What are "prevailing equities"
10-31-2008, 09:30 PM
#31
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Reroute
Have there been any changes to ALPA merger policy since 1991? Have there been any DOH integrations under ALPA merger policy since 1991? What's been removed from ALPA merger policy since 1991?
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
11-01-2008, 05:32 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I think Lane Krantz is only speaking to his recollection. Here's my recollection:
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
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
11-01-2008, 10:59 AM
#35
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by wiggy
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".
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
11-01-2008, 11:20 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
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.
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.
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.
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.
11-01-2008, 12:03 PM
#37
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Carl,
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?
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?
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
If we were so equal, a straight ratio would work wouldn't it? Then there would be no need for fences or anything else.
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?
11-01-2008, 12:28 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
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! 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!!!
Denny
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!
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!!!
Denny
11-01-2008, 12:40 PM
#39
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
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! 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!!!
Denny
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!
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!!!
Denny
Carl
11-01-2008, 12:43 PM
#40
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
[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
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
