Airline Pilot Forums

I just got back off a long Asia trip and had the first look at the proposed seniority list presented by Delta at the arbitration hearings. I am confused. I read the opening statement from the Delta attorney who said that their proposal was based on a category/relative seniority list. So here are my questions.

1. I was hired in 01/85 and am currently a 330CA. My senority # is 8XX. When I look at the proposed list, I will be # 22xx with the first person hired after me (09/85) at Delta will be #3xx . That is my relative seniority question.

2. There are many pilots on the proposed list that would be way senior to me that are currently flying as B737 or B757 CA's. How does that fit into the Category argument?

Not trying to put fuel on the fire as we have yet to see the NWA proposed list but just trying to see how this list would be "fair and equaitable". I greatly appreciate any constructive response

I am sure someone will explain it to you.
It works for what we are proposing. Up next you guys.

Delta's proposal is relative position. Your date of hire is irrelevant.
The lists were stovepiped and then NWA pilots and Delta pilots were slotted in based on holding the same seat on similar equipment. A330 Captains with 767-400 Captains. A320 FOs with 737 FOs, etc.

Not true. As I stated before, there are guys/ladies on the proposed list that would be way senior to me currently flying as B737CA. I don't believe that would be the "same seat on similar aircraft"

Delta's proposal is relative position. Your date of hire is irrelevant.
You are slotted in with Delta pilots who are holding the same seat on similar equipment. A330 Captains with 767-400 Captains. A320 FOs with 737 FOs, etc.

Is your date of hire on the Delta list irrelevant?

It is not about DOH. People bid the 73N because it is some of the best flying in the system. Trust me it goes really senior.
It is not what they are flying but what their seniority can hold. Read stovepipe.

Not true. As I stated before, there are guys/ladies on the proposed list that would be way senior to me currently flying as B737CA. I don't believe that would be the "same seat on similar aircraft"

Sorry. I edited my post to add the "stovepiping".
The lists are stovepiped to account for "senior" pilots on smaller equipment. ie= someone choosing to remain senior in category for schedule and lifestyle reasons. Delta has some VERY senior 737 pilots who can hold 777 if they wanted to. I'm sure NWA has the same phenomenon.

Delta has some very desirable "dinner and a movie" trips on the 737. One day trips worth 9 hours. Never a layover. That might be the guys you are seeing.

Is your date of hire on the Delta list irrelevant?

No. Nobody jumps seniority within their own airline's list.

1. I was hired in 01/85 and am currently a 330CA. My senority # is 8XX. When I look at the proposed list, I will be # 22xx with the first person hired after me (09/85) at Delta will be #3xx . That is my relative seniority question.

2. There are many pilots on the proposed list that would be way senior to me that are currently flying as B737 or B757 CA's. How does that fit into the Category argument?

Not trying to put fuel on the fire as we have yet to see the NWA proposed list but just trying to see how this list would be "fair and equaitable". I greatly appreciate any constructive response

First off, I am done arging DOH vs relative position. The DL and NW pilots disagree. We know that and arguing about it won't solve a thing. I will try to explain the questions you have asked, and I will try to leave any emotion out.

For number one, by a relative position argument you go in the list based on what you can hold, not your DOH. Ignore DOH for the purposes of looking at the Delta proposal. The people who end up around you on the list are likely holding the same thing you are.

For number two, as ACL said, there was a "stovepipe" applied. In other words, lets say Delta has 200 777 captains (don't know the actual number off the top of my head). For the sake of list construction, the first 200 guys on the Delta list are considered 777 captains, even though not all of them have actually chosen to utilize their seniority to bid that position. I know for a fact we have some pilots in the top 200 who are 73N captains.

As to how this list would be fair and equitable, I would say it is our position that it puts everyone on the list in the equivalent position as pilots who hold similiar equipment and have similar long term prospects.

I know for me personally, looking at the NWA guys right around me (+/- say 100 numbers) on the DL proposed list, they are all flying the same equipment as the DL guys right around me on the list, junior-mid level narrowbody captain or senior widebody FO.

Whenever you work on a SLI the first thing you have to do is rationalize each list or as put here stove pipe the lists. That means you figure out what each pilot would hold if he flew the highest category able. That means lots of pilots flying 7ER Captain at Delta for instance would appear as a 737 CA. The reverse can also occur a senior CA on one piece of equipment might hold better on another piece of equipment. I think 777 Captain goes down to 91 hires now. If you stovepipe the list the actual 777 Captain slots would only go to about early 86 hires. Keep in mind that this is only a opener just as DOH is the NWA opener. I don't think either list will be close to the final product.

I just got back off a long Asia trip and had the first look at the proposed seniority list presented by Delta at the arbitration hearings. I am confused. I read the opening statement from the Delta attorney who said that their proposal was based on a category/relative seniority list. So here are my questions.

1. I was hired in 01/85 and am currently a 330CA. My senority # is 8XX. When I look at the proposed list, I will be # 22xx with the first person hired after me (09/85) at Delta will be #3xx . That is my relative seniority question.

2. There are many pilots on the proposed list that would be way senior to me that are currently flying as B737 or B757 CA's. How does that fit into the Category argument?

Not trying to put fuel on the fire as we have yet to see the NWA proposed list but just trying to see how this list would be "fair and equaitable". I greatly appreciate any constructive response

The junior 777 Captain at Delta is 2000+ on our seniority list. Also, are you Red Book? If so, you may be a 330 CA because the more senior Green Book pilots have been shut out of your seat for 20 years. How many A320 and 757 captains do you have on your own list that are senior to you? Probably quite a lot. What you are holding at any one time doesn't necessarily mean that is what you would hold in a stovepipe.

