Opus,

As per the comparison of retirements I showed in another thread based on age 65 retirements, you only have 204 more retirements by 2018 and then we start taking over and then it's not even close. I can see why you want to have only a 10 year fence.:rolleyes:

Denny

I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.

That's because it isn't "super premium.":rolleyes:

Actually in the DL proposal, the A330 is NOT fenced but the 767-400 IS fenced.

That's because Airbus products don't need fences to keep pilots out. They need fences to keep pilots in!

If it aint Boeing ....

What! Mein Gott! No fences around my precious 767? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Fortunately, the merger teams don't employ your logic Buck

For you to say the middle is the absolute worst case scenario shows that you believe there is no possibility of DOH being chosen as the SLI construction method. Unbelievable. If you are this careless and cavalier with your investments and personal matters...Yikes!

You've really unmasked yourself for the extremist that you are. The middle is the worst case scenario...absolutely unreal.

Carl

I think there is zero chance of DOH being the method.

Just to be clear, you're fine with 1400 NWA pilots and 200 DAL pilots at the top of the list, but you're not fine with 900 NWA pilots and 700 DAL pilots at the bottom...

Fair and equitable?:p

The middle ground is at the 50, not the 35. You want credit for all your "super premium" even though it was compensated less than our standard widebody flying, but you don't want credit for bringing in 800 of the lowest paying (and high risk) jobs on the DC-9.

Tell me again the difference in bidding power of a 2001 and 2007 hire at your airline? Is that caused by DOH or their relative position on your list?:rolleyes:

This is the kind of hubris that makes for bitterness after an award. You're so convinced that the chances are zero, that your angry for the rest of your career when the impossible (in your view) happens.

We've agreed to a process over which we have little control. The truth is that either side's proposal could be adopted as is. Knowing that will keep all of our expectations in check

Carl

Well, if ALPA policy made even one mention about DOH, I would not say its about a zero chance.

But yes, I am convinced that a straight DOH merger will not happen. On the 1% chance it does, I think it will be accompanied by very long fences, ala the Roberts award.

I disagree on the amount of control. The arbitrators are bound to abide by ALPA policy. You seem to think they have a lot of latitude, which in theory they may, but in practice, they do not. Arbitrators are hired all the time to rule on disputes. Many times, like this, ground rules and conditions are spelled out. They are not going to rule on the outer edge of their authority or they risk never being hired again to arbitrate a dispute. DOH will not happen. Neither will the DALPA proposal for that matter, but the DALPA proposal is a whole lot closer to any reasonable read of ALPA policy than a DOH list.