US Pilots labor thread 5/3-

[nic4us]

A west pilot was never on the east seniority list,

I want to respond to more of this post but only have time right now for this sentence.

Actually, I believe there are something in the neighborhood of 100 +/- 25 former east pilots, who were furloughed from (and a couple even quit), USAirways, and were hired at AWA prior to the merger. These pilots retained recall rights to the east seniority list, but once the east started recalling they had to make a decision. Former east seniority or the already completed Nic award. As all of them have better seniority as their employed AWA selfs over their furloughed east selfs, they all elected to remain on the West. Now, along comes usapa, helping these 6 pilots who are junior to the 100 I mention, no matter how you slice it and these 6 are employed while others senior to them are furloughed.

 

[OTTER574]

I disagree. As I remember it the east pilots were allowed to go west, on the bottom of the list, instead of hiring off the street. When the west reduction came and they hit the street, they were allowed by the company and USAPA to recapture their east seniority, and new hires below them were furloughed. A west pilot was never on the east seniority list, so they could not go east, at least with NIC seniority because the TA said what I posted above. Now, I would say the they should have been able to go east if there were any new hires left (the so called, does it or doesn't exist 3rd list), but they are gone too. If the east need new pilots, I think west pilots on furlough should be offered slots on the east, at the bottom of the list, after anyone on the east list is called back. Just like the company did on the west, until we have a joint contract and then the combined seniority list is put into place.

You never answered my question. Show me an east pilot that is flying a west airplane in place of a west pilot. You can't, it hasn't happened, just like the TA said. Doug has clearly said the west is flying 24% of former east flying and the east is flying 4% of former west flying. Oh, that's right, you guys on believe him when it doesn't favor your argument. You guys always argue both side of this stuff.

Please read the TA in it's entirety such as Min Fleet/Min Block Hours/Growth Aircraft and the LOA's for Growth Aircraft such as B757's and E190's acquired after the us air/awa merger. The A330200's are still tbd if Growth Aircraft or not and waiting for an answer from east vp pilot ed bular and lyle hogg on this.

Talking with you about this kinda stuff is like having a conversation with my better half/wife....around and around she goes, where she stops nobody knows...LOL

 

[nic4us]

Nic4 why do you want equipment pay?

(tell me why a 757 pays more than an AB),

A 757 does not pay more than an AB on the West. 757/737/A320 all pay the same. However, we do now have payscales for A330 and E190.

Personally, I think that is an appropriate breakown for the futue. Widebody, Narrowbody, RJ.

If they all pay the same, you do not stop training and movement. Like you said, you do not want to fly the Atlantic at 65, so you bid the e190, but find out that 5 legs a day in and around weather ain't all it is cracked up to be either, so you bid back to the 330.

If it turns out that the greatest revenue generator for the company is the 190, I would say that should pay top scale, but somehow I do not think that will be the case.

 

[Pi brat]

I want to respond to more of this post but only have time right now for this sentence.

Actually, I believe there are something in the neighborhood of 100 +/- 25 former east pilots, who were furloughed from (and a couple even quit), USAirways, and were hired at AWA prior to the merger. These pilots retained recall rights to the east seniority list, but once the east started recalling they had to make a decision. Former east seniority or the already completed Nic award. As all of them have better seniority as their employed AWA selfs over their furloughed east selfs, they all elected to remain on the West. Now, along comes usapa, helping these 6 pilots who are junior to the 100 I mention, no matter how you slice it and these 6 are employed while others senior to them are furloughed.

Yes, you are correct, I stated it wrong. I think you know what I meant, as you said those that had east seniority numbers had resigned them before they were furloughed, or they would have indeed been able to return. They saw a better number with the NIC award. The 6 that came back east retained their original east numbers, they didn't start over with the new hires, correct?

When you get time how about answering my original question, show me an east pilot that is flying a west airplane in place of a west pilot.

 

[Pi brat]

Please read the TA in it's entirety such as Min Fleet/Min Block Hours/Growth Aircraft and the LOA's for Growth Aircraft such as B757's and E190's acquired after the us air/awa merger. The A330200's are still tbd if Growth Aircraft or not and waiting for an answer from east vp pilot ed bular and lyle hogg on this.

Talking with you about this kinda stuff is like having a conversation with my better half/wife....around and around she goes, where she stops nobody knows...LOL

Probably just as your wife has told you, we can stop anytime, just admit you're wrong! I've read it all, thanks.