The junior 777 Captain at Delta is 2000+ on our seniority list. Also, are you Red Book? If so, you may be a 330 CA because the more senior Green Book pilots have been shut out of your seat for 20 years.

Just to nitpick, the A330 has only been on property for 5 years, not 20 years. Out of those 5 years 2.75 of them have been UNfenced by the previous SLI award.

They have been unfenced but since there has been little movement greenbook pilots have not been able to get over to the aircraft relative to their seniority. There is a reason they refer to the 787 as the Greenliner.

Just to nitpick, the A330 has only been on property for 5 years, not 20 years. Out of those 5 years 2.75 of them have been UNfenced by the previous SLI award.

That does the greeenbook guys little good if there are no openings - does it? Anyway - you guys have seen our opener, now its your turn. I hope the transcipts are not as boring as the first round was.

Scoop

Delta's proposal is relative position. Your date of hire is irrelevant.
The lists were stovepiped and then NWA pilots and Delta pilots were slotted in based on holding the same seat on similar equipment. A330 Captains with 767-400 Captains. A320 FOs with 737 FOs, etc.

why is it that there are nwa pilots stapled to the bottom of the list? shouldn't they be slotted in somewhere?

[/b]

That does the greeenbook guys little good if there are no openings - does it? Anyway - you guys have seen our opener, now its your turn. I hope the transcipts are not as boring as the first round was.

Scoop

The MSP base is 100% green CA iirc. I haven't flown with a Red Book Captain out of SEA in quite awhile either.

A lot of our A330 deliveries took place after the fence was down.

Not true. As I stated before, there are guys/ladies on the proposed list that would be way senior to me currently flying as B737CA. I don't believe that would be the "same seat on similar aircraft"

And there is a DC9 captain or two senior to me on that list and I am a 767er super non premium sometimes widebody captain... what's your point?

why is it that there are nwa pilots stapled to the bottom of the list? shouldn't they be slotted in somewhere?

Because the lists were stovepiped. Basically, the lists were lined up side by side and then put together by category ratio. Since the DC-9 is smaller than an MD-88, all the -9 slots are at the bottom of the list.

[/b]

That does the greeenbook guys little good if there are no openings - does it? Anyway - you guys have seen our opener, now its your turn. I hope the transcipts are not as boring as the first round was.

Scoop

Boring???? I thought they were incredibly entertaining. :D Seriously.

Is your date of hire on the Delta list irrelevant?

It will be on the combined list... unless you are a newhire.

Because the lists were stovepiped. Basically, the lists were lined up side by side and then put together by category ratio. Since the DC-9 is smaller than an MD-88, all the -9 slots are at the bottom of the list.

can I assume it is more of a pay issue rather than size because the 747 is larger than the 777.

can I assume it is more of a pay issue rather than size because the 747 is larger than the 777.

That is correct, and for the most part size and pay go together, but really who cares about the size of the aircraft, - its the compensation thats important. I would gladly bid for an open cockpit Bi-plane if the compensation was right.:)

Scoop

can I assume it is more of a pay issue rather than size because the 747 is larger than the 777.

The categories were based on comparable type aircraft. The only comparable aircraft at Delta to the DC-9 is a CRJ-900. Since that is at the DCI, the -9 is at the bottom. JMO though, the brainiacs may be better at explaining it.

The categories were based on comparable type aircraft. The only comparable aircraft at Delta to the DC-9 is a CRJ-900. Since that is at the DCI, the -9 is at the bottom. JMO though, the brainiacs may be better at explaining it.
What metrics are being used to determine what is comparable? I don't know so I'm just asking. Why is the DC-9 considered only comparable to the CRJ-900? The DC-9-50's carry more pax than Delta's 737-700's. The 737-700 pays more though, especially in the JPWA where it matches the -800. So is it a pay thing? Seats? MGTOW? Range?

What metrics are being used to determine what is comparable? I don't know so I'm just asking. Why is the DC-9 considered only comparable to the CRJ-900? The DC-9-50's carry more pax than Delta's 737-700's. The 737-700 pays more though, especially in the JPWA where it matches the -800. So is it a pay thing? Seats? MGTOW? Range?

Pay and productivity mainly. There is a also a bit of historical precedent thrown onto the mix.

The DC-9s are a special case. There is widespread consensus (among Delta pilots anyway) that those aircraft are obsolete and destined for the boneyard in the very near future. The NWA pilots of course disagree and maintain that many of the DC-9s are still serviceable plus they are paid for and therefore they will be flown for many years to come. This is a very important issue because the fate of the most junior pilots on the list hangs in the balance. If the economy slows dramatically and the DC-9s are parked, there is likely to be furloughs. Junior Delta pilots don't want to be the victims of NWA fleet reductions.
The arbitrators will have to make that call.

they don't know, the try and say the dc9 is smaller even though the majority of the remaing dc9s are -40,-50's now. Seat wise they are compareable to the 737s and the dc9 is the same type as the dc9-80. People talk about how"small" it is when they try and talk down about it but it's more compareable than they like to admit because then don't have the arguing points anymore with out the attempt to portray them as "small"

It's a pontless argument either way

Pay and productivity mainly. There is a also a bit of historical precedent thrown onto the mix.

