SLI compromises
11-10-2008, 07:30 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by johnso29
Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW.
Yes, you are responding to DL's opening position, I am assuming the negotiations have gone well beyond that.(both sides) I was speculating on what possible compromises are out there. I speculate that the risk associated with the DC-9 "problem" could be addressed through limited fences, which would confine the risk to the group that brought the "problem" to the merger. Yes, it is speculating about the future demise of the 9', but short-term (3-4yrs.) fences (which may never need to be "used") confines the risk in the most innocuous (or risk-free) manner, that is, without permanently jeopardizing the current or future relative seniority of the bottom 400 NW pilots.....
...... Can anyone at NW make a proposal that does not permanently jeopardize the current and future relative seniority of the ENTIRE DL pilot group, without completely fencing off the entire airline (effectively, NOT merging the pilot groups, and effectively, heaping ALL the risk of future contingencies upon the DL group) for 10 or more years?...(and guaranteeing a divided, contentious pilot group)....Surely such a solution exists, and surely the fundamental principle of any such solution lies in preserving each group's pre-merger status... (right out of ALPA merger policy)...that is, --preserving each group's overall, current, relative seniority..... -then attempt, (not guarantee, because we can't guarantee anything in the future) to preserve career expectations for the (very) limited demographic that needs it. -And surely, Johnso29, you will forgive me for calling you "Shirley".
11-10-2008, 09:51 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel
Why not just go straight to the "How much you bench?" solution? Darwinian solutions always win out over time.
11-10-2008, 10:07 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by capncrunch
I like this idea, maybe a drinking competition. Remember Raiders of the Lost Arc where Miriam went shot for shot with that Huge Nepalese guy. Thats is how we'll organize the SLI. Last man standing is Captain of the 747, first guy down is FO 767 NYC.
with a straight shots competition you have to watch out for the clown that switches the vodka with water...
11-10-2008, 02:01 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.
Carl
Carl
Carl, -you sly sage of cyberspace, you clever, crafty conjurer of controversy, indeed -you whittling whit of word-play, you wriggling, wearisome wooer from the well-positioned, and all-around wily wisenheimer of the world wide web,---you tricked me!! Now, why'd you go an' do a thing like that? Well, let me see what I've got up my sleeve.....
....Let's see, if we give "each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company" - which I agree with, Carl, but then first, shouldn't we see what that "credit" amounts to for all those "DAYS" spent in "his/her" company? For a Sep. 1985 DL hire, his "DAYS" earn him, or "credit" to him, a junior 777 capt/ senior 767-400 capt. -international, "super premium" widebody variety. For his date of hire equivalent at NW, his "DAYS" "credit" him a mid-seniority A320 domestic, narrow-body capt. -of the non-international, non-"super premium", non-widebody variety. (these, of course, are stovepipe positions). It seems one pilot has "earned" more "credit" in the same amount of time than the other pilot. Should the one be penalized for bringing, and having more 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline, and the other rewarded for bringing, and having less 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline? Or do you think the 777 is equivalent to the A320? (A DL 777 equivalent to a NW A320?)
P.S. -Carl, you are confusing longevity with seniority.
11-10-2008, 02:24 PM
#27
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.
Carl
Carl
11-10-2008, 02:59 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 320B
Posts: 278
I have tried to stay out of these discussions but oh well here I go.
Bucking Bar says that we (NWA) should basically accept the ratios because they are "fair"
Carl says we should except DOH cause that is "fair"
Well as we all know life is not fair and we all need to compromise.
As a 1999 hire that would be Jr. to a 2007 hire I am not a big fan of ratios. Even though it lets me hold the same narrow body FO seat I hold today. I think I should have some protection of my (I hate the term) career expectations. At NWA I will retire in the top 30. If we go the ratios I wont crack 1000, so there is definitely some damage done.
Of course a straight DOH with fences benefits me more so I am in favor of that.
However I think there is a compromise out there. I would think a simple 7 to 5 ratio would be that compromise. Or I would even go with a straight ratio by where you are at on your SL. I.E. 15% at NWA then I would be 15% at the new DAL. I gain some in the short run lose some in the long run.
The DAL MEC could throw the NWA guys a bone on this that would help get it done. Since July when the SL at each company was locked in NWA has had about 200 retirements or about 4% of the list (200/5100).
So take a new snapshot that has NWA with the same number of total pilots about 5100 but with a newly computed SL as of DCC. i.e. the bottom guy would be 4900 out of 5100. Then refigure the ratios based upon the new list. For example I would go from about 14.5 to 17.5%. I would retire at 500 to 600 versus 200 with straight DOH. The caveat would be no one could move up more than 4% or DOH. I would put the NWA guys hired after 2001 in a straight DOH or a 7 to 5 ratio.
Bottom line is we are all not going to get what we want and need to work together so in the end we are all a little ****ed but unified.
Bucking Bar says that we (NWA) should basically accept the ratios because they are "fair"
Carl says we should except DOH cause that is "fair"
Well as we all know life is not fair and we all need to compromise.
As a 1999 hire that would be Jr. to a 2007 hire I am not a big fan of ratios. Even though it lets me hold the same narrow body FO seat I hold today. I think I should have some protection of my (I hate the term) career expectations. At NWA I will retire in the top 30. If we go the ratios I wont crack 1000, so there is definitely some damage done.
Of course a straight DOH with fences benefits me more so I am in favor of that.
However I think there is a compromise out there. I would think a simple 7 to 5 ratio would be that compromise. Or I would even go with a straight ratio by where you are at on your SL. I.E. 15% at NWA then I would be 15% at the new DAL. I gain some in the short run lose some in the long run.
The DAL MEC could throw the NWA guys a bone on this that would help get it done. Since July when the SL at each company was locked in NWA has had about 200 retirements or about 4% of the list (200/5100).
So take a new snapshot that has NWA with the same number of total pilots about 5100 but with a newly computed SL as of DCC. i.e. the bottom guy would be 4900 out of 5100. Then refigure the ratios based upon the new list. For example I would go from about 14.5 to 17.5%. I would retire at 500 to 600 versus 200 with straight DOH. The caveat would be no one could move up more than 4% or DOH. I would put the NWA guys hired after 2001 in a straight DOH or a 7 to 5 ratio.
Bottom line is we are all not going to get what we want and need to work together so in the end we are all a little ****ed but unified.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
