{yawn),...oh did you say something ?
Oh, did you respond?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
{yawn),...oh did you say something ?
You all get to move up 2000 numbers in the last 2 years, now you will get to move up into NWA retirement slots that you would have never had. Seems fair.
You are integrating with DAL's 2008 seniority list, not 2002's. Get use to it.
BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable.
Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?
What do you have against ratios anyways? Afraid the jobs you brought to the merger can't match DAL's?
Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.
The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.
I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.
What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.
I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay. You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?
Concentrate , focus, you can do it.
BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable. Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
Here are some transcripts from 10-20, where your 744 Captain (EN) talked about ratios etc. Here he talks about that negotiator on the NWA merger committee (DN):
14 A He and I were both on the Northwest merger
15 committee 1986 through 1990 representing the
16 Northwest pilots in the Republic proceeding.
17 Q By the way, in connection with that
18 proceeding, it was the Northwest pilots' position
19 that a date of hire list was not a proper list but
20 rather the ratio list was a proper list; correct?
21 A Our proposal was a ratioed list, yes
He continues by stating this about ratios and his thoughts at the time:
Q And the Northwest pilots were quite
21 convinced in connection with the Republic merger
22 that a date of hire list was not a fair and
equitable list and that a ratioed list was a fair
2 and equitable list; correct?
3 A We made that proposal, yes. We made that
4 exact argument.
5 Q Not only did you make the argument. I
6 trust you believed the argument as well?
7 A I think it's safe to say that concerning
8 me personally, in the 1986 proceeding as a brand-new
9 guy in the merger world, yes, I was what I rather
10 judgmentally call a true believer. I believed in
11 the approach we were taking
What did the Redbooks want with the Republic pilots at the time? A lot of the greenbooks were senior:
Q And it is correct, just to circle back,
15 that at the time of the seniority integration, it
16 was the red book pilots that had been pressing for a
17 ratioed solution?
18 A The former Northwest pilots proposed a
19 ratioed solution in front of Mr. Roberts, yes
Then our lawyer made the 744 Captain read a portion of an article that the other negotiator wrote:
A You want me to read it out loud?
4 Q Please.
5 A The third paragraph reads as follows, and
6 I quote: "If you have a limited time frame to
7 prepare, we would urge you to concentrate first on
8 the various cases involving Continental and to do so
9 in chronological order. Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic
11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."
And lastly, our lawyer debates with your lawyer and states:
He didn't testify on direct about the
20 Northwest Trump shuttle integration.
21 MR. F: No, that's right he didn't.
22 But I asked him questions about other mergers,
including this one, without objection. He was
2 chairman of the merger committee. He is an
3 experienced seniority integration expert, and it
4 seems to me that we ought to have no doubt about
5 what other seniority integrations occurred or what
6 proposed to be occurred at Northwest
CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Well, I take it your
8 point is to show that it's a ratio approach.
9 MR. F: Exactly, yes
Bye Bye--General Lee
That took a lot of work.......very nice. and what was the end result of that merger arbitration.................................
Date of hire, with fences.
Yes, the Roberts award did that. And the latest precedent, the Nicelau award, did not.
Comparing similar, "equal" airlines to AAA and AWA will not happen. Even Nicalau stated that date of hire would have given a huge windfall to AAA. His award will not and is not the precedent. Sorry......
Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?
FDJ,
Yes, actually. The Piedmont/Allegheny merger was DOH with fences (for bases), and that happened in 2004.
Actually, it's a very good precedent. Although they were both regionals, they were basically thought of as equals (hmmm, I remember that being brought up recently), but had some differences in demographics.
Nu