The 757 and EMBs were dealt with by a.............what are they called, the Nicolau guy was one of them, you guys are so found of their awards? It will come to me..........

The A330s I've wondered about, even though there really has been no growth on the east either, we are much smaller than we were when the TA was signed and I believe both sides are around 1 from the min fleet, right?

 

[Freebird]

East Pilot/Usapa supporter,

Somewhat hypothetical question for you.

If true that Parker offered Delta +1 % in exchange for Usapa relieving the COC to allow a merger to go forward with UAL (or anyone). And Cleary/Mowery agreed, except; wanted Parker to accept a DOH list, to which Parker balked and said "Guys, No Deal. There is an injunction in place. We have already accepted the Nicolau Award" And yet Cleary ran off to desperately file an Emergency Stay, only to be denied; and possibly hurting the chance of any future merger, is this something you will continue to support?

Assuming the above is true, should Cleary/Mowery have run this by the BPR for a vote on what to do? Or just let these guys haphazardly make decisions that can cost you your job, with reckless abandon? Are you so committed to the cause of DOH (which you are not going to get) that you will continue to fight among yourselves....over what may amount to nothing, should the 9th rule against you?

Isnt it time to replace the leadership at Usapa for someone who's willing to represent the needs of ALL US Airways pilots? East and West?

Please respond with comprehensible answers/posts.

 

[Metroyet]

Struck a raw nerve here!! Now east pilots are white and west pilots are black = weird. I still think in 2010 the majority will rule in any USAPA vote.

Just read the post I was responding to. If you still don't get the meaning of my reply please feel free to PM me. It should be obvious...but then again....

 

[Black Swan]

East Pilot/Usapa supporter,

Somewhat hypothetical question for you.

If true that Parker offered Delta +1 % in exchange for Usapa relieving the COC to allow a merger to go forward with UAL (or anyone). And Cleary/Mowery agreed, except; wanted Parker to accept a DOH list, to which Parker balked and said "Guys, No Deal. There is an injunction in place. We have already accepted the Nicolau Award" And yet Cleary ran off to desperately file an Emergency Stay, only to be denied; and possibly hurting the chance of any future merger, is this something you will continue to support?

Assuming the above is true, should Cleary/Mowery have run this by the BPR for a vote on what to do? Or just let these guys haphazardly make decisions that can cost you your job, with reckless abandon? Are you so committed to the cause of DOH (which you are not going to get) that you will continue to fight among yourselves....over what may amount to nothing, should the 9th rule against you?

Isnt it time to replace the leadership at Usapa for someone who's willing to represent the needs of ALL US Airways pilots? East and West?

Please respond with comprehensible answers/posts.

I have seen nothing conclusive that supports the supposition that Parker actually made the Delta +1 offer. Nothing in print. If you have it, please post it so we can have a look at what was in it.

 

[Black Swan]

This 9th ruling is taking forever. Have no idea what is up. There are some thinking this is going to be sent back for a new trial. The legal eagles can comment on that.

 

[CallawayGolf]

This 9th ruling is taking forever. Have no idea what is up. There are some thinking this is going to be sent back for a new trial. The legal eagles can comment on that.

Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of those who want to further delay the inevitable implementation of the NIC.

IMO, the delay comes from the panel’s understanding that the implications of this case may go far beyond the intra-pilot struggles at US. IOW, they will issue a ruling that not only affirms the ripeness of this case, but it will also unequivocally elucidate how the ripeness requirement will be considered triggered within any DFR context. That is a tall order and one that I’m sure they want to get right because it could potentially affect every union operating in their jurisdiction. If the opposite were the case, it seems that they could have easily ruled the case was not ripe and simply indicated that ripeness is triggered when the DOH list was implemented by USAPA.

The twice-denied request to stay the injunction doesn’t seem to support the idea that they would remand this case back to the district court for re-trial.

 

[hp_fa]

There are some thinking this is going to be sent back for a new trial. The legal eagles can comment on that.

I have a few thoughts on this. The first is that the court is choosing to view this from a wide judicial perspective and that its opinion will also deal with the issue of finality of arbitration, which has a much wider audience that goes well beyond labor law and/or DFR law. The second is that it may be a split opinion and the dissenter is also writing an opinion.

