DAL SLI thread...
12-19-2012, 07:50 AM
#11
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
Or inserted with other pilots of the same longevity and career expectation? Since the whole "windfall" restriction has been removed from merger policy the arbitrator would not even have to worry about the perceived harm to junior CAL pilots. 
12-19-2012, 11:59 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
While there is little doubt this SLI will go to arbitration...considering the foibles of "pilot human nature"... it is thus in that sense 'out of your hands'....The arbitrators in the DL/NWA case seemed to lay a great premium on a negotiated list, imploring both sides at various times to try to settle it amongst themselves...lol....did I mention "pilot human nature"? Each pre merger group will have a chance to present their case to the arbitrators, -and that is where all the interesting "weeping and gnashing of teeth" takes place. Huge, glaring, myopic, and narrowly favorable contrasts are drawn by both groups in an attempt to show, essentially, -why they deserve better seniority in a combined list. The potential for "emotional conflict" between groups runs very high. In our case, there was a huge disparity between NWAs desired DOH with 10 year fences list and DALs ratioed/relative list....along with the issue of greater NWA retirements in the near term. The list ended up being ratioed, though not precisely in the form that DAL had wanted...everyone kept their pre merger percentile seniority within a couple of percent...and after it was settled...everyone for the most part...much to my surprise, was OK with the combined list...or conversely, equally dissatisfied with the list.
In the retrospect that four years has provided, it was an "expectations management" game....something that was not managed too well, for example, by the USAir pilots in their merger with AWA. But in the DAL/NWA case, expectations of a DOH list (with fences) would have skewed the relative seniorities in the upper part of the premerger groups to an extreme, obviously in favor of NWA. The proposed fences were an acknowledgement of that seniority inequity. Thus, I say without too much hesitation, that is why the former NWAers were not too disappointed when they did not get their desired list. Certainly they could legitimately "ask" for a DOH list...one had been imposed on them in a previous merger, and had been a recognized methodology historically...But when merging with an equivalent (in terms of equipment) and larger airline, DOH with long fences would have been synergistically impractical, and...extremely divisive. (example: DOH would have placed only 210 DAL pilots in the top 1500 positions) Thus the NWA pilots attempted to gain their favorable outcome of DOH because they could....and not appear to be desiring a windfall. Their worst-case scenario, and DALs best-case advocacy position...was to maintain the pre merger relative seniority that was in fact awarded.
Something had to "give" though, and what was sacrificed was future expectations...those of NWA pilots to realize all of the advancement from their scheduled retirements...sacrificed at the alter of "current status quo"...longevity trumped by current status. Fairness in the present will always trump a future expectations. The only way around it appeared to be through the use of fences...which principle in the extreme of protecting original equipment, positions, and expectations leads to a permanently divided pilot group...defeating the stated purpose of a "merger".
It appears to me that there isn't such a DOH demographic disparity between the UAL/CAL groups, which isn't to say there are no disparities...I just am not that familiar with them. There is the very thorny issue of how furloughees will be handled, something DAL was very fortunate to escape. The ALPA merger policy has changed to reflect "longevity"....Even so, I would still expect through recent precedence that current status quo will receive the greatest weight, -since current concrete realities by their nature are more "real" than the vagaries of the future in this crazy profession. I wish all the luck in the world to you guys...
In the retrospect that four years has provided, it was an "expectations management" game....something that was not managed too well, for example, by the USAir pilots in their merger with AWA. But in the DAL/NWA case, expectations of a DOH list (with fences) would have skewed the relative seniorities in the upper part of the premerger groups to an extreme, obviously in favor of NWA. The proposed fences were an acknowledgement of that seniority inequity. Thus, I say without too much hesitation, that is why the former NWAers were not too disappointed when they did not get their desired list. Certainly they could legitimately "ask" for a DOH list...one had been imposed on them in a previous merger, and had been a recognized methodology historically...But when merging with an equivalent (in terms of equipment) and larger airline, DOH with long fences would have been synergistically impractical, and...extremely divisive. (example: DOH would have placed only 210 DAL pilots in the top 1500 positions) Thus the NWA pilots attempted to gain their favorable outcome of DOH because they could....and not appear to be desiring a windfall. Their worst-case scenario, and DALs best-case advocacy position...was to maintain the pre merger relative seniority that was in fact awarded.
Something had to "give" though, and what was sacrificed was future expectations...those of NWA pilots to realize all of the advancement from their scheduled retirements...sacrificed at the alter of "current status quo"...longevity trumped by current status. Fairness in the present will always trump a future expectations. The only way around it appeared to be through the use of fences...which principle in the extreme of protecting original equipment, positions, and expectations leads to a permanently divided pilot group...defeating the stated purpose of a "merger".
It appears to me that there isn't such a DOH demographic disparity between the UAL/CAL groups, which isn't to say there are no disparities...I just am not that familiar with them. There is the very thorny issue of how furloughees will be handled, something DAL was very fortunate to escape. The ALPA merger policy has changed to reflect "longevity"....Even so, I would still expect through recent precedence that current status quo will receive the greatest weight, -since current concrete realities by their nature are more "real" than the vagaries of the future in this crazy profession. I wish all the luck in the world to you guys...
12-19-2012, 03:01 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Delta MEC Position
The Delta committee proposes a Status and Category ratio approach to the List integration that positions pilots from the respective carriers on the basis of comparable status and comparable equipment. It notes that Status and Category ratios were employed in implementing Delta’s three previous mergers (Delta/Northeast, 1972; Delta/Western, 1987; and Delta/Pan American World Assets Acquisition, 1991). This methodology, it argues, best preserves each group’s pre-merger career expectations.