The DC-9s are a special case. There is widespread consensus (among Delta pilots anyway) that those aircraft are obsolete and destined for the boneyard in the very near future. The NWA pilots of course disagree and maintain that many of the DC-9s are still serviceable plus they are paid for and therefore they will be flown for many years to come. This is a very important issue because the fate of the most junior pilots on the list hangs in the balance. If the economy slows dramatically and the DC-9s are parked, there is likely to be furloughs. Junior Delta pilots don't want to be the victims of NWA fleet reductions.
The arbitrators will have to make that call.

if the economy slows and credit gets harder to come by that only makes the paid for dc9s that much more viable. Especially if oil keeps going down. They can and do have alot of life left if needed believe it or not. If the dal boys are worried about them fence em up by all means. That will just make my upgrade that much closer with you guys locked off of it LOL ;)

We will have credit when we need it. Trust me.
Those nines are short timers.

they don't know, the try and say the dc9 is smaller even though the majority of the remaing dc9s are -40,-50's now. Seat wise they are compareable to the 737s and the dc9 is the same type as the dc9-80. People talk about how"small" it is when they try and talk down about it but it's more compareable than they like to admit because then don't have the arguing points anymore with out the attempt to portray them as "small"

It's a pontless argument either way

The DC-9-50 has 125 seats and the 737-700 has 124. However the -700 uses almost half as much fuel as the -50 and it has a range almost 4 times greater. The DC-9 is not in the same league as a 737-700. The 737-700 can go coast to coast and deep into South America. The DC-9-50 can't get too far away from a hub before it runs out of gas. The closest comparison is to an EMB-195 which holds 110 pax but has 2.5 times the range of a DC-9.

Pay and productivity mainly. There is a also a bit of historical precedent thrown onto the mix.

The DC-9s are a special case. There is widespread consensus (among Delta pilots anyway) that those aircraft are obsolete and destined for the boneyard in the very near future. The NWA pilots of course disagree and maintain that many of the DC-9s are still serviceable plus they are paid for and therefore they will be flown for many years to come. This is a very important issue because the fate of the most junior pilots on the list hangs in the balance. If the economy slows dramatically and the DC-9s are parked, there is likely to be furloughs. Junior Delta pilots don't want to be the victims of NWA fleet reductions.
The arbitrators will have to make that call.

were the dc9 captain slots put after the md88 fo's or were they the last captain slots in the stove pipe?

wouldn't it be safe to say that if the economy slows drastically and your 2 airlines weren't merging that delta would be in the same boat as everyone else and have to park airplanes? you just wouldn't have the 9's to park.

The DC-9-50 has 125 seats and the 737-700 has 124. However the -700 uses almost half as much fuel as the -50 and it has a range almost 4 times greater. The DC-9 is not in the same league as a 737-700. The 737-700 can go coast to coast and deep into South America. The DC-9-50 can't get too far away from a hub before it runs out of gas. The closest comparison is to an EMB-195 which holds 110 pax but has 2.5 times the range of a DC-9.

because the airplane doesn't fly as far and burns more gas is a pretty weak argument as to why it shouldn't be considered comparable. performance wise sure but not pay or seniority.

out of curiousity what is the 88's range vs. the 9's?

because the airplane doesn't fly as far and burns more gas is a pretty weak argument as to why it shouldn't be considered comparable. performance wise sure but not pay or seniority.

out of curiousity what is the 88's range vs. the 9's?



See its size in comparison in one argument and aircraft performance in another. Generally they seem to use whichever argument best fits the discussion at hand.;) LOL Just poking sticks are you DAL guys. The arbitrators will decide one way or the other and NOTHING we say on this or any other forum is going to change that. I am looking forward to getting this behind us.

Delta pilots worry about the nines because we have already been there and done that. In the last few years Delta retired two complete fleets of aircraft in this size range without a single replacement aircraft. One fleet was comparable in economy to the nine but newer airframes. The other fleet was much better on economy and again much newer airframes. With that as a background when management in lounge shows states every time the nines are going away we listen. When they say they will going away in question and answer sessions you have to give some creedence to the fact they just might go away!!! In fact not only might they go away they are going away as we speak. NWA had 160 of them just a few years ago. There will be 61 or 62 by the end of Dec. Not one of them has been replaced at NWA. I doubt the last 60 will be replaced when they leave. Delta management has no interest in this segment of the market and it appears NWA management did not either or they would have replaced at least some of the 100 that have left. The only aircraft we have coming in that size range is the 737-700 and they were purchased specifically for long haul very thin routes mostly to SA. They are not intended as a 100 seat replacement.
Everyone at Delta knows what replaced are 737-200's and then the 300's. We know what has replaced the 100 nines that will have left NWA's fleet by the end of this quarter. Sadly neiter Delta or NWA pilots are flying those replacements. What Delta pilots don't want is to go though more furloughs when the nines go away after we already went through it twice.

Pay and productivity mainly. There is a also a bit of historical precedent thrown onto the mix.

The DC-9s are a special case. There is widespread consensus (among Delta pilots anyway) that those aircraft are obsolete and destined for the boneyard in the very near future. The NWA pilots of course disagree and maintain that many of the DC-9s are still serviceable plus they are paid for and therefore they will be flown for many years to come. This is a very important issue because the fate of the most junior pilots on the list hangs in the balance. If the economy slows dramatically and the DC-9s are parked, there is likely to be furloughs. Junior Delta pilots don't want to be the victims of NWA fleet reductions.
The arbitrators will have to make that call.

If the economy slows dramatically:

1. It will be because credit is still tight/non-existent.
2. Continuing tight credit will keep the economy is recession.
3. Tight credit will make the financing of new airframes impossible.
4. The US economy in recession will keep the downward pressure on oil.
5. All of the above will not only require keeping the DC-9's, but bringing back every one that we've parked.

Slow economy = low oil prices = DC-9's kept
Economic recovery = high oil prices = DC-9's phased out.

Place your bets......

Carl

We will have credit when we need it. Trust me.
Those nines are short timers.

