Yes. My understanding was DOH used to be a method listed in ALPA merger policy. I believe DOH was removed from ALPA policy and replaced with "fair and equitable." That's what I've heard, but I don't know that for sure.

As far as DOH since 1991, I don't remember. USAir guys got the top 517 positions, but I don't know if DOH played into the arbitrator's decision to do that.

How many arbitrated SLI's have there been since 1991?

Carl

No Carl you know what they got those positions. It is spelled out in the award.

Again, Carl, "looking ahead" in this manner is a far, far cry from the actual construction of a list based entirely on future attrition that benefits one pilot group only. (Please see my post #20, I assume you agree with the conclusions I draw?) BTW, why do you suppose ALPA got rid of any mention of DOH in their merger policy? That would be an interesting discussion.....and might shead some light on our current "predicament".

deleted, my link didn't work

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.

NWA does not need to defend DOH as a methodology. It has been used in whole or in part for many arbitrated lists. NWA guys offer no apologies for wanting credit for every day of service from our airline - and thus we need no justification. Especially since the arbitrator's opinion is that we are a merger of equals. There is an inherent fairness to the DOH concept. If the demographics were reversed, every Delta pilot would see this with complete clarity. 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. The 10 year fence doesn't protect NWA pilots. Since we are asking to be credited for every day that we have worked at NWA, we don't need the protection. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal.

Once again...the look ahead program was used to construct the fences, not the DOH seniority list. And we don't need a look ahead program to "justify" the DOH methodology given its long history in mergers. Especially in this merger of equals.

Carl

Carl,

I promised myself yesterday I was going to stay out of this debate but like the proverbial carrot on a string in front of the horse, I've got to just mention this.:D

We are equal in terms that we were both fairly well positioned separate companies that could have survived with out the merger. But as far as the rest of it goes (DOH, equipment, etc)......isn't that why we are having these debates?

If we were so equal, a straight ratio would work wouldn't it? Then there would be no need for fences or anything else.

That is correct. Our only area of inequality is in our respective demographics...thus the catapult into arbitration. There are some other DAL guys however that feel they must try to make a case that NWA is not at all equal to DAL in many ways. The DAL merger team tried to make that case for 3 days. The result: arbitrators calling this a merger of equals.

As stated earlier, the unequal demographic is why a straight ratio or straight DOH is unfair without fences. Somehow I think that even if our demographic was equal, there would be guys justifying a new method to advantage themselves. You know - DAL pilots should rank higher on the list because, DAL has thinner FA's, DAL has better looking FA's, DAL has nicer FA's... On second thought, I probably better stop that line of reasoning. :D

Carl

PS: You haven't responded to my posting of the actual wording of our proposed fence. Did you see how any growth is shared 1 for 1? Or can you not say so for fear of being barred from future ribs n grits events? :D

Carl,

Like I said, I had promised myself to back off on this forum. I'm not much of a forum poster anyway. I've kinda gotten in over my head here!:D As far as writing goes, I am not a very articulate person and this medium has its inherent drawbacks.....one of which is typing....I hate it!! I much prefer face to face.

All I'll say about fences is that they can be porous and controversial (ala your 24 or however many abitrations there were for the NW/REP merger). If there is a need for fences, I would prefer to see shorter ones that would allow all of us to take advantage of the new "Delta" and all the bases and aircraft that come with it.

Please don't get the idea I'm trying move DL guys into your turf. I just want everyone, DL and NW, to be able to move bases/equipment to have a better QOL and I think fences are a pretty big hinderance to this idea.

I quess I'm feeling pessimistic today, but I just don't see a negotiated list coming out of this process. Maybe they could delay the list until Jan 1, 2009 so it wont ruin Christmas for whomever!!!:D

Denny

Well, all I can say is that I'll miss your posts when you decide to back off. You're plenty articulate, and more importantly, you make a lot of sense.

Carl

[quote=Carl Spackler;490254]

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. The 10 year fence doesn't protect NWA pilots. Since we are asking to be credited for every day that we have worked at NWA, we don't need the protection. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal.

Carl,
On a seperate post I asked if any Green Book guys had any comments on the 20 year fences - not one response. It appears that fences are very popular if you are "fenced-in" not so popular if you are "fenced-out."
Anyhow I think most DAL guys would love fences but why no fence protection for junior FO's? IF you guys want to fence off your heavies - great, but if the DC-9's are rock solid with the price of oil declining back it up with a fence. If the 9's get parked the furloughs come from the NW side. If DAL parks 88's the furloughs come from the DAL side. I have said before this would allow much more flexiiblity with the bottom of both lists which seem to be a problem area.
You guys are definitely trying to "cherry-pick" where the fences will go, and I don't blame you, but at least admit it. Case in point, the 767ER - no fence proposed by NW.

Scoop