No, under your proposal when a NW guy retires only NW guys move up the list, leapfrogging more senior Delta guys. Your fence proposal also ends at the precise time that the Delta retirements out number the NW ones. How many times have we heard you and others harping about "Delta benefiting from OUR retirements!"? If they are your retirements then their your jets that are being parked and your furloughs. If you want to share the pain then you have to share the gain. If we are one group then we all benefit from guys leaving at the top and we all suffer from planes leaving at the bottom.

That's not true satchip. I've posted the exact language of the NWA proposed fence, and there is no leap frogging. None.

The leap frogging you cite was the concept of dynamic seniority as it relates to actual attrition. That concept was if the list was constructed via a RATIO. There is no such dynamic seniority concept as part of the NWA proposal which is Date of Hire and a 10 year fence.

You are correct about the fences expiring too close to when DAL retirements begin to kick in. I think the fences should extend to the end of DAL's big retirement push to be fair.

All just a moot point now though, but I wanted you and everyone else to be clear on what the NWA proposal is and what it isn't.

Carl

I agree that we should just all as a group take what both sides are bringing. Unfortunately neither of us made the proposals or has a real say in it. However under the NWA proposal there would be no leap frogging in seniority numbers. Everyone would move up the list as attrition took place. What the proposal does do though is block out certain positions on BOTH sides so that only the original pilots of each airframe could bid them until the period of time expired. Therefore as attrition takes place in those positions, let say the 747 than only NWA pilots would be eligible to bid those seats. Same goes for the blocked off DAL seats. What this does is it allows the NWA side to get the benefits of our sides retirements without having the RD swooping in and taking those positions. The DAL side also has the same protections during the same period of time. Its not perfect but that was the jist of it.

Bottom line is EVERYONE moves up in numbers so there is no leap frogging of seniority. If there gets to be a point to where there arent enough people to bid those positions then the other side will be able to bid them.

Good thing is that the arbitrators have already said on a couple of occasions that neither sides list will be used so we can all look at the other sides proposal as worst case scenario.

Carl you are correct I did mix metaphors so to speak. Your DOH proposal fence expires at the time of the Delta retirements and your dynamic lists proposes leapfrogging. Both proposals fail to meet ALPA merger policy as presently stated and fail to meet the fair and equitable standard. We have argued those points ad nauseum. The point is if positive attrition due to retirements is an equity (which by the way, it has never been recognized as one in the past) then negative attrition due to aircraft retirements should be a negative equity factored into the equation. You can't take ownership of one and not the other. Any list that uses the equity of attrition to place one subset of the group ahead of another must also account for the negative attrition equity also.

Here's the problem with your argument. We still have DC9s(60+). They're still flying. There's NO OFFICIAL plan to park them in your phantom 5 year time period. Therefore, it's unjustified to put the so called "responsibility of the furlough jet" on NWA pilots. They're STILL FLYING. WE'VE FURLOUGHED NO ONE!!!!! Show me the press release that says they're all being parked. That's right, there isn't one.

I think the plans that you are looking for will start to take form very shortly after the SLI. (12.09.08)

You mean DC9s coming out of storage?!

I'm guessing the opposite though. You're not supposed to say stuff like that. Your source is too good.

Like the Delta over expanded in Europe furloughs. You wanted it to cut both ways...

I thought we were going to stop all this cr@p.

If not, then both sides need to try some new material. This is boring.

Well, I'll be the first to admit I didn't follow my own advice. Sorry guys. I'm back to not arguing this. As I said earlier, it's over.