Sending the case back for a new trial would, in my view, have made for an easier and faster opinion. The court could have said what the issues were that it found fault with and simply remanded for a new trial that would have addressed whatever issues needed to be addressed.

One more thought is the line of reasoning Cleardirect has been using and that that is if the court had issues with the injunction than it would have already lifted or modified that injunction. Instead, because Seham wanted to prod the court, it has rejected the Emergency Motion and clearly refused to take the revised opportunity to lift the injunction. That raises the prospect that the court has also now personally seen the lawyering of SSM&P and now understands more of the reasoning for the comments made by Judge Wake in the Finding of Facts and Law. I said it then and I say it now, the comments made by Judge Wake in that document were highly unusual and now the Court of Appeals perhaps understands the rationale.

Let me add one more (last) thought. The panel is expecting that USAPA will file for either an en banc rehearing by the full 9th Circuit or seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. As such it is making its own record of why it is ruling as it is so that if any future proceedings are to occur than the reasoning of the panel would be crystal clear that court. All appellate courts are cognizant of potential future proceedings, but based on the existing record of making and re-making every potential argument (no matter how stupid, repetitive or outside the normal practice of the law) there is no reason to expect USAPA's counsel to change tactics now.

Based on everything we know, which includes the time it is taking for the opinion to be issued and that the panel has so far refused to lift the injunction, I see no reason to expect anything but a substantive loss for USAPA. It may win a point or two, but I expect an overall loss. However, as I always state, it is possible that I am wrong.

p.s. - I was writing this post prior to Callaway's response along the same lines. It takes me time to type all of this....

 

[Black Swan]

I have a few thoughts on this. The first is that the court is choosing to view this from a wide judicial perspective and that its opinion will also deal with the issue of finality of arbitration, which has a much wider audience that goes well beyond labor law and/or DFR law. The second is that it may be a split opinion and the dissenter is also writing an opinion.

Sending the case back for a new trial would, in my view, have made for an easier and faster opinion. The court could have said what the issues were that it found fault with and simply remanded for a new trial that would have addressed whatever issues needed to be addressed.

One more thought is the line of reasoning Cleardirect has been using and that that is if the court had issues with the injunction than it would have already lifted or modified that injunction. Instead, because Seham wanted to prod the court, it has rejected the Emergency Motion and clearly refused to take the revised opportunity to lift the injunction. That raises the prospect that the court has also now personally seen the lawyering of SSM&P and now understands more of the reasoning for the comments made by Judge Wake in the Finding of Facts and Law. I said it then and I say it now, the comments made by Judge Wake in that document were highly unusual and now the Court of Appeals perhaps understands the rationale.

Let me add one more (last) thought. The panel is expecting that USAPA will file for either an en banc rehearing by the full 9th Circuit or seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. As such it is making its own record of why it is ruling as it is so that if any future proceedings are to occur than the reasoning of the panel would be crystal clear that court. All appellate courts are cognizant of potential future proceedings, but based on the existing record of making and re-making every potential argument (no matter how stupid, repetitive or outside the normal practice of the law) there is no reason to expect USAPA's counsel to change tactics now.

Based on everything we know, which includes the time it is taking for the opinion to be issued and that the panel has so far refused to lift the injunction, I see no reason to expect anything but a substantive loss for USAPA. It may win a point or two, but I expect an overall loss. However, as I always state, it is possible that I am wrong.

p.s. - I was writing this post prior to Callaway's response along the same lines. It takes me time to type all of this....

I say this is going to be just like when the mechanics get on your jet away at the gate after you found a mechanical problem. You are told, it may take an hr. An hr. later, the cowl is up, and the mechanics are busy under it. You are told another hr. You get something to eat. You come back, the tools are under the engine, the cowl is up, and the mechanics are gone. Then you get a new jet. As you prep it, you see your jet going to the hanger. Hmmmmm. Then you fly out, and back, and you see the same jet in the hanger, the cowl up. Next time through, the engine is off......And a bunch of other panels are open around the engine. So here it is, if it is an easy fix, fixed it gets, and fairly quickly. When it takes this much time, there is something serious happening. No easy fix, no quick sendback. They are doing a lot of work, and a lot of research. And that, usually means there was some serious problem with what somebody saw. I expect something is seriously wrong, or this decision would have come back, and back fairly promptly. The only other explanation could be they were just loaded with cases. That is the only other reason. Things easily remedied, get quickly remedied.

