Page 21 &22..."Conclusions about the Build Models"

[HighSpeed]

65% Status and Category
35% Longevity

(Longevity was defined earlier in the opinion as TIME IN SEAT)

- To Bad for CAL that UAL had a much higher percentage of wide bodies

 

[Crucianpilot]

At this point, it's a waste of time to sit here and argue about who's right and who's wrong so lets just call it a day and move on.

 

[eaglesview]

I'm actually not a fan of including longevity in the policy. But let's be real here. This is a relatively new policy, and your own Merger Committee chairman was on the committee that crafted that new policy. Your MEC chairman was also on the Executive Board that approved that new policy. Not a word of dissent from any pilot group when the new policy was approved. Complaining about it after the fact is just sour grapes.

Not a new policy but a return to the policy the way it was before the USAir mess. The lack of longevity is a contributor to the mess they are in right now.

 

[PCL_128]

Not a new policy but a return to the policy the way it was before the USAir mess. The lack of longevity is a contributor to the mess they are in right now.

The lack of longevity in the policy is what lead to the most fair award in the AAA/AWA case. Including longevity would have created a windfall for the AAA pilots at the expense of the AWA pilots. We were attempting to fix something that wasn't broken just because a bunch of entitlement-minded a-holes at AAA threw a temper tantrum. There are many good elements in the new policy, such as JCBA before SLI, but bringing longevity back into the mix isn't something that I favored.

That said, I think the arbitration panel did a great job of including longevity, but not allowing it to skew the award and create a windfall. Their acceptance of the hybrid methodology, but tilting it more towards category and status, was an excellent way of going about things. Hence why arbitration and allowing a panel of neutrals to make decisions on this subject is always the best way to go.

 

[rudder]

There are many good elements in the new policy, such as JCBA before SLI, but bringing longevity back into the mix isn't something that I favored.

That said, I think the arbitration panel did a great job of including longevity, but not allowing it to skew the award and create a windfall. Their acceptance of the hybrid methodology, but tilting it more towards category and status, was an excellent way of going about things. Hence why arbitration and allowing a panel of neutrals to make decisions on this subject is always the best way to go.

There is no formula as to the weight of the longevity factor. Nor does the policy limit the factors to just those listed and therefore permits parties to attempt to argue any other additional factors that they can reasonably sustain. Lastly, the policy uses as a default a multi-arbitrator panel as opposed to a single arbitrator and neutrals.

The combination of these changes to ALPA Merger Policy significantly negates the possibility of a 'rogue' decision. And the policy also permits the affected pilot groups to settle as many issues as possible and if necessary to just submit unresolved issues to either a single arbitrator or a multi-arbitrator panel. All in all, a significant improvement from previous policy.

There is no merged list that comes about as a result of arbitration that will please all of the pilots. Submission of the entirety of the matter to an arbitration panel almost assures that there will be larger groups of dissatisfied pilots. The revised policy generally supports reasonable positions from merger committees. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[PCL_128]

Agreed. Which is why I was in favor of the new policy overall. My area of disagreement is in including longevity as a factor, which I don't believe should enter into a seniority equation.

 

[eaglesview]

The lack of longevity in the policy is what lead to the most fair award in the AAA/AWA case. Including longevity would have created a windfall for the AAA pilots at the expense of the AWA pilots. We were attempting to fix something that wasn't broken just because a bunch of entitlement-minded a-holes at AAA threw a temper tantrum. There are many good elements in the new policy, such as JCBA before SLI, but bringing longevity back into the mix isn't something that I favored.

That said, I think the arbitration panel did a great job of including longevity, but not allowing it to skew the award and create a windfall. Their acceptance of the hybrid methodology, but tilting it more towards category and status, was an excellent way of going about things. Hence why arbitration and allowing a panel of neutrals to make decisions on this subject is always the best way to go.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the fairness of the USAir arbitration. I am not about to get into that old and tired subject.

 

[eaglesview]

Agreed. Which is why I was in favor of the new policy overall. My area of disagreement is in including longevity as a factor, which I don't believe should enter into a seniority equation.

Longevity should be a factor and a big one. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[St. Nic]

DOH = No questions asked

 

[Crzipilot]

He doesn't like longevity 'cause he paid for his job, and has attempted to leap frog his whole career......longevity would sink him