You have no chance of backing up those statements with any evidence whatsoever. They are singularly your opinions. Trust me. ;)

Carl

Not mine but others that know a lot more than you or I do.

It is not my opinion whatsoever.

Boeing will make sure that we have the credit we need to purchase airplanes. They need to sell them, and will help us purchase them. Kind of like GMAC.

were the dc9 captain slots put after the md88 fo's or were they the last captain slots in the stove pipe?.

The captains were slotted in with Delta 88 captains.
The FOs were the special case. Its not the captains who are in danger of furlough. They can always bid other equipment when the 9s go away. The FOs might not get that option.
That's why DALPA is trying so hard to protect the bottom 10% of our list. It would be fundamentally unfair to furlough Delta pilots because a bunch of NWA airplanes suddenly get retired.

Exactly. Next week will be interesting.

The captains were slotted in with Delta 88 captains.
The FOs were the special case. Its not the captains who are in danger of furlough. They can always bid other equipment when the 9s go away. The FOs might not get that option.
That's why DALPA is trying so hard to protect the bottom 10% of our list. It would be fundamentally unfair to furlough Delta pilots because a bunch of NWA airplanes suddenly get retired.

nothing is going to "suddenly" happen to the DC9's your mgmt has even said they will at least me around till 2012. That's hardly suddenly. Your sides what-ifs don't constitute screwing 10% of the nwa pilots. Also dal's post merger plans weren't Nwa plans. Post merger has nothing to do with ore-merger "what-if's". Fence them and problem solved, unless of course it has more to do with a seniority grab than crystal ball theories. The arbitrators will see through both sides bs "proposals". ;)

We'll see

If the economy slows dramatically:

1. It will be because credit is still tight/non-existent.
2. Continuing tight credit will keep the economy is recession.
3. Tight credit will make the financing of new airframes impossible.
4. The US economy in recession will keep the downward pressure on oil.
5. All of the above will not only require keeping the DC-9's, but bringing back every one that we've parked.

Slow economy = low oil prices = DC-9's kept
Economic recovery = high oil prices = DC-9's phased out.

Place your bets......

Carl


Carl,
I agree that as the price of oil goes down the DC-9's become more viable - good for all of us. I disagree with your credit argument for the following reasons:
*DAL recently secured another $1 Billion line of credit.
*Boeing is going to have to self finance its sales if the credit markets dry up.
*NW is chock full of unrestricted cash as you guys have been telling us for the last 6 months.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "place your bets" mentality - who knows what next year will look like?

Scoop

Not mine but others that know a lot more than you or I do.

It is not my opinion whatsoever.

Boeing will make sure that we have the credit we need to purchase airplanes. They need to sell them, and will help us purchase them. Kind of like GMAC.

I have a friend who own a dealership and right now even with a FICO well above 700 an applicant needs at least 20% up front to be approved by GMAC..... Credit is tight and getting worse so the makers may not be up for the loan. But you guess is as good as mine.

because the airplane doesn't fly as far and burns more gas is a pretty weak argument as to why it shouldn't be considered comparable. performance wise sure but not pay or seniority.

out of curiousity what is the 88's range vs. the 9's?

Using that logic why should the 787 pay so much?

Scoop

The captains were slotted in with Delta 88 captains.
The FOs were the special case. Its not the captains who are in danger of furlough. They can always bid other equipment when the 9s go away. The FOs might not get that option.
That's why DALPA is trying so hard to protect the bottom 10% of our list. It would be fundamentally unfair to furlough Delta pilots because a bunch of NWA airplanes suddenly get retired.

If that's the new deltas plan is to park the 9's without replacement shouldn't delta pilots feel the brunt as well because nwa's plan wasn't to park them all. It sounds like with the merger it's new delta that wants to park them.

Has management given a reason as to why they want to park the 9? Under capcity, over lap, too expensive? The reason that I ask is, if the new management thought it best to retire the md88's instead of the 9 I don't think it would be right to furlough only delta's pilots for the parking of their airplane. It's a part of the new airline's plan and not either of the original airlines plan.

On a side note if any airplane can be replace by something at a regional then I think a furlough should start from the top down for not tightening scope under the combined contract. ;)

You have no chance of backing up those statements with any evidence whatsoever. They are singularly your opinions. Trust me. ;)

Carl

Not mine but others that know a lot more than you or I do.

It is not my opinion whatsoever.

Boeing will make sure that we have the credit we need to purchase airplanes. They need to sell them, and will help us purchase them. Kind of like GMAC.

So this is what you call evidence? Do I need to tell you how persuasive your "evidence" would be in court? Or an arbitration? :D

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You don't speak for Boeing, and you don't speak for Richard Anderson or any of his executive officers...Trust me on that.

I don't speak for them either, but at least I admit it.

Carl

If that's the new deltas plan is to park the 9's without replacement shouldn't delta pilots feel the brunt as well because nwa's plan wasn't to park them all. It sounds like with the merger it's new delta that wants to park them.



How do you know NW wasn't going to park them? They had already announced the reduction in the -9s a long time ago.

nothing is going to "suddenly" happen to the DC9's your mgmt has even said they will at least me around till 2012. That's hardly suddenly.

Come on Super. Why would you do something so divisive as quote DAL management? If you keep this up, no Kool-Aid for you!

Your sides what-ifs don't constitute screwing 10% of the nwa pilots.

I'm confident that arbitrators will apply the same logic. Oops...now I'm being divisive. :D

Also dal's post merger plans weren't Nwa plans. Post merger has nothing to do with pre-merger "what-if's".

Hmmm...more flawless albeit divisive logic.

