|
SLI compromises
Just a few thought on ratios: No matter what the final list looks like, the average ratio of DL/NW pilots will be approx. 7/5 or 1.4/1. With that fact in mind, it is just a matter of applying ratios within the combined list to reflect or equalize the underlying demographics. My opinion only, but the most DL would plausibly compromise on the top of the list, which is 1.6/1 -which is the ratio of all WB pilots (DL/NW), would be a list constructed on strict (or nearly so) category positions. For example: 237 NW 747 capt./ 193 DL 777 capt. = 1.22/1 followed by 280 A330/181 767-400=1.54/1 for an average ratio of 517 NW/374 DL= 1.38/1. This, rather self-evidently, results in 517 NW pilots and 374 DL pilots in the top 891 positions at the combined airline. This ratio would address exactly the larger amount of flying NW brings in those.... (need I insert an adjective!?)...categories, as well as the greater short-term attrition at NW. Looks good so far for NW, but that rationale and resulting favorable ratio at the top comes unavoidably, and ultimately -mathematically, at a price. To be technically correct, Delta has 639 captains in a wide body category that NW does not have, ie. 767ER. But let's ignore that, for the purposes of speculating on a compromise by DL, and follow the NW proposition that their 757 category should be treated as "equal" to the entire DL 767/757 category (intnl. & dom.) This would result in 1420 DL to 447 NW capt. which equals a 3.17/1 ratio -unavoidably, in DL's favor. Quite a "hit" for NW on that one, but it only reflects exactly, in terms of numbers of specific quality pilot jobs, what we each brought to the merger. (and does so rather compromisingly, equating the NW 757 narrowbody dom. to the DL 767ER widebody international) As for the rest of the list, one can ratio various combinations of 737/A320/M88-90/DC-9 but overall the ratio would be close to 1202 (DL 737,M88) to 1039 (A320,DC-9) which equals 1.15/1 in DL's favor. All these category/ratio combinations average to the mathematically neccessary 7/5 ratio. Notice this smooth ratio toward the bottom of the list does away with the 400 NW pilot staple, to be replaced perhaps, by a fence containing that risk. Also, the the widebodies at the top would be fenced (but not the 767/757) for say, 5-8 yrs. I haven't by any means thought of all the contingencies, ie. aircraft deliveries/retirements etc. BTW, this proposal would result in a 2% relative loss of seniority for me. |
well thought out but I think nw is more likely to compromise at the top of the list. Why? Well, most of our top 700 guys are already in the seat they want. The Dal captains that are already on the 777 most likely won't bid the 747 or the 330, at least for the forseeable future and most of the top 1000 nw guys will be out of here in the next 5. So, if you put a 777 1985 captain in front of 1980 whale captain, who cares? Neither will affect each other in category and so there is much room for compromise. I.E if you're a 57 year 330 captain and you bid number 20 in DTW and number 500 overall putting a 1985 777 captain in front of him would not affect his life whatsoever as that 777 captain isn't leaving atl for the 330 in dtw, well, probability would suggest. Ergo, we have a lot of room at the top of the list to compromise.
|
Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):D Honestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs. As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict. True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority. It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc. |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 494264)
Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):D Honestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs. As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict. True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority. It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc. Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements. Delta guy |
Originally Posted by Cogf16
(Post 494440)
Wiggy,
Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements. Delta guy |
Based on rumors and common sense.
If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it. Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators. Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Based on rumors and common sense.
If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it. Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators. Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now.
Carl |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 494798)
I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494833)
I agree. Date of Hire is the perfect status quo since both sides' seniority lists are made up predominately of Date of Hire.
Yup. Who needs fences when everyone gets to keep their status quo Date of Hire. You bet. Same as we have now...Date of Hire. Carl Do us all a favor...... Please flush the toilet after you use it. I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you. I promise to always flush from now on if you will....Thanks. :D Cheers:cool: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:27 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands