What are "prevailing equities"
10-31-2008, 02:11 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by slowplay
The "incredible" 1000 attrition a couple of days ago probably narrowed the difference a little more.
10-31-2008, 05:06 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by capncrunch
That is a good argument for DOH, thanks.
Where is DOH mentioned in ALPA merger policy?
In any case, we can spin our wheels all day behind these anonymous keyboards and create some more fodder for the brainiacs at ALPAwatch. Or we can hope that the two parties actually negotiate from a basis of fact to a conclusion, either through agreement or a fair decision from the 3 wiseguys.
Or maybe we can call for a telephonic vote of confidence for Carl, Capn, and Super as we conclude these proceedings
10-31-2008, 05:10 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by capncrunch
The 1000 pilots was managements guess at a worst case scenario. It is also why DCC was the same day as DOJ approval, this was very calculated on their part. They caught a bunch of our pilots with their pants down. At this point some will need to stay to cover the downgrade in health benefits and an upgrade in costs.
It's not a reason for most. It might have been a reason for somebody like Carl who should retire at 52.
10-31-2008, 06:21 PM
#24
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by slowplay
Not really, it's a far better argument for relative position, as it points out that the attrition argument is rather weak. The rest of the Delta case showed growth trumped attrition anyway.
I see a third chance of either proposal being adoped, and a third chance of something in the middle. Anyone who doesn't see that is setting themselves up for disappointment.
Originally Posted by slowplay
Where is DOH mentioned in ALPA merger policy?
Carl
10-31-2008, 06:23 PM
#25
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by slowplay
It's not a reason for most. It might have been a reason for somebody like Carl who should retire at 52.
Hey wait a minute!
Carl
10-31-2008, 07:27 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
this isn't being done under ALPA merger policy. ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.
Carl
5. The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy").
I'm hopeful that the wiseguys will provide suitable pressure to force the two parties to reach that "fair and equitable list" with no ruling required.
10-31-2008, 07:51 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in.
You better inform your merger committee ASAP. Here's what NWALPA's witness testified to:
CROSS-EXAMINATION LANE KRANZ
Q. Just not going in any particular order, at least not in the order of the slides. Let me just start by asking you, with respect to this so-called attrition argument that you're sponsoring, can you tell us whether there has been any case decided under ALPA merger policy in which an arbitrator has actually adjusted the construction of the list, put aside conditions and restrictions, adjusted the construction of the list based on attrition?
A. I cannot.
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?
I'll just have to rely on your witness. Maybe we can build taller fences after we ratio the seniority list for your 747s and our 777s.
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
You better inform your merger committee ASAP. Here's what NWALPA's witness testified to:
CROSS-EXAMINATION LANE KRANZ
Q. Just not going in any particular order, at least not in the order of the slides. Let me just start by asking you, with respect to this so-called attrition argument that you're sponsoring, can you tell us whether there has been any case decided under ALPA merger policy in which an arbitrator has actually adjusted the construction of the list, put aside conditions and restrictions, adjusted the construction of the list based on attrition?
A. I cannot.
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?
I'll just have to rely on your witness. Maybe we can build taller fences after we ratio the seniority list for your 747s and our 777s.
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
10-31-2008, 08:05 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Nowhere, but (as you know) this isn't being done under ALPA merger policy.
You better go back an reread the SLI process agreement, something about "consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy" might ring a bell.
ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.
Carl
You better go back an reread the SLI process agreement, something about "consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy" might ring a bell.
ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.
Carl
Last edited by Reroute; 10-31-2008 at 08:09 PM. Reason: clarification
10-31-2008, 09:13 PM
#29
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by slowplay
You're technically correct that it's not being done under ALPA merger policy, but that's for the structure (no PID, etc.) Refer to the process agreement, paragraph 5:
5. The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy").
I'm hopeful that the wiseguys will provide suitable pressure to force the two parties to reach that "fair and equitable list" with no ruling required.
5. The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy").
I'm hopeful that the wiseguys will provide suitable pressure to force the two parties to reach that "fair and equitable list" with no ruling required.
Carl
10-31-2008, 09:24 PM
#30
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Reroute
It has never been the part of the construction of a seniority list, at least your own witness said. Maybe this will be the first time, you never know.
1. After the case had been presented, Mr. Roberts asked for the ability to project into the future based on no growth and attrition at age 60.
2. The Republic proposal was DOH with a 5 year fence.
3. The NWA proposal was a ratio with a 5 year fence.
4. Mr Roberts decided on DOH with a 20 year fence.
I can't prove this beyond all doubt, but I think Roberts used the look ahead ability to institute a 20 year fence that neither side asked for. Since Lane couldn't prove this either, he was correct in not saying so.
Carl