Fence them and problem solved, unless of course it has more to do with a seniority grab than crystal ball theories. The arbitrators will see through both sides bs "proposals".

We'll see

Well I hope you're happy...logic boy!

Carl

Using that logic why should the 787 pay so much?

Scoop

it's size...

are you making the argument that you should get more pay because of a better fuel burn? if so that's the first time I have ever heard that argument.

Carl,
I agree that as the price of oil goes down the DC-9's become more viable - good for all of us. I disagree with your credit argument for the following reasons:
*DAL recently secured another $1 Billion line of credit.
*Boeing is going to have to self finance its sales if the credit markets dry up.
*NW is chock full of unrestricted cash as you guys have been telling us for the last 6 months.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "place your bets" mentality - who knows what next year will look like?

Scoop

Here's the problem Scoop. The credit markets HAVE dried up. Whether they begin to flow again is anybody's guess - as you have correctly stated. Boeing does not finance aircraft purchases with its own internal cash reserves. Boeing accesses the commercial paper and longer term credit markets to do so, then charges customers a higher interest rate so they can make a little on the arbitrage. Same with GE, same with GMAC, etc. If there's extremely tight access to the paper and credit markets, Boeing can't finance anything unless they're willing to put at risk their own cash reserves.

Carl

How do you know NW wasn't going to park them? They had already announced the reduction in the -9s a long time ago.

How do you prove a negative?

How do you know Delta wasn't going to: (fill in blank here)?

And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No? :D

Carl

How do you know NW wasn't going to park them? They had already announced the reduction in the -9s a long time ago.

the number that has been posted about a year ago was in the upper 60's and then when oil shot up it was to be in the upper 50's. at the same time if memory serves delta also announce around an 11% reduction as well. (just making the comparison that the industry started to go south for all when the additional dc9 retirements were announced.)

I've been told by friends at northwest that they did have plans to park 9's but not all. they had plans to keep flying them until around 2013. the flying that was being stopped was being picked up by the initial compass flying. the nwa scope supposedly protects more flying from being outsource by having a ratio in it. (preventing further regional growth at the expense of nwa)

And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No? :D

Carl

Nope! But only because she keeps saying NW is a better airline, and because it's considered redneck foreplay.

If that's the new deltas plan is to park the 9's without replacement shouldn't delta pilots feel the brunt as well because nwa's plan wasn't to park them all. It sounds like with the merger it's new delta that wants to park them.

Has management given a reason as to why they want to park the 9? Under capcity, over lap, too expensive? The reason that I ask is, if the new management thought it best to retire the md88's instead of the 9 I don't think it would be right to furlough only delta's pilots for the parking of their airplane. It's a part of the new airline's plan and not either of the original airlines plan.

On a side note if any airplane can be replace by something at a regional then I think a furlough should start from the top down for not tightening scope under the combined contract. ;)

Geez. Sounds like my ex-wife. Who cares what airline decides to park what airplane? Bottom line is, like it or not, we are all 1 pilot group now and until WE figure that out, the company will continue to shove whatever they want up our dark side. Let's get the list done and go on. What is done is done. Loosing 8% relative seniority bugs me a lot less than rolling over for the age 60 rule. Screw it, I might as well just spend my retirement on beer now and not worry about how I'm gonna get by for the five years after retirement. After that, give me water and tell me it's beer and make sure I wear dark pants in public.

Last I heard the 9's are here for another 3 years which just happens to jive with the 3 year fence proposed by DALPA.My gut instinct says the final judgement will be a ratio top to bottom with fences,everybody's relative seniority stays the same.I really don't have that big of a dog in this fight and it's only my opinion which is based on nothing resembling fact.

the number that has been posted about a year ago was in the upper 60's and then when oil shot up it was to be in the upper 50's. at the same time if memory serves delta also announce around an 11% reduction as well. (just making the comparison that the industry started to go south for all when the additional dc9 retirements were announced.)

I've been told by friends at northwest that they did have plans to park 9's but not all. they had plans to keep flying them until around 2013. the flying that was being stopped was being picked up by the initial compass flying. the nwa scope supposedly protects more flying from being outsource by having a ratio in it. (preventing further regional growth at the expense of nwa)

pretty much dead on. The final number of remaing dc9s is 68. Nwa replaced what they could via the scope language and that was all they could do. That's why the number of crjs and 175s were ordered because that was pretty much the max that they could.

Last I heard the 9's are here for another 3 years which just happens to jive with the 3 year fence proposed by DALPA.My gut instinct says the final judgement will be a ratio top to bottom with fences,everybody's relative seniority stays the same.I really don't have that big of a dog in this fight and it's only my opinion which is based on nothing resembling fact.

That's probably pretty close to what will likely happen. We'll see

All the company press releases state they will be down to 62 by the end of the year. The original plan was 68 but when the additional cuts were annouced it included 6 more nines going away.

All the company press releases state they will be down to 62 by the end of the year. The original plan was 68 but when the additional cuts were annouced it included 6 more nines going away.

Last i saw was that the orignial number was less than 68 and then they increased the number later to 68.

I see the article that mentions the further reductions back when oil was at record levels. I know i read somewhere that that number was increased to 68. I will try and find where i saw that. Here is what i understood the dc9 fleet to be at years end fwiw.

At end of 2008, 68 DC9s in service (34 DC9-50s, 11 DC9-40s, 23 DC9-30s)

AIRCRAFT IN SERVICE (Updated: 25-August-2008)


SERVICE STORAGE TOTAL
73 28 101

DC-9-30 30 25 55

DC-9-40 9 3 12

DC-9-50 34 0 34

I see the article that mentions the further reductions back when oil was at record levels. I know i read somewhere that that number was increased to 68. I will try and find where i saw that. Here is what i understood the dc9 fleet to be at years end fwiw.

