Thread: What are "prevailing equities"
View Single Post
Old 10-31-2008 | 02:06 PM
  #20  
wiggy
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
From: A330 capt
Default
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in. It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?
Yeah, it might have been used for those purposes, but that is a far cry from using attrition as the basis for the actual construction of a list.


I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl
-And I imagine Bloch would be equally surprised at your characterization of "insulate from the vagaries of the future" translated as "take a snapshot, then make the list from that point in time." No one disputes that there will be 100% attrition from the list, by all of us, eventually. We have very little statistical evidence to say what the "average" retirement age will be since the law changed, 62.4 is a "wag" and is therefore speculative. --BUT--thats not the real issue here, is it, Carl. There is a 500 lb. gorilla lurking behind all the fluff of "statistical certainty" and "attrition" in your arguments, and that has to do with our old friend "vagaries of the future" - reiterated in "roulette table". Those simple statements are self-evident, and are not subject to interpretation...they put the very premiss of your list in jeopardy, that you are somehow inherently entitled in this merger, to realize 100% of your future attrition as future advancement. Why, Carl, is a NW pilot's claim "I would be very senior in 10 years" any more valid than a DL pilot making the same claim? It is not more valid, it is only equally valid, they are both "career expectations", and are equally subject to the arbitrator's unambiguous statements.
Reply
0