What are "prevailing equities"

Subscribe
1  2  3  4  5  6  12 
Page 2 of 16
Go to
Quote: 15 to 20 years down the road....
--But just as "statistically certain" therefore, real, -as NW's 5-10 years down the road.
Reply
Well one statisical certainty will be the number of Northwest pilots who retire prior to DCC to go out under the old medical plan. For months we have been hearing that the number could be up to 1000 pilots. And if the SLI was finished prior to DCC that myth might have carried weight on the arbitrators decision.
I guess we can assume that if guys were going to go early they had their chance and the rest are in it for the long haul. I don't remember if this issue came up during the hearings but it is now irrelevant - we have a small number of guys that retired and that is now a fact.
BTW - do any NW guys know the actual number?

Scoop
Reply
Quote: Well one statisical certainty will be the number of Northwest pilots who retire prior to DCC to go out under the old medical plan. For months we have been hearing that the number could be up to 1000 pilots. And if the SLI was finished prior to DCC that myth might have carried weight on the arbitrators decision.
I guess we can assume that if guys were going to go early they had their chance and the rest are in it for the long haul. I don't remember if this issue came up during the hearings but it is now irrelevant - we have a small number of guys that retired and that is now a fact.
BTW - do any NW guys know the actual number?

Scoop
I don't know the actual numbers, but I know a number of guys were caught off guard. Now they're probably in until 60 so they don't have to pay $2,000 per month for medical premiums.

It didn't come up on our side. We simply displayed the blue/red chart that moved forward in one year increments based on a statistical 62.4 age of attrition.

Carl
Reply
Quote: --But just as "statistically certain" therefore, real, -as NW's 5-10 years down the road.
Not really, 75% of our list will be gone. They don't see it as real.
Reply
Quote: Not really, 75% of our list will be gone. They don't see it as real.
On average NWA pilots are only a couple of years older than DAL pilots, so about 75% of Delta pilots should be gone also.

Regardless, future attrition has never played a part in seniority list integration under ALPA policy with the exception of a modest fence with AAA/AWA, where the age disparity was significantly larger than in this case, so I'm not at all surprised that Mr. Bloch has suggested that it wont play a role in this integration either. The emphasis will most likely be on the prevailing equities, which are the current and dominant equities, with little consideration of what's happened in the past or career expectations at the old Delta or the old NWA. This strongly suggests some form of ratio of current and comparable positions brought to the "new venture."
Reply
Quote: On average NWA pilots are only a couple of years older than DAL pilots...

The two groups are not even close to equal in age.

I for one hope for an arbitrated decision. We could not possibly do worse than what was offered to us by DALPA.
Reply
Quote: Regardless, future attrition has never played a part in seniority list integration under ALPA policy with the exception of a modest fence with AAA/AWA, where the age disparity was significantly larger than in this case,
Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in. It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?

Quote: so I'm not at all surprised that Mr. Bloch has suggested that it wont play a role in this integration either.
I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl
Reply
Quote: The two groups are not even close to equal in age.
At our last LEC meeting our negotiators said that NWA had nearly 200 guys over the age of 60 already on the list (most on some type of sick/disability with the rest being SO's). When those positions were taken out, the difference in both median and average age was less than 2 years. Even with those over 60's included it was about 2 years. FWIW

The "incredible" 1000 attrition a couple of days ago probably narrowed the difference a little more.
Reply
Quote: At our last LEC meeting our negotiators said that NWA had nearly 200 guys over the age of 60 already on the list (most on some type of sick/disability with the rest being SO's). When those positions were taken out, the difference in both median and average age was less than 2 years. Even with those over 60's included it was about 2 years.
That is a good argument for DOH, thanks.
Reply
Quote: Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in. It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?
Yeah, it might have been used for those purposes, but that is a far cry from using attrition as the basis for the actual construction of a list.


I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl
-And I imagine Bloch would be equally surprised at your characterization of "insulate from the vagaries of the future" translated as "take a snapshot, then make the list from that point in time." No one disputes that there will be 100% attrition from the list, by all of us, eventually. We have very little statistical evidence to say what the "average" retirement age will be since the law changed, 62.4 is a "wag" and is therefore speculative. --BUT--thats not the real issue here, is it, Carl. There is a 500 lb. gorilla lurking behind all the fluff of "statistical certainty" and "attrition" in your arguments, and that has to do with our old friend "vagaries of the future" - reiterated in "roulette table". Those simple statements are self-evident, and are not subject to interpretation...they put the very premiss of your list in jeopardy, that you are somehow inherently entitled in this merger, to realize 100% of your future attrition as future advancement. Why, Carl, is a NW pilot's claim "I would be very senior in 10 years" any more valid than a DL pilot making the same claim? It is not more valid, it is only equally valid, they are both "career expectations", and are equally subject to the arbitrator's unambiguous statements.
Reply
1  2  3  4  5  6  12 
Page 2 of 16
Go to