At end of 2008, 68 DC9s in service (34 DC9-50s, 11 DC9-40s, 23 DC9-30s)

In the June 27, 2008 NW flying plan memo they said they will have 58 in service at the end of 2008.

The problem is not what happens to the 58, but what has happened this year. NW has lost 50 airplanes, 1 out of 7 from January 2008, and still has the same number of pilots. How can you lose 14% of your airplanes and still be staffed properly?

If you assume 5 crews per airplane, a loss of 50 airplanes would amount to 500 less pilots needed for 2009. That is why it is not a stretch to have NW pilots at the bottom of the list. Absent the furlough mitigation letter, they would be furloughed right now or in the next few months. What happens at DCC when the furlough mitigation letter expires? Where do all those surplus pilots go?

In the June 27, 2008 NW flying plan memo they said they will have 58 in service at the end of 2008.

The problem is not what happens to the 58, but what has happened this year. NW has lost 50 airplanes, 1 out of 7 from January 2008, and still has the same number of pilots. How can you lose 14% of your airplanes and still be staffed properly?

If you assume 5 crews per airplane, a loss of 50 airplanes would amount to 500 less pilots needed for 2009. That is why it is not a stretch to have NW pilots at the bottom of the list. Absent the furlough mitigation letter, they would be furloughed right now or in the next few months. What happens at DCC when the furlough mitigation letter expires? Where do all those surplus pilots go?

We don't have surplus pilots right now. We are short in nearly all categories. For all practical purposes the furlough mitigation letter is already expired. None of its provisions are being used. No PERPS were allowed again for this month, and very few PML's, etc.

Carl

In the June 27, 2008 NW flying plan memo they said they will have 58 in service at the end of 2008.

The problem is not what happens to the 58, but what has happened this year. NW has lost 50 airplanes, 1 out of 7 from January 2008, and still has the same number of pilots. How can you lose 14% of your airplanes and still be staffed properly?

If you assume 5 crews per airplane, a loss of 50 airplanes would amount to 500 less pilots needed for 2009. That is why it is not a stretch to have NW pilots at the bottom of the list. Absent the furlough mitigation letter, they would be furloughed right now or in the next few months. What happens at DCC when the furlough mitigation letter expires? Where do all those surplus pilots go?


See, that's were you're wrong. NW pilots continue to retire every month, therefore we do not have the same amount of pilots as we did on June 27, 2008.

I'm not even going to begin to argue with you on that one. At least the arbitrators understand.

Nwa has always been run thin and were short last year also. The retirements have outnumbered the small amount of hiring that took place. We also have alot of people on all sorts of leaves. We are short enough where the company won't award all of the PERPs that were applied for. Last flying report shows 4902 active pilots and late last year the list had over 5300 pilots I believe. Bottom line is we aren't fully staffed and I don't know if Nwa has ever been fully staffed.

NWA shrunk itself into profitability and Delta expanded itself into a money loser. Their expansion/shrinking argument for placing 500 of our pilots on the bottom is ridiculous.

NWA shrunk itself into profitability and Delta expanded itself into a money loser. Their expansion/shrinking argument for placing 500 of our pilots on the bottom is ridiculous.

NWA also "shrunk" itself into a more valuable company than DAL even though NWA is 2/3 the size of DAL. Thursday's and Friday's closing price for the 2 companies both showed NWA with a higher market cap.

Carl

NWA also "shrunk" itself into a more valuable company than DAL even though NWA is 2/3 the size of DAL. Thursday's and Friday's closing price for the 2 companies both showed NWA with a higher market cap.

Carl

Carl, you keep ignoring the fact that NWA shares are trading as 1.25 new, joint DAL/NWA shares, and have nothing to do with internal NWA value.

I can't figure out how to attach a .jpg, but take a look at a chart of the ratio of the NWA stock price to the DAL stock price since both came out of bankruptcy. You can do that here: NWA/DAL chart (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=nwa:DAL&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=0) Notice the trend while they were separate companies, and what happened right around January, when rumors of the impending merger started to leak out. Note its heading right to the 1.25 conversion ratio. Pretty much says it all.

Carl, you keep ignoring the fact that NWA shares are trading as 1.25 new, joint DAL/NWA shares, and have nothing to do with internal NWA value.

I can't figure out how to attach a .jpg, but take a look at a chart of the ratio of the NWA stock price to the DAL stock price since both came out of bankruptcy. You can do that here: NWA/DAL chart (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=nwa:DAL&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=0) Notice the trend while they were separate companies, and what happened right around January, when rumors of the impending merger started to leak out. Note its heading right to the 1.25 conversion ratio. Pretty much says it all.



Either way the facts are that NWA is 2/3's the size of DAL yet makes more money. The big picture here is that WE all should have a great profitable company to work for once this is over. NWA is a strong airline that will do nothing but help DAL become stronger. Cheers to that

Not that I want to steer this thread from it's present trajectory, but I hope that when the NWA seniority proposal is leaked, it gets sanitized of the names and birth dates.

I'm sure the Delta guys are going to be as happy with the NWA proposal as the NWA guys were with ours.

Not that I want to steer this thread from it's present trajectory, but I hope that when the NWA seniority proposal is leaked, it gets sanitized of the names and birth dates.

I'm sure the Delta guys are going to be as happy with the NWA proposal as the NWA guys were with ours.

I have no doubt that you will be right. Both will be considered extremes and if a negotiated list can, or is, figured out both sides will be like "this is better than what the other side proposed isn't it?" Thus making the negotiated or arbitrated list look more tolerable.

Carl, you keep ignoring the fact that NWA shares are trading as 1.25 new, joint DAL/NWA shares, and have nothing to do with internal NWA value.

The math is easy to do here Pineapple. When you do it, you will find that NWA and DAL had very similar market caps BEFORE the merger was announced. On some days, NWA's market cap exceeded that of DAL's BEFORE the merger announcement. And these comparable market caps exist despite NWA being 2/3 the size of DAL, and NWA having an under funded pension liability on the balance sheet that DAL is not burdened with. This was also the case BEFORE the merger was announced.

So tell me Pineapple, does THAT have anything to do with NWA's internal value? Or did every stock investor know the merger was going to happen before it did? ;)

Note the emphasis on the word BEFORE... :D

Carl

I have no doubt that you will be right. Both will be considered extremes and if a negotiated list can, or is, figured out both sides will be like "this is better than what the other side proposed isn't it?" Thus making the negotiated or arbitrated list look more tolerable.

You're probably right on this Super. I'm trying to recall something here and maybe you can help me. Has there been a single post thus far from a DAL pilot saying that the DAL proposed list was unfair or extreme? If there has been, I don't remember it.

Carl

You're probably right on this Super. I'm trying to recall something here and maybe you can help me. Has there been a single post thus far from a DAL pilot saying that the DAL proposed list was unfair or extreme? If there has been, I don't remember it.

Carl

Carl,
Hypothetically, if a DAL pilot did agree with you on this he would be a fool to post it here - we have already seen some of the crap that the lawyers on both sides introduced into the hearings - would a post from this site be such a far stretch? I can see it now - "Your noble eminence we, the lawyers of Cheatem, Screwem, and Billem would like to introduce the following into evidence - a pilot, lets call him by his Avatar, Dragonballs87, has said on Airlinepilotcentral that the DAL proposal was unfair and extreme. There you have it, thats as close to the burning bush as your going to get - we rest out case. OBTW, we had to go through every thread ever posted in detail, so you may see a slight bump in billable hours - please dont be alarmed, we assure you that all of our lawyers have in fact been averaging 19.5 hours a day, 7 days a week on your case commencing 6 months before the merger was even announced. After all our motto is our name - Cheatem, Screwem, and Billem."

Also your market cap analysis is weak - using that logic SWA is worth about twice the combined value of NW and DAL added together.

Scoop

Carl,
Hypothetically, if a DAL pilot did agree with you on this he would be a fool to post it here - we have already seen some of the crap that the lawyers on both sides introduced into the hearings - would a post from this site be such a far stretch? I can see it now - "Your noble eminence we, the lawyers of Cheatem, Screwem, and Billem would like to introduce the following into evidence - a pilot, lets call him by his Avatar, Dragonballs87, has said on Airlinepilotcentral that the DAL proposal was unfair and extreme. There you have it, thats as close to the burning bush as your going to get - we rest out case. OBTW, we had to go through every thread ever posted in detail, so you may see a slight bump in billable hours - please dont be alarmed, we assure you that all of our lawyers have in fact been averaging 19.5 hours a day, 7 days a week on your case commencing 6 months before the merger was even announced. After all our motto is our name - Cheatem, Screwem, and Billem."

That's a very funny analogy Scoop, but somehow I don't think an internet posting would even be allowed into the record. And if it was it would go something like this: "OK counselor, (deep sigh) if it makes you feel better...I'll allow it."

The reason I ask is that I've posted many times that I think a Date of Hire list would be unfair to the DAL pilots without huge (and I mean huge) fence protection for the DAL guys. I remember at least one other NWA guy who agreed with me. I still stand by that opinion. I find it interesting that not even one DAL guy would post a negative opinion regarding the DAL proposal.

Also your market cap analysis is weak - using that logic SWA is worth about twice the combined value of NW and DAL added together.

Market cap analysis is not weak at all. It is THE way to value an enterprise. All other methods are BS and/or someone's opinion. Also, you're wrong about SWA being worth twice the combined value of NWA and DAL. SWA is worth about what the ENTIRE major airline group is worth COMBINED. Any objective view of SWA's balance sheet versus the majors balance sheet would make you agree.

Carl

The reason I ask is that I've posted many times that I think a Date of Hire list would be unfair to the DAL pilots without huge (and I mean huge) fence protection for the DAL guys. I remember at least one other NWA guy who agreed with me. I still stand by that opinion. I find it interesting that not even one DAL guy would post a negative opinion regarding the DAL proposal.


Because at the end of the day, most of us know it's not going to be the final outcome and it's not worth the effort to get the tighty whiteys in a bunch over.

That said, I'm sure that when we hear about NW's DOH proposal, that all kinds of indignant posts will flow here and on the ALPA forum by guys who have too much free time on their hands and not the good sense to go outside and do something healthy. And I will treat them the same way I treated all the previous ones about the DL proposal by the NWers: Like so many farts in the wind.:cool:

Because at the end of the day, most of us know it's not going to be the final outcome and it's not worth the effort to get the tighty whiteys in a bunch over.

That said, I'm sure that when we hear about NW's DOH proposal, that all kinds of indignant posts will flow here and on the ALPA forum by guys who have too much free time on their hands and not the good sense to go outside and do something healthy. And I will treat them the same way I treated all the previous ones about the DL proposal by the NWers: Like so many farts in the wind.:cool:

Wasn't that a song?

Farts in the wiiiinnnnddd...all we are is farts in the wind....

Carl

That's a very funny analogy Scoop, but somehow I don't think an internet posting would even be allowed into the record. And if it was it would go something like this: "OK counselor, (deep sigh) if it makes you feel better...I'll allow it."

