China_CAAC's Merged Threads

[The Tenth Man]

This 2001 (post 9-11) research paper from The Federalist Society concerning the US Government's ability to monitor federal prisoner (client-attorney) communications has the following phrase:

"We are in a War, and Unlawful Belligerents have No Claim to Constitutional Protection." [1] The first duty of any government is to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. After September 11, there can be no serious argument that our government must use every means at its command to discharge that duty.

[The Tenth Man]

In 1942, at the height of WWII, the US President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wrote a letter to the Greek Ambassador to the USA:

FDR
On the occasion of the second year from Greece’s resistance against Italy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wrote a “Message to Greece”:

October 28, 1942.

My Dear Mr. Ambassador:

On the early morning of October 28, 1940, the Fascist aggressors handed an ultimatum to Greece. The challenge was hurled back without a moment’s hesitation. This was what might have been expected from a gallant and courageous people devoted to their homeland. You commemorate tonight the second anniversary of the beginning of the total resistance of the Greek people to totalitarian warfare.

More significant, even, than the initial reply to the challenge is the fact that Greece has continued to fight, with every means at its command. When the Greek mainland was overrun, the resistance was carried on from the islands. When the islands fell, resistance continued from Africa, from the seas, from anywhere the aggressor could be met.

To those who prefer to compromise, to follow a course of expediency or to appease, or to count the cost, I say that Greece has set the example which every one of us must follow until the despoilers of freedom everywhere have been brought to their just doom.

[The Tenth Man]

Now, as you are all aware, I am not a lawyer. But, the three examples I have just posted, all referencing violent conflict or action, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that if you are going to undertake any activity with every means at your command, you are going to use ALL of your resources to achieve the desired goal.

Would a reasonable person conclude that ALPA used all of its resources to achieve a DOH ordered seniority list, as its own Board of Directors instructed it to do so?

Thanks that make you go hmmm.

[The Tenth Man]

From the Nellis v. ALPA posted above, the following paragraph is taken:

While the parties disagree concerning whether ALPA fulfilled its representational obligations to the plaintiffs, the parties are at least in tacit agreement that any shortcoming in ALPA's representation was not a consequence of capricious or irrational action by ALPA. As the ample record makes manifest, ALPA's position on the implementation of the Fragmentation Policy was the result of an extensive series of meetings of ALPA's Executive Committee, in which the Committee meticulously parsed the language of the Merger Policy and delineated exactly what actions ALPA was required to undertake on behalf of the Eastern pilots. Clearly, ALPA's failure to negotiate with sufficient vigor to appease the Eastern pilots was a result of the simple fact that ALPA also represented pilots at the airlines that acquired Eastern assets. As a result, ALPA found itself in a position in which the interests of various subgroups of its membership were in conflict with one another.

Compare and contrast ALPA's actions with respect to the Eastern pilots, in which it "meticulously parsed the language of the Merger Policy and delineated exactly what actions ALPA was required to undertake on behalf of the Eastern pilots."

The incoming Canada Board President stated in October that:

"Our first MEC resolution was to recognize Encore pilots as WestJet pilots – essentially to remove any professional barriers between our pilot groups that exist because of corporate branding or aircraft type. Since then I’ve been working with their MEC officers to cement the one seniority list concept and the unification of our pilot groups starting with eventually creating a single MEC structure."

Does this sound like the actions of a group that "meticulously parsed the language" of the Seniority Policy and "delineated exactly what actions ALPA was required to undertake on behalf of the" OTS pilots?

Hmmm.

[skybaron]

Rezy,

I fail to see how this contract is a big win for anyone. It’s seems what’s been accomplished is the same thing you’ve all been complaining about with Air Canada, and how their contract only took care of the senior greys while they ate their young.

Make no mistake, this is a terrible outcome.

You at WJ, always prided yourselves on culture and “togetherness” (whatever the f that is there). I remember hearing how everything was is in the shitter because of a loss of some Port system - which we all envied. You then received your commute policy to compensate.

Now WJ has RESERVE! I’m sure all those that have applied to WJ or work at Encore, that joined WJ primarily for lifestyle / culture and that commute, are absolutely thrilled with RESERVE. WJ may have the “best” commute policy out there, but you also had the ports..

For aspiring airline pilots, what about WJ would attract you to even apply to work there now?

[The Tenth Man]

The following three attachments should be read in order, one leading to the next. If ALPA has, as the WJ MEC has indicated it has done, negotiated a seniority list that gives seniority credit (superseniority) to some pilots based on their service at another company, then it likely is guilty of a breach of contractual duty owed to the pilots as a result of the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws.

ALPA members who contravened the Constitution may include the MEC Chairman, the MEC Vice-Chairman, and the three members of the Negotiating Committee, although the latter group could escape liability under a theory that they were merely following the directives of the MEC.

ALPA_Constitution_and_Bylaws_page_10_JPG_LI.jpg (1.24 MiB) Viewed 4409 times

ALPA_Constitution_and_Bylaws_p59_JPEG_LI.jpg (1.25 MiB) Viewed 4409 times

ALPA_1956_BOD_Resolution_Seniority_Definition_resize.jpg (1.44 MiB) Viewed 4409 times

[The Tenth Man]

Regarding the Common Law DFR, one Canadian case suggests that the civil court can only award damages, i.e. a financial award to compensate for the breach of the DFR. I have no idea if that is actually the case, or if a judge could order re-ordering of the seniority list.

For a Breach of Contract finding, according to the following US law resource, a court has five remedies:

The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.

Regarding specific performance, the following is said:

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach. This ruling often happens when the subject matter of a contract is in dispute.

In a previous post, some time ago, I mentioned a recent Ontario case in which the Ontario Superior Court found that a union had breached its constitution. Here is what the presiding Justice ordered as a result of the finding:

D. CONCLUSION
[66] Therefore, I will treat the Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion for judgment. I grant judgment to the Plaintiffs and order that the Defendant union conduct leadership elections in which each member of CAWU may vote for the officers of the union. This election shall take place within 90 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision.

[67] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of how candidates for office are to be nominated or about any matter incidental to the election, they may make submissions in writing and I will settle the matter.

[68] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with the Plaintiffs’ submissions within 20 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision, followed by the Defendants’ submissions within a further 20 days.

As a result of the above case, I think it might be a reasonable possibility that if a court found that ALPA had violated its Constitution through the actions of its representatives (MEC Chairman, MEC Vice-Chairman, MEC Negotiating Committee members) in failing to comply with an established policy of the Board of Directors by negotiating a non-DOH seniority list, then I believe that a judge would be able to order specific performance, meaning he would order ALPA and the company (enjoined in the lawsuit?) to compose a seniority list that was in accordance with the established policy.

[Rezy]

Rezy,

I fail to see how this contract is a big win for anyone. It’s seems what’s been accomplished is the same thing you’ve all been complaining about with Air Canada, and how their contract only took care of the senior greys while they ate their young.

Make no mistake, this is a terrible outcome.

You at WJ, always prided yourselves on culture and “togetherness” (whatever the f that is there). I remember hearing how everything was is in the shitter because of a loss of some Port system - which we all envied. You then received your commute policy to compensate.

Now WJ has RESERVE! I’m sure all those that have applied to WJ or work at Encore, that joined WJ primarily for lifestyle / culture and that commute, are absolutely thrilled with RESERVE. WJ may have the “best” commute policy out there, but you also had the ports..

For aspiring airline pilots, what about WJ would attract you to even apply to work there now?

Overall I agree with your assessment, this has done nothing for aspiring pilots.
I was simply pointing out some of the contract awards and how it certainly brought mainline WJ pilots into parity with their peers at othe major carriers.
I think the struggle to find quality pilots at WJ will get extremely difficult over the next few years because this award separates the mainline from the ulcc from the regional more so than any pilot wanted.
WJ was always getting reserve with the transatlantic flying and 787 it wouldn’t be possible to staff the flying if someone got sick without reserve. So that’s a nature of the airline growing and not a negotiating loss. That being said, I’m told the reserve system is commutable starting with all reserve being 36 hour long call reserve, but I haven’t seen the fine print.
I don’t think you’ll see WJ pilots leaving for AC in droves, but you will see Swoop or Encore pilots treating their current jobs as a stepping stone rather than semi permanent.

[FL410AV8R]

Holy crap John is this another personality????

Regarding the Common Law DFR, one Canadian case suggests that the civil court can only award damages, i.e. a financial award to compensate for the breach of the DFR. I have no idea if that is actually the case, or if a judge could order re-ordering of the seniority list.

