Your premise as to NWA using "look ahead" as the basis for constructing the seniority list is completely wrong. You seem to be implying that NWA is using that to somehow justify our whacky notion of DOH. If that is what you are implying, it shows how your own personal bias is blinding you. And your not alone.
Suppose the demographics were such that we had exactly equal attrition for the next 10 years. IOW, if the respective pilot group's ages were correspondingly the same from the top to the bottom of the list, and all else (fleets, positions held, DOHs etc.)was as it currently is. In that scenario I think you would be hard pressed to justify DOH in any form. Your proposal under that scenario would artificially place a solid block of 800 NW pilots between our #210 and #211, with attrition for the 800 DL pilots placed after #211 equal to the attrition of the 800 NW pilots placed between #210 and #211, this would be....obviously unfair, a seniority grab. Your extreme proposal therefore is constructed entirely around protecting your slightly greater short-medium term attrition ("look ahead"), which is what I have asserted. You chose DOH (with its extreme disregard of the actual, tangible seniority of DL pilots) to realize your goal of protecting 3% to 4% of NW pilots 10 years in the future. There is way too much risk in that for the DL pilots...it can be done in much less drastic ways..You won't trade seniority for wages...we won't gamble with our seniority. BTW, Carl, your observation that my "personal" bias blinds me is not neccessary, so I will refrain from characterizing your "personal" attitude if you'll do likewise.
NWA does not need to defend DOH as a methodology.
Oh, I think you do, though, I'm sure the DL side and the arbitrators are keenly interested in your justification or "defense" of DOH as a methodology. Is any methodology so sacred and unassailable that it never needs justification?
It has been used in whole or in part for many arbitrated lists.
Yet it has been specifically and purposely removed from ALPA merger policy, why do you suppose that was done?
NWA guys offer no apologies for wanting credit for every day of service from our airline - and thus we need no justification.
No apologies are asked for, you can have all the credit for service you deserve, but realize it is "credit" at NW only, and NOT at DL...
There is an inherent fairness to the DOH concept.
As you like to say Carl, - that is only your opinion, nothing more..ie...-ask the DL pilots how "inherently fair" it is.
If the demographics were reversed, every Delta pilot would see this with complete clarity.
-Kind of like the NW pilots saw that "inherent fairness of DOH" with "complete clarity" when they proposed their ratioed list in 1986? (BTW, it was a surprise to me when your witness revealed that interesting tidbit)
The "look ahead" is used to show why a 10 year fence is needed to protect DAL pilots until most of the senior NWA guys are gone.
I disagree, you have put the cart before the horse. You have "looked ahead" and decided to try to protect the attrition and advancement of 3-4% of your group, constructed an extemely self-beneficial list to reflect that decision, -then, as an afterthought, threw a crumb at the DL pilots.
We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal.
..opinion only.....MY opinion is that jeopardizing the current and future seniority of 7300 pilots to
insure the future seniority of 300-400 pilots is extreme...