The reason I ask is that I've posted many times that I think a Date of Hire list would be unfair to the DAL pilots without huge (and I mean huge) fence protection for the DAL guys. I remember at least one other NWA guy who agreed with me. I still stand by that opinion. I find it interesting that not even one DAL guy would post a negative opinion regarding the DAL proposal.



Market cap analysis is not weak at all. It is THE way to value an enterprise. All other methods are BS and/or someone's opinion. Also, you're wrong about SWA being worth twice the combined value of NWA and DAL. SWA is worth about what the ENTIRE major airline group is worth COMBINED. Any objective view of SWA's balance sheet versus the majors balance sheet would make you agree.

Carl

Carl you are only telling half of the story with market cap. Now for the rest of the story.

NWA: Key Statistics for NORTHWEST AIRLINE - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=NWA)
DAL: Key Statistics for DELTA AIR LINES NEW - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DAL)

What Does P/B Tell Us?
For value investors, P/B remains a tried and tested method for finding low price stocks that the market has neglected. If a company is trading for less than its book value (or has a P/B less than 1), it normally tells investors one of two things: either the market believes the asset value is overstated, or the company is earning a very poor (even negative) return on its assets.

If the former is true, then investors are well advised to steer clear of the company's shares because there is a chance that asset value will face a downward correction by the market, leaving investors with negative returns. If the latter is true, there is a chance that new management or new business conditions will prompt a turnaround in prospects and give strong positive returns. ( I think that was Pineapple's point). Even if this doesn't happen, a company trading at less than book value can be broken up for its asset value, earning shareholders a profit.

Look at the price/book ratio. Look at the rest of the fundamentals. Delta beats NW in almost every category. Yes you have more cash and less debt but NW has not purchased a new airplane in a coon's age. (that's one of those southern terms you Yankees are going to have to learn:)).

Now my point is not to start another ****ing contest about who's company is better. This is not to put NW down. It's just an answer to your mantra about market cap. There are several ways to measure the health and value of a corp. Cherry picking one is an ineffective argument.

We have had our turn, now it's yours. I can't wait to read the transcripts of the next round. It's getting kinda boring around here.:D

The DC-9-50's carry more pax than Delta's 737-700's. The 737-700 pays more though, especially in the JPWA where it matches the -800. So is it a pay thing? Seats? MGTOW? Range?

The 737-700 is configured with 124 seats, but is certified for 149, which is more than the DC-9-50. The 737-700 also has a higher MTOW, significantly greater range and performance and most importantly, a 737-700 position has more value than a DC-9 position because it pays significantly more.

The reason I ask is that I've posted many times that I think a Date of Hire list would be unfair to the DAL pilots without huge (and I mean huge) fence protection for the DAL guys. I remember at least one other NWA guy who agreed with me. I still stand by that opinion. I find it interesting that not even one DAL guy would post a negative opinion regarding the DAL proposal.




Not nearly enough NWA guys junior to me. Now you have a DAL guy on record saying something negative about our proposed list.







(relax people, only a joke)

Carl you are only telling half of the story with market cap. Now for the rest of the story.

NWA: Key Statistics for NORTHWEST AIRLINE - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=NWA)
DAL: Key Statistics for DELTA AIR LINES NEW - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DAL)

What Does P/B Tell Us?
For value investors, P/B remains a tried and tested method for finding low price stocks that the market has neglected. If a company is trading for less than its book value (or has a P/B less than 1), it normally tells investors one of two things: either the market believes the asset value is overstated, or the company is earning a very poor (even negative) return on its assets.

If the former is true, then investors are well advised to steer clear of the company's shares because there is a chance that asset value will face a downward correction by the market, leaving investors with negative returns. If the latter is true, there is a chance that new management or new business conditions will prompt a turnaround in prospects and give strong positive returns. ( I think that was Pineapple's point). Even if this doesn't happen, a company trading at less than book value can be broken up for its asset value, earning shareholders a profit.

Look at the price/book ratio. Look at the rest of the fundamentals. Delta beats NW in almost every category. Yes you have more cash and less debt but NW has not purchased a new airplane in a coon's age. (that's one of those southern terms you Yankees are going to have to learn:)).

Now my point is not to start another ****ing contest about who's company is better. This is not to put NW down. It's just an answer to your mantra about market cap. There are several ways to measure the health and value of a corp. Cherry picking one is an ineffective argument.

Since I'm also not interested in yet another "contest", I'll close by saying this: The price tag of ANY company is the stock price multiplied by the shares outstanding. That's not arguable. There are plenty of metrics (such as PB) that can make an investor decide what the price tag should be, but the collective desires of all investors are shown every day in the closing price. If you obtain 100% of the shares of DAL at 9 bucks per share, you own the company. You have paid the price tag's price.

Arguing against market cap is like arguing against the price tag of an item at Wal-Mart. The item is worth what the price tag says its worth.

Carl

Yeah,let's get back to the "Smoking Blue Giants" or was that another thread.

Yeah,let's get back to the "Smoking Blue Giants" or was that another thread.

Roger that. I'll put my thinking cap on. :D

Carl

You guys done yet?

This is all out of our hands and the arbitrators aren't hanging out at APC.

Everybody up until this point has been very cordial and professional with one another, and now that the SLI is actually going to happen the finger pointing has begun.

I'm just saying step back and take a breath...we can't control any of this and no matter what is decided it won't actually affect any of our lives for a couple more years. And who knows what DAL, the economy, the stock market, or world, etc. will look like in 2010/2011.

T-32 and counting...:eek:

