by ChrisJT6

Well if you agreed to the process...I assume you are speaking of the ALPA merger policy? Yes!Please accept my criticism of your reps lack of regard for the process when they disregard the usage of any portion of the current policy in favor of whatever suits them Criticism noted!...how is that honor and ethics?They are allowed to state the case however they want using ALPA merger policy as guidelines!! I also don't think high level of honor and ethics when your team is passing off a huge portion of your list with inaccurate longevity data according to ALPA definitions all while doing a good job of hiding data until Fred retires and the Arbs demand and get it this week. May want to do some research on this, I've explained topic several times on different threads!(I was one on the transition people you talk of so no secret longevity!!) Please save the honor and ethics lecturing for another day, this is not a good time for it. May want to read my post again, I was talking about MY ACTIONS so I don't think I'll wait till another day!! Try telling that to some of your counterparts about our mid-80 hires-not a good time to lecture!!

That is great you won't file suit if it doesn't go your way...just curious what possible legal basis for not getting a list based not on the current legal drivers, ALPA merger policy. So was the NIC award!!!! Didn't stop them from decertifying!! Shows what type character they have. My WHOLE point that I guess you missed was before I go to battle with someone I want to know there character!! Many posts on here question CAL's pilots, Merger comm. and pilots on here. They are legit, I was just stating how is yours? That comment just hit me the wrong way in original post!!

Process = Current ALPA merger policy

Originally Posted by CleCapt

Lax, that is NOT it.

New policy states " to include but not limited " to the items you listed.

It's in writing. Read the policy. No witnesses required.

The arbitrators are free to include ANYTHING they feel is appropriate in putting the list together.

Originally Posted by FL370

Don't have a dog in the fight, but I bet the arbitrator will take the date of the merger and make 1%=1%, 50%=50% etc. Anyone furloughed at that date, stapled to the bottom. The emotional responses in these threads are rather entertaining.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

Cle,

I'm buying the beer regardless, but I have to ask some questions?

Your point is well taken, but what point would you like to include that is not in the list? How much weight would you give that point, and what part of the CAL argument persuades you that the arbs are looking at that point?

Lastly, how angry would you be if the answer is stovepiped category and status sorted by ratios and only including active pilots as of Oct. 2010?

Joe Peck
IADFO

Originally Posted by Gupboy

Some of you guys are really setting yourselves up for a huge surprise when the arbs actually use the "new" ALPA merger policy. They will use the three tenants, and they will use their discretion applying logic where the carriers have inequities that the three tenants cannot comprise a "fair and equitable" award. That is the entire reason the policy is written the way it is. LUAL pilots (and I don't blame you) want the three and only the defined three tenants included. It simply isn't going to go down that way. There's no way that only those tenants can bring a fair and equitable award. Fair is no windfalls, no one moves up or down more than a couple percentages. Career expectations are considered, and active service only is considered.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

Alright Gup, I take that bet. You are so wrong it's not even funny. The arbs are going to stovepipe category and status and include most of the furloughed positions and the CAL pilots are going to have their head handed to them.

If you want a bet just send me a PM because you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried and I can't wait for the "I told you so" moment to come.

Originally Posted by Gupboy

No problem...if the arbs use only the three written tenants, I'll be the first to admit it here, and I'll live with the outcome. I'm not concerned at all.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

If it looks anything like the UAL proposed list it means they only used the 3 tenants. That's all the UAL team used.