For a Breach of Contract finding, according to the following US law resource, a court has five remedies:

The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.

Regarding specific performance, the following is said:

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach. This ruling often happens when the subject matter of a contract is in dispute.

In a previous post, some time ago, I mentioned a recent Ontario case in which the Ontario Superior Court found that a union had breached its constitution. Here is what the presiding Justice ordered as a result of the finding:

D. CONCLUSION
[66] Therefore, I will treat the Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion for judgment. I grant judgment to the Plaintiffs and order that the Defendant union conduct leadership elections in which each member of CAWU may vote for the officers of the union. This election shall take place within 90 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision.

[67] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of how candidates for office are to be nominated or about any matter incidental to the election, they may make submissions in writing and I will settle the matter.

[68] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with the Plaintiffs’ submissions within 20 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision, followed by the Defendants’ submissions within a further 20 days.

As a result of the above case, I think it might be a reasonable possibility that if a court found that ALPA had violated its Constitution through the actions of its representatives (MEC Chairman, MEC Vice-Chairman, MEC Negotiating Committee members) in failing to comply with an established policy of the Board of Directors by negotiating a non-DOH seniority list, then I believe that a judge would be able to order specific performance, meaning he would order ALPA and the company (enjoined in the lawsuit?) to compose a seniority list that was in accordance with the established policy.

[.80@410]

I wonder if the moderators can ban him just for being a tool.

He needs help and this forum is getting overrun with his crap.
It’s not even worth reading posts anymore. Soon as he posts, people sign off.

[JTrain]

I wonder if the moderators can ban him just for being a tool.

He needs help and this forum is getting overrun with his crap.
It’s not even worth reading posts anymore. Soon as he posts, people sign off.

+1.

Steve Bannon's "Flood the zone with shit" quote comes to mind.

The sad thing is, this website has the potential to be a great resource. You still do find incredible insights - but rarely in the WJ section anymore.

[George Taylor]

He totally E'fed the WJPA forum as well.

[lostaviator]

He totally E'fed the WJPA forum as well.

Yep. Even his close “allies” stopped participating on the jpa forums over there once he started posting this garbage.

I suggest we do the same.

[North Shore]

I wonder if the moderators can ban him just for being a tool.

He needs help and this forum is getting overrun with his crap.
It’s not even worth reading posts anymore. Soon as he posts, people sign off.

.80, JTrain, George, and lost: once you’ve signed in, click on the down arrow next to your username, and go to ‘User Control Panel’. Once there, you’ll see an option to manage friends and foes. If you were to add Mr.Swallow to the ‘foes’ list, you’ll no longer see his posts. I suggest that you do that forthwith, so as to forestall any further consternation on your behalf at the content, or lack thereof, in his postings.

[skybaron]

I wonder if the moderators can ban him just for being a tool.

He needs help and this forum is getting overrun with his crap.
It’s not even worth reading posts anymore. Soon as he posts, people sign off.

.80, JTrain, George, and lost: once you’ve signed in, click on the down arrow next to your username, and go to ‘User Control Panel’. Once there, you’ll see an option to manage friends and foes. If you were to add Mr.Swallow to the ‘foes’ list, you’ll no longer see his posts. I suggest that you do that forthwith, so as to forestall any further consternation on your behalf at the content, or lack thereof, in his postings.

YES!!! Finally some useful advice!

John - please seek medical help. Seriously. How you pass your medical is beyond all of us.

[skybaron]

Adding a foe is a lifesaver for this forum and aviation in general.

Once you’re signed in, just click on one of MANY John’s personalities, and you can foe the mofo right there.

Can’t say it’s been a slice John, but it sure is now that I don’t have to see your crap on this forum.

[Schooner69A]

Some folks benefit a group when they join it; others when they leave it...

[The Tenth Man]

"HERE'S JOHNNY!"







It should be apparent to most now that ALPA has many tools in its tool box. Failure to use these tools or improper use of these tools, invites a less than satisfactory result.

Earlier in this thread, I posted in its entirety the 1954 Report of the Merger Study Committee which after some review, ultimately led to the 1956 seniority resolution presented to the BOD and approved. As a result of a request to the ALPA archivist, I have just obtained new evidence.

Immediately prior to the Fourteenth Convention in 1956, the Merger Study Committee had been recalled as a result of two airline mergers (Pioneer/Continental and Eastern/Colonial) that had occurred in the period since the 1954 committee report. What now follows is that report, which was presented to the Board immediately prior to the adoption of the seniority policy which we are so familiar with now.

Prior to doing so, I'll pull out a couple of sections that set the tone for why a policy on seniority definition and seniority list construction was needed. And I hope you too, if you have not done so, scratch your head and wonder why ALPA would have done to WJ pilots that which they have not done to any pilot group in the last 60 years: set the group on a path to controversy in the event that a merger happens at some point by ignoring their own policy toolbox. And by certifying the pilot group (which triggered other emplyee groups to do so), ALPA has greatly increased the likelihood of a future merger, there being now no cultural (or certification concerns) barriers to merging with an airline that already has a union represented pilot group.

Those aforementioned excerpts:

"...However, such did not prove to be the case. When the seniority representatives met at Headquarters to attempt to solve the problems of merging the two lists through direct negotiation, it was found that the opinions as to the meaning, application, and computation of length of service were so contradictory that agreement on something so basic in principal could not be reached..."

And near the end of the report:

"...So, we have had two successful seniority mergers under the new policy and procedures. In that degree our work has proven a success. However, we have been asked to improve our policy by defining length of service. Up until now we had assumed that everyone knew what length of service meant. Two years ago within this hall there was almost open warfare because some wanted it adopted and some did not. After careful consideration of this request, we have amended the policy and procedure so that it contains that definition of length of service which is part of the seniority section of most of our agreements..."

Give me a couple of hours and I'll post here the report in its entirety. There is no digital version so I have to manually input the report.

[The Tenth Man]

Had to pop back in for a comment. I am typing the report and imagining the scene at the Conventions in 1954 and 1956 when these matters were vigorously argued, and I have to wonder who the eff the WJ MEC and NC think they were in ignoring the hard fought lessons of their airline forefathers? What kind of arrogance leads to such confidence that your actions are right, when the lessons of history show the exact opposite?

I can only conclude that it comes down to poor leadership.

ALPA_10th ALPA Convention.jpg (41.62 KiB) Viewed 3206 times

ALPA_16th_Convention.jpg (57.63 KiB) Viewed 3206 times

[The Tenth Man]

REPORT OF THE MERGER STUDY COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE FOURTEENTH BIENNIAL CONVENTION

As a result of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors, this Merger Committee was reactivated for the purpose of reviewing the present policies and procedures of the Association for the handling of seniority merger disputes.

Specifically, our assignment is embodied in the following resolution adopted by the Executive Committee and approved by you on a ballot dated May 28, 1956:

"RESOLVED that a recommendation be made to the Board of Directors to recall the Merger Committee, which presented its report to the 13th Biennial Convention, to review the Association's merger policy in the light of the last two years experience and report to the Board of Directors not later than the 14thy Biennial Convention any changes they believe are necessary to improve existent policy"

Since being notified of our recall as a Standing Committee of the Board, we have requested comments and specific suggestions regarding the application of the present seniority merger policy and procedure from the members of the Board of Directors, from pilot representatives of each of the airlines that have merged or consolidated since the last Convention, and from certain interested members of the Executive Committee. Some of these pilots accepted our invitation to personally apprear before us at meetings, others have replied by mail. In our opinion the response, while lacking the volume or vehemence of two years ago, has been adequate enough for us to study and evaluate the events and the resulting problems and complaints leading to our recall. This report and recommendation to the Convention will sustain certain certain remedial suggestions we hope will improve our policy and procedure.

We do not intend to review in this report, as we did before the 13th Convention, our comprehensive study of the past application of seniority to mergers or consolidations of airlines. We have concerned ourselves, in accordance with our assignment, with the application of Association merger policy and procedure to the two mergers since the last Convention and to the specific questions arising from these initial applications.

The two mergers that have taken place are:

Pioneer Airlines and Continental Air Lines
Eastern Air Lines and Colonial Airlines

1. Pioneer Airlines and Continental Air Lines

On December 7, 1954 the CAB approved the acquisition of Pioneer Airlines routes and equipment by Continental Air Lines. Appropriate and proper protective conditions for employees of both airlines were included in the Board's decision to permit the acquisition.