Northwest MEC Position
The Northwest representatives endorse a Date-of-Hire approach, with attendant conditions and restrictions. Arbitral precedent supports the use of a date-weighted solution in cases where, as here, the two carriers are comparable, it is claimed.
Award
Summarizing, based on the record in its entirety, we conclude a four-category list, constructed on a Status and Category/Ratio basis, will properly respond to the demands of fairness and equity in the context of these particular facts.
The Delta committee proposes a Status and Category ratio approach to the List integration that positions pilots from the respective carriers on the basis of comparable status and comparable equipment. It notes that Status and Category ratios were employed in implementing Delta’s three previous mergers (Delta/Northeast, 1972; Delta/Western, 1987; and Delta/Pan American World Assets Acquisition, 1991). This methodology, it argues, best preserves each group’s pre-merger career expectations.
Northwest MEC Position
The Northwest representatives endorse a Date-of-Hire approach, with attendant conditions and restrictions. Arbitral precedent supports the use of a date-weighted solution in cases where, as here, the two carriers are comparable, it is claimed.
Award
Summarizing, based on the record in its entirety, we conclude a four-category list, constructed on a Status and Category/Ratio basis, will properly respond to the demands of fairness and equity in the context of these particular facts.
12-19-2012, 03:09 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Old School (including Dal/Nwa)
The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, in no particular order:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
New School (CAL/UAL first case)
The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to
a. career expectations.
b. longevity.
c. status and category.
The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, in no particular order:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
New School (CAL/UAL first case)
The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to
a. career expectations.
b. longevity.
c. status and category.
Last edited by jsled; 12-19-2012 at 03:22 PM.
12-19-2012, 05:00 PM
#17
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by jsled
Delta MEC Position
The Delta committee proposes a Status and Category ratio approach to the List integration that positions pilots from the respective carriers on the basis of comparable status and comparable equipment. It notes that Status and Category ratios were employed in implementing Delta’s three previous mergers (Delta/Northeast, 1972; Delta/Western, 1987; and Delta/Pan American World Assets Acquisition, 1991). This methodology, it argues, best preserves each group’s pre-merger career expectations.
Northwest MEC Position
The Northwest representatives endorse a Date-of-Hire approach, with attendant conditions and restrictions. Arbitral precedent supports the use of a date-weighted solution in cases where, as here, the two carriers are comparable, it is claimed.
Award
Summarizing, based on the record in its entirety, we conclude a four-category list, constructed on a Status and Category/Ratio basis, will properly respond to the demands of fairness and equity in the context of these particular facts.
The Delta committee proposes a Status and Category ratio approach to the List integration that positions pilots from the respective carriers on the basis of comparable status and comparable equipment. It notes that Status and Category ratios were employed in implementing Delta’s three previous mergers (Delta/Northeast, 1972; Delta/Western, 1987; and Delta/Pan American World Assets Acquisition, 1991). This methodology, it argues, best preserves each group’s pre-merger career expectations.
Northwest MEC Position
The Northwest representatives endorse a Date-of-Hire approach, with attendant conditions and restrictions. Arbitral precedent supports the use of a date-weighted solution in cases where, as here, the two carriers are comparable, it is claimed.
Award
Summarizing, based on the record in its entirety, we conclude a four-category list, constructed on a Status and Category/Ratio basis, will properly respond to the demands of fairness and equity in the context of these particular facts.
What they meant was DAL has XX widebody and NWA had YY. So they ratioed the top tier that way. Then they did mid-narrowbody.
So if we did that, UAL would get about a 3 UAL to 1 CAL ratio reserved at the top of the list (probably 3,000 pilots) for UAL, then the mid body would be about 2 UAL to 1 CAL, then the bottom would be reserved mostly for CAL (probably 1 to 3) because there are most 737's on the CAL side.
I don't think the average guy over there is thinking this way. They are looking at the seniority of their capts and thinking that what that means.
The DAL NWA deal completely ignored WHERE PEOPLE SAT. It only looked at the entirety of the airplanes and broke them into the banks. They didn't say "Well the junior XX capt is here so we'll do this". They just said DAL has more big airplanes relative to NWA so they get more slots at the top.
To put it in another analogy, what if two airlines merged, and one was only 777's and the other was only 737's? Using status and category, ALL the top slots would be for the pilots from the airline with 777s, then the middle would be mixed with both pilot groups, and the entire bottom would be the airline with all the 737s.
Yes that is an extreme example, but that is what status and category mean. It doesn't mean, making all the Capts the same seniority, and all the FO's the same seniority.
So be careful what you wish for.
12-19-2012, 05:04 PM
#18
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Just to make it clear, I would be totally happy with a status and category approach as a UAL guy. I'd probably do better with that than DOH.
Also, parking the 737's was actually GOOD for the UAL side because it turned us into even more of a widebody airline than we already were.
Also, parking the 737's was actually GOOD for the UAL side because it turned us into even more of a widebody airline than we already were.
12-19-2012, 05:09 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
Just to make it clear, I would be totally happy with a status and category approach as a UAL guy. I'd probably do better with that than DOH.
Also, parking the 737's was actually GOOD for the UAL side because it turned us into even more of a widebody airline than we already were.
Also, parking the 737's was actually GOOD for the UAL side because it turned us into even more of a widebody airline than we already were.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
newKnow
Mergers and Acquisitions
278
04-17-2008 12:04 PM