 

[Black Swan]

The longer a jury stays out, the bigger the problem of the case. If this thing was about the finality of arbitration, the ruling would have been easy, and fast. It isn't. I really see no substantive loss for ALPA as you say HP. I see this thing is all about labor law. Labor law is the point these guys are digging in on. And that will cover the arbitration issue. I am not going to debate trial points. I am just making the point that the longer this thing takes, the better it looks for the appellant. Had it been an easy ruling, the one the west expects, it would have been rendered. This is a big problem for this court, and you are seeing this in the time involved.

 

[luvthe9]

I say this is going to be just like when the mechanics get on your jet away at the gate after you found a mechanical problem. You are told, it may take an hr. An hr. later, the cowl is up, and the mechanics are busy under it. You are told another hr. You get something to eat. You come back, the tools are under the engine, the cowl is up, and the mechanics are gone. Then you get a new jet. As you prep it, you see your jet going to the hanger. Hmmmmm. Then you fly out, and back, and you see the same jet in the hanger, the cowl up. Next time through, the engine is off......And a bunch of other panels are open around the engine. So here it is, if it is an easy fix, fixed it gets, and fairly quickly. When it takes this much time, there is something serious happening. No easy fix, no quick sendback. They are doing a lot of work, and a lot of research. And that, usually means there was some serious problem with what somebody saw. I expect something is seriously wrong, or this decision would have come back, and back fairly promptly. The only other explanation could be they were just loaded with cases. That is the only other reason. Things easily remedied, get quickly remedied.

Yeah, just like when the dentist tells you there is just a little problem. Three hours later, you come out, dazed, swollen, and a nice pleasurable root canal. And you are 900 bucks lighter in the wallet..........

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

Brag, Boast and Spin it as you will. Here's an independent view of the truth.


UAL Merger Committee Update - May 4, 2010

Fellow United Pilots,

On Monday morning, United Airlines announced a merger with Continental Airlines. This letter is intended to provide information on the merger process and to let you know that the UAL Merger Committee is well-prepared to deal with this announcement. The Committee has a wealth of experience and diversity, and is well-suited to represent the interests of all United pilots.

We appreciate that a merger can create confusion and anxiety, and in that light we want to communicate with you about the salient points of ALPA Merger Policy and how we’ve prepared to work through an integration of the pilot seniority lists. But first, it is essential to a complete understanding of Merger Policy to understand the most recent seniority integrations and apply the lessons learned from those mergers to increase our opportunities for success.

US Airways and America West
In accordance with Merger Policy at the time of the US Airways (East) and America West (West) merger, the two pilot groups pursued a dual track approach that entailed negotiating a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) while simultaneously going through the process of integrating the seniority lists.

As provided for by ALPA Merger Policy, the two groups’ merger committees worked through negotiation, then mediation, in an effort to reach an integrated seniority list. Because they were unable to reach agreement, they proceeded to arbitration - the final step of Merger Policy. Each merger committee selected a pilot neutral from the list of ALPA Pilot Neutrals to serve on the Arbitration Board along with professional arbitrator, George Nicolau. As expected, there were great differences in the groups’ concepts of a fair and equitable merger. In basic outline, the East pilots proposed a Date of Hire integration, adjusted for length of service, subject to further conditions and restrictions (equipment fences) that would push the most senior West pilots down the seniority list, and inserted many furloughed East pilots above active West pilots. They did not move off that position throughout the process despite urging from the arbitrator. The West pilots proposed integrating the lists based on a series of ratios with all the furloughed US Airways pilots and some active pilots on the bottom of the list.

The Board held hearings for weeks and, months later, issued its decision. In its Opinion and Award, the Board integrated the seniority lists by reserving a number of positions (commensurate with the staffing of the A330 and B767) at the top of the list for the former East pilots on the theory that the West pilots did not have expectations to fly widebody equipment. The remainder of the list was an integration of active pilots through ratios derived from fleet and seat data. The Board also created a “fence” around the A330 and B767 flying, making those positions available only to East pilots for a period of four years, although those fences were to disappear – and did – if mandatory retirement was moved from 60 to 65. The former East pilots who were on furlough were placed at the bottom of the active list.

The Nicolau Award was accepted by the merged company but was never implemented. A majority of the pilots at the new US Airways (LCC) voted to change their bargaining agent to the US Airways Pilot Association (USAPA). A USAPA founding document tenet provides that seniority lists are to be integrated on a Date of Hire basis, however, to date, that has not been achieved. Changing bargaining agents resulted in terminating substantive talks on the JCBA. To this day, five years after the announced merger, LCC operates as two independent entities with two separate seniority lists, and both pilot groups are still working under their concessionary agreements. With litigation ongoing over the seniority list, LCC management has had little incentive to negotiate a follow-on agreement. Furthermore, the airline’s constriction coupled with the failure to integrate the lists has resulted in furloughs of the West pilots.

Delta and Northwest
The Delta/Northwest merger applied a different approach, based in part on the lessons learned from the US Airways/America West merger. There were some significant differences: the pilot groups were able to leverage professional relationships with the managements to expedite exchange of economic data that formed the basis for moving forward. The management teams conditioned the merger on the smooth and expeditious transition to an integrated pilot seniority list (Integrated System Seniority List or ISSL) and a JCBA. Unfortunately, although the two pilot groups and the prospective merged company were able to reach agreement on what would become a JCBA as well as an equity stake in the new enterprise, they were unable to reach agreement on the ISSL for months. When consensual agreement on an ISSL could not be achieved, the Delta pilots successfully modified and extended their CBA along the lines tentatively agreed to previously for both pilot groups and as well captured an equity stake. On that basis, the merger was executed. When the Delta pilots reached that agreement, the companies announced their intention to move forward with the merger. Shortly thereafter, the parties were able to negotiate a transition agreement that paved the way for the eventual ratification of a JCBA for both the Delta and Northwest pilots and to a process agreement that restarted the seniority integration process under the auspices of three impartial arbitrators.

In the seniority integration arbitration, the Delta pilots proposed a 7-group Status and Category ratio approach that they argued preserved each pilot group’s pre-merger career expectations. The Northwest pilots proposed an integration based on Date of Hire with conditions and restrictions. In the alternative, they proposed a “Dynamic Seniority List” concept that would create fixed seniority “slots” for each pre-merger pilot group and would populate those slots with only the active pilots from their respective groups, in seniority order. As vacancies arise through attrition, the more junior pilots in the respective group would advance to the more senior vacant slots.

In its Opinion and Award, the Board rejected both Northwest’s DOH and Dynamic List approaches. Instead, it adopted Delta’s Status and Category methodology but based on four categories (widebody captains, narrow body captains, widebody FOs and narrow body FOs) rather than seven. Remember that a Status and Category methodology is only concerned with the number of positions brought to the arbitration, not to individual pilots’ current equipment bid position. The Board also incorporated a Pull-and-Plug mechanism to accommodate the Northwest pilots’ assertion that their higher rate of attrition from retirements should be taken into account. This methodology resulted in removing the oldest 274 Northwest pilots from the Northwest pre-merger list, applying the ratios to the remaining pilots and reinserting the removed pilots directly above the next junior Northwest pilot thereafter. The Board also added some conditions and restrictions that created five year fences around each group’s respective premium aircraft (B777, B747, and B787).

The New Merger Policy
Subsequent to the LCC/AWA merger, the ALPA Merger Policy Review Committee was charged with a review of Merger Policy to reflect lessons learned. After 18 months of work, and with input from pilots involved in the Delta/Northwest merger, the Committee drafted a new Merger Policy which was approved by the Executive Board in May 2009.

The new policy emphasizes the three major components necessary to fully complete a merger:

• a joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA) and a possible transition agreement,

• an integrated seniority list, and

• a merged MEC, representing a unified pilot group.

The integration of seniority lists is now viewed as one step in the more comprehensive merger process. The merger is a transaction consisting of the seniority integration process, the contract negotiation process, the ratification process and the transition process, all leading to a single pilot group and one MEC.

Under the new Merger Policy, merger committee representatives’ role is to make a strong and focused effort to resolve seniority integration issues, with mediation and final and binding arbitration mandated on unresolved issues. Factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list in no particular order and with no particular weight include but are not limited to: career expectations, longevity, status and category.

There are also changes to the seniority list arbitration process. Hearings are now limited to a maximum of 15 nine-hour days of hearings. The default makeup of the Arbitration Board is a panel of three arbitrators, though the merging MECs may agree to revert to a panel of one arbitrator and two pilot neutrals. In the interest of fostering open communications between MECs, new policy language discourages arbitrators from admitting MEC communications as evidence.

What has not changed is that the Integrated Seniority List is not subject to ratification by either MEC or pilot group. Another constant is a pilot’s position relative to his pre-merger brother or sister pilot: your internal relative seniority cannot be changed.

Our Merger’s Timeline
Now that there has been a merger announcement, there is a concise timeline and an orderly process to prepare for integrating the seniority lists.

At the Merger Announcement Date (May 3, 2010), the Merger Committee can begin updating and verifying the employment data of all our pilots. After we have collected the data, we will post the information electronically so that you can validate the data we have collected. If you disagree with the findings with respect to your employment data, you must contest the findings within 20 days of receiving notice from us, with a written statement of fact to support your protest. That challenge can be transmitted via email, and you can request a hearing with us. Within 10 days of the protest, we will notify you of the decision, using the same transmission medium you used.

Within 10 days of the May 3 Merger Announcement Date, the UALMEC will designate our negotiating committee members to serve on the Joint Negotiating Committee for the purpose of jointly negotiating transition agreements, if necessary, and the JCBA.
Within 20 days of the May 3 Merger Announcement Date, the Merger Committee will have finalized the selection of the three impartial arbitrators. Additionally, we will forward the employment data to every non-verified and non-updated pilot. We will also post that data electronically.

It’s now important to reemphasize that the revised ALPA Merger Policy states that negotiations for the Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement should be scheduled consistent with the high priority goal of concluding the JCBA prior to the date for conclusion of the seniority list integration process.

Our Furloughed Brothers and Sisters
By design, the Merger Committee is composed of pilots from across our domicile network and from cross-sections of our seniority list. Pursuant to the UALMEC Policy Manual, our committee must include a pilot from the bottom 25 percent of our seniority list. The important perspective this position carries has not been lost. When we first met as a committee, we realized that one of the greatest challenges we would face was our work on behalf of our furloughed pilots. Past seniority integration arbitration awards have generally placed at least some pilots on furlough as of the date of the merger announcement at the bottom of the integrated list. While past decisions aren’t “binding” on future cases – each of which will turn on its own facts - and while ALPA Merger Policy has changed since those decisions were issued, we would be less than candid with you if we did not point out this historical treatment of furloughed pilots in seniority list integration arbitrations. That said, we are committed to advancing the interests of ALL our pilots – those who are active and those who are on furlough.

Subject only to the caveat that experience in seniority integration arbitration tells us that to be effective with the arbitrators we have to maintain credible positions supported by facts and logic rather than emotion, we will advocate in the strongest terms for all of our pilots and our furloughed pilots are no exception. We pledge to communicate with you frequently, openly and candidly: it may not always be what you want to hear, but it will be the unvarnished truth. Please remember, however, we must communicate with you without compromising our strategies deployed on your behalf. We take very seriously our charge to represent the entirety of our seniority list. We will use all means to defend the United pilots, and we will leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of the best integration possible. We will communicate with you again soon, and are fortified by your keen interest.

Traditionally, no subject is more sacred to an airline pilot than his/her seniority. It is critical for all of us to remember, especially during times of uncertainty, that there is and will continue to be a lot of noise and confusion on the line. In this instance, that noise and confusion stems directly from the many hypothetical seniority scenarios promulgated by those who claim to be in the “know.” They may even claim that certain methodologies are more relevant than others. We urge you to resist the temptation to succumb to the noise. Those of us who have been thinking about seniority integration in general and an integration with Continental in particular - including your Merger Committee and its supporting professionals who have participated in all of the recent merger activity in the industry - are unwilling to “predict” at this early stage how the integration will turn out. It is thus surely the case that those who are more distant from the process have no special insight into that result. That said, there is one thing we can say with certainty: no integrated list will be constructed, either by agreement or by an arbitrator, that would change the order of flight deck crew members on their own respective seniority lists. The bottom line is that ALPA Merger Policy is explicit in what the Seniority Arbitration Board is to use to consider the facts of the case.

In Unity,

Your Merger Committee
F/O Jeff Ruark, Chairman
Captain Steve Gillen
Captain Bill Bales