That makes no sense whatsoever. ALPA's merger policy is negotiate->mediate->arbitrate. No promises since going to arbitration is always a crapshoot. What possible other methodology could ensure one side doesn't take advantage of the other?
Pilots have proven over and over that given the chance they'll craft an integrated seniority list that "protects" their own and screws the others. Witness AA/TWA and what USAPA is trying to do. You don't want to be compared to either of those scoundrels, do you?
First, you're right: I certainly don't want to be compared to those scoundrels.
I didn't mean the "negotiate, mediate, arbitrate" part (although in this case, one could argue that ALPA's position has always been stall and push for arbitration). What I meant is that their
manner of merger policy (that constituent locals agree to) is based on DOH and Relative seniority, period. Unless the two carriers are EXACTLY equal in age, size, money, etc., these manners are always unfair to one side or the other. If the two carriers ARE equal as I described (age, size, etc.), then DOH and relative should be the same (and probably the fair way to do it). However, in
real life, they never are. In
real life, no two carriers are exacaly equal. In real life, the two criteria are almost universally contradictory... Just look at your own situation, Mr. America West guy: America West wanted relative to favor themselves; USAir wanted DOH to favor themselves. Those two positions were
worlds apart. Why? because the two airlines were worlds apart in nearly every quantifiable descriptive. Both sides just cherry-picked from ALPA what favored them in this case.
As a rule, DOH favors the older company, regardless of company performance or viability. Relative favors the weaker performer, regardless of size (or any other metric, for that matter). Hence, being locked in to one or the other (or both!) ahead of time is an arbitrary prejudgement and inherently unfair in a real life situation.
That's what I meant.
Bubba
