Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CAL/UAL Senority List Intergration already done???

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


Well-known member
Feb 29, 2004
Just curious why CAL ALPA is not gearing up the "merger fund" as they were back in 2008 with just the rumor of a merger on the horizon. Could the list already be agreed to since both CAL ALPA and UAL ALPA have been talking for over two years now?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
Posted from another thread but equally relevant...

The merger committee chairs for both CAL and UAL served on the ALPA Merger Policy Review Committee which overhauled the policy last year. What that means is that they both have a clear understanding of the new process and the pitfalls of 'lawyering up' and handing your fate to an arbitrator (or arbitrators). I would be surprised if this turned into a cash cow for Katz or any other lawyer who is used to USAPA like spending on merger related arguments. Times are changing and it is up to pilots to end the gravy train for the lawyers that think that inciting pilot wars is an acceptable way to earn a living.
Excerpts from the revised ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy (circa 2009):

· Integration of seniority lists is one step in the entire merger process; the merger is one transaction, consisting of the seniority integration process, the contract negotiation process, the ratification process, andthe transition process (both as to the carriers and ALPA governance), all leading to a single pilot group and MEC.


The policy provides for its implementation using either of two methods.

Under one method, the involved MECs may determine “at any time” (Part 2B 2) that it is in the best interests of their flight deck crew members to enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration, negotiating a JCBA or both. If this determination is made, with the approval of the President, the MECs have wide latitude to fashion their own process, subject only to meeting certain fundamental requirements of policy (Parts 2B 2 and 2C 1).

This feature of the policy provides the MECs with the flexibility to deal with their particular situation. It is also important that these policy provisions enable MECs to make these agreements “at any time,” even before there is a “merger” as defined by policy, so that cooperating MECs can be involved in a potential merger at an early stage.

Under the second method, if there is a “merger” as defined by policy and the MECs do not enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration and negotiating a JCBA, the policy is implemented through a “Process Implementation Date” (PID). The policy calls for the PID to be established on the earlier of the date on which the Executive Council, in its judgment, determines there is a merger or the date on which the President agrees with the determination of all involved MECs that there is a merger (Part 2B 3).


Many years of experience call for a seniority integration policy based on the following principles:

1. This policy calls for fair and equitable integration of seniority lists, but aside from the specific requirements embodied in policy, what appears to be “fair and equitable” typically differs depending upon the eyes of the beholder and it may be difficult to reach a consensus or there may be no consensus on what is “fair and equitable.”

2. The merger representatives are strongly encouraged to consider themselves primarily as negotiators charged with reaching agreement, to use negotiating skills and to make a strong and focused effort to reach agreement through negotiations or mediation, without invoking arbitration.

3. The merger representatives for the pilot groups bear responsibility for the integrated seniority list, with ALPA having no position on the merits.

4. The merger representatives should recognize the difficulty of forecasting what will occur well into the future.

5. ALPA’s role through this policy is solely to provide the process by which the pilot groups conclude the integrated seniority list for presentation to management, using arbitration if necessary, together with the opportunity for MECs to agree on alternative processes that meet their own needs.

6. If agreement cannot be reached, final and binding arbitration is mandated by this policy on unresolved issues. Each pilot group must recognize that the arbitration process involves the assumption of very substantial risk to the interests of the pilot group, since there is no means of predicting the outcome.


The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:

§ Career expectations.

§ Longevity.

§ Status and category.

f. No integrated seniority list shall be subject to MEC or membership ratification.

g. It is recommended that outside legal counsel not participate in direct negotiations.

Excerpts from the revised ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy (circa 2009):
One should note that the current chairmen of the UAL and CAL merger committees were both directly involved with the 2009 policy re-write and this will be the first major implementation of the revised policy.
Since there was a "near merger" in 2008, and all the talk of consolidation, you are surprised if they really have most details of a SLI worked out?
If Jim and Dave (and their respective committees) are given latitude to develop solutions free from meddling MEC's then I suspect they will reach an agreement in principle. Any minor matters that cannot be agreed in negotiation can be submitted in isolation to an arbitrator (or arbitrators).

Latest resources