Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!
Honestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs.
As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict.
True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority.
It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc.