Carl Spackler

The term "out of seniority flying" is one we NWA pilots are quite familiar. Our arbitrator ruled that he felt he must grant DOH to the former Republic pilots. But due to the huge difference in hiring patterns, DOH required a 20 year fence to make things fair.

I went from 42% from the top of the old NWA list, to about 67% from the top of the new NWA/REP mergered list. NWA guys didn't want DOH, but the arbitrator disagreed. The arbitrator said that there could be no awarding of DOH seniority without the concurrent application of a 20 year fence. It was not our decision, it was his.

Your feeble attempt at trying to stoke the old NWA/REP fires is not lost on me, and you should be ashamed. Your the kind of guy that will be trying to start fights after this merger as well. The great majority of us have put this behind us and enjoy flying with each other very much. Many of my REP friends admit (as they retire off the 747), that it was a much better career than they could ever have imagined because of the merger. Most of them are great guys.

Carl

Carl Spackler

No, I'd just like for you to come up with your own stuff.

Carl

Xray678

I am curious. Why did you not want DOH in the REP merger, yet you now feel its the only way to go?

Carl Spackler

Because NWA had about 2,500 pilots, and REP had about 2,500 pilots. During the decade of the 1970's REP hired 1,200 pilots, while NWA hired none. Straight DOH would have pushed the average NWA guy down 20% plus from their pre-merger position (in my case 26%). That's why we didn't want it. The arbitrator disagreed, and went straight DOH.

I remember how bad it felt at the time to lose so much seniority, but the arbitrator put a high degree of importance on the "inherent fairness" of DOH. Fortunately for NWA pilots, he instituted a 20 year fence to protect what NWA brought to the merger, while allowing REP to share 1 for 1 in future growth.

I don't think it is the only way to go. There are other ways that would be acceptable to me. For example, a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .00001% with dynamic seniority would be an example of one.

Carl

newKnow

Ding. Ding. Ding. I think you have a winner there...

Pineapple Guy

That works perfectly fine with me, so long as each side gets their own attrition AND growth AND shrinkage. You have to have a completely dynamic list if you go down that road; not just dynamic for attrition but stagnant for the other variables.

Works for me.

PG

Scoop

Every time I hear "shrinkage" I can't help but think of George Costanza and smile. BTW - I assume the you NW guys do know that you are required to memorize the words to Little Feet's "Oh Atlanta" as part of you initial DAL IOE (only kidding).

Scoop

newKnow

Pineapple,

How long do you think those "other variables" like growth and shrinkage should be factored in?

Xray678

I think a dynamic list would be fair if it could factor in everything. I don't think it would be right to have a dynamic list based solely on retirements. I think you have to factor in airplanes coming and going. But this is where I think a dynamic list falls apart. We would have an arbitration everytime an airplane was delivered or parked to see which side got the benefit or took the hit.

rvr350

Exactly. It's like watching two baby birds trying to fight over mommy's worm every morning.