Jim,
Your past 2 post referencing myself were ur typical talking down to me with some questions thrown in. Didn't reply because the posted questions simply confused me. Perhaps it was me.
As far as above, the only reference to APA relative talk I've seen referenced the McCaskill -bond with wide body protections that insulate large #'s from potential relative harm.
It behooves APA not to take any stance on sli, they would only open up scrutiny and divisiveness at the wrong time.
We all seriously know they will do as ALL unions do to protect their own first and foremost .
If you think they will oblige the 2005 AWA FO relative status per the Nic above huge #'s of APA bretheren then it's futile chatting with you.
Have you read anywhere a statement of relative per Nic or as of NOW in 2012 ?
I think latter way more likely per my experience of human nature.
I'll repeat myself as you like to do, those diehard DOH guys u always reference where fine with fences to protect ALL and by far mostly just wanted to protect the attrition they've waited 2 decades + for.
FA