The pilots of both airlines willingly submitted the problem of the integration of their seniority lists to the procedures and policy adopted by the 13th Convention. (In the balloting just prior to government approval, Continental pilots voted for the Method #1 or application of length of service as the means of integration. Pioneer pilots voted for Method #2 or for consideration of the problems and factors peculiar to the proposed merger as the means of seniority integration of the two lists.)

The pilot representatives from each affected airline met in Chicago and after negotiation amd mediation arrived at a mutually acceptable list. This final seniority list was integrated by application of length of service as the basic rule with negotiated exceptions to the rule in certain areas of the list so as to adjust for recognized inequities peculiar to this merger.

The two airlines had no parallel or competitive route structure but there was a large disparity in age, route mileage, equipment and pilot numbers.

The Merger Committee recognizes this seniority merger as perhaps the most successful, insofar as the affected pilots are concerned, within the industry. As a measure of its success and acceptance, we note that we have received but one letter from the Continental - Pioneer pilots in which they stated that their main concern was over application of protective provisions over which they knew we had no control. We extend our thanks and our congratulations to this group.

2. Eastern Air Lines and Colonial Airlines

The acquisition of Colonial Airlines by Eastern Air Lines was approved by the CAB on January 25, 1956 subject to the usual employee protective conditions. The two airlines were of about equal age and there was little if any route duplication. However, there was a great disparity in route mileage, size and amount of equipment, and in the number of pilots employed by each airline.

In accordance with Association policy and procedure and prior to CAB approval both groups of pilots had voted to integrate their seniority list in the event of a merger by Method #1., the application of the length of service integration method. It was assumed that because the pilots on the two airlines had committed themselves to a fixed rule and method of integration for any merger, this actual seniority problem would be resolved simply and quickly by application of the known facts for clerical interspersion within a single list.

However, such did not prove to be the case. When the seniority representatives met at Headquarters to attempt to the solve the problems of merging the two lists through direct negotiation, it was found that the opinions as to the meaning, application and computation of length of service were so contradictory that agreement even on something so basic in principal could not be reached.

Agreement was finally reached in the mediation stage of the Association procedure and the two lists were merged on an individual basis, considering each pilot and negotiating a place for him within the single integrated list. Length of service as a factor was considered but only as a reference point.

As a sidelight, it is interesting to note that when we met here two years ago both these airlines supported the campaign to make length of service the sole factor to be considered in the event of a merger.

The committee has found the review of these two mergers interesting, not only because they were the first to use the new policy and procedure but because they developed so true to form.

The first, that is the Pioneer - Continental merger, of the two seniority mergers were successfully consummated with comparable minimum of argument and ill feeling.

Application of the length of service principal was generally equitable and therefore acceptable to those involved on both sides except for a small group of former first pilots on Pioneer who would evidently have been unfairly adversely affected. The equities for this group were finally adjusted for the individuals and a compromise solution applicable to this group accepted. The best measure of the success of these negotiations is the evident acceptance by the pilot group without the animosity evident in all past mergers.

On the basis of using this merger as a yardstick we would consider our policy and procedure a success and suggest it remain as written.

However, the Eastern - Colonial merger ran into difficulties. Difficulties, which we, in the main, anticipated and attempted to warn you of in our last report to the Convention. This Committee, after its comprehensive study and evaluation of the seniority concept and its application in all kinds of combinations of mergers and consolidations, came to one main conclusion regarding pilot behaviour when faced with a merger. That is, and I quote from our report to the Board of Directors at the 13th Convention:

"You will admit that there is no one more independent and individualistic than an air line pilot, especially when he thinks his rights or his pay or his security have been unilaterally or unfairly predetermined without consideration of individual case merit or equity. He will compacently accept your decisions and will agree that you acted for the best interest of all until he finds that his airline, and conseuqently his rights, his pay, his security, is embroiled in a merger or a consolidation and an Association law governs and limits his actions by an inflexible prescribed policy. He then becomes vocal and outright rebellious against a policy which is now applied prospectively to his problem and set of circumstances which he will maintain is unique and should be considered and adjudged on individual merit and equity. He refuses compliance; threatens to resign; and invites expulsion from the Association by seeking legal and governmental help outside the prescribed Association policy and procedure.

Therein lies our weakness. We cannot enforce or compel compliance with policy except by threat of expulsion. Confronted with this particular problem, the committee is convinced, the affected pilot groups will invite expulsion.

Further, even if we expel a group, we have not solved the problem but have only compounded it. They will still refuse to comply with prescribed policy, they are outside of the Association, and as a result, the Association is immeasurably weakened and discredited.

Pilot groups will not willingly submit their rights, their jobs, and their security to a procedure and policy which they feel does not allow for, or disregards consideration of the facts and merits of their particular case. However, they will submit to a policy and procedure which does allow for the free expression of what each side considers equitable and just, and allows final determination on the basis of fact and merit. They will, as pointed out in our summary, bind themselves irrevocably by agreement to procedures wherein they think or hope that their ideas on equity and justice will influence the final and binding award."

Now let us examine the Eastern - Colonial merger.

First, I want to preface the following by saying that the Committee does not in any way contend that the merger policy has been violated. On the contrary, we feel that the parties have made good use of the machinery established to arrive at an acceptable solution to the problem.

The Eastern and Colonial pilots had both voted prior to Government approval when the voting was impersonal and principle prevailed, to integrate their lists in the event of any merger or consolidation, solely on the basis of length of service as defined by their current working agreements. However, when it became known that an actual merger was possible, the pilots on both airlines began to evaluate their position in respect to the other and found, evidently, that the particular unique circumstances of this merger required further consideration of the factors involved over that permitted by application of a fixed inflexible rule.

Colonial Airlines, a regional carrier with about 120 pilots of relative equal seniority as compared to Eastern, operated a DC-3 and DC-4 equipment out of two pilot bases in the New England area.

Eastern Air Lines, a trunk carrier with about 1200 pilots, operated a modern fleet of fast high paying aircraft from a number of bases ranging from Florida to New York.

Colonial negotiated a change in their agreement wherein furlough time was to be accredited as length of service. This was objected to by Eastern.

Eastern pilots after evaluating the problems and factors peculiar to the merger requested that each airline be allowed to reballot their pilots to determine whether they still wished to merge by application of the length of service principle. Colonial pilots objected to this contending that Eastern and Colonial had, in accordance with Association policy and procedure, committed themselves to the length of service principle.

Subsequently, prior to settlement of this problem, the time for reballoting under the merger policy and procedure arrived. On this ballot Colonial remained with Method #1 - Eastern voted for Method #2.

In negotiations the Eastern representatives, in an effort to apply principle to this unique set of circumstances, applied their own definition of the length of service integration concept. Length of service was not only seniority accrual based on date of hire but it was a place on the Eastern seniority list which guaranteed the pilot certain rights and privileges within Eastern. Specifically, this position determined priority of job rights and opportunities and they refused to allow Colonial pilots, because of the application of an unrestricted length of service concept, the windfall of flying their largest, fastest, higher paying equipment fromt heir most desirable bases just because through the merger they had acquired Colonial's merger routes and equipment.

So, we have had two successful seniority mergers under the new policy and procedures. In that degree our work has proven a success. However, we have been asked to improve our policy by defining length of service. Up until now we had assumed that everyone knew what length of service meant. Two years ago within this hall there was almost open warfare because some wanted it adopted as the Association policy and some did not. After careful consideration of this request, we have amended the policy and procedure so that it contains that definition of length of service which is part of the seniority section of most of our agreements.

We have also been asked to do away with the annual balloting of pilots requiring them to choose Method #1 and Method #2. At the time we wrote our present policy and procedure we included the ballot provision for four good reasons:

1. We wanted the pilot in the field to be exposed to a seniority responsibility at least once a year in the hope that he would actively appraise his personal position, as it may apply to other pilots, and other airlines. We had hoped that because he should vote he might even out of idle curiousity ask some questions relative to the problems inherent in seniority integrations and the solutions applied.
2. We wanted to permit a procedure wherein if two airlines wanted to merge on the basis of length of service and had the courage of their convictions, they could commit themselves to that method for a years time.
3. We also wanted to make certain that pilots electing Method #2, which by the way does not prohibit merging by application of length of service, had machinery ready and immediately available to settle their differences.
4. Most of all we wanted a cold impersonal vote from the pilots, hopefully without selfish motives for personal gain. We have found that pilots, like people, are apt to become prejudiced for their side after they can appraise or evaluate this position. This also applies to nations as evidence by this newspaper clipping.

We still think these reasons valid and have not removed the balloting from our amended procedure.

We have made other minor corrections in context. We believe that our policy and procedure is now more capable of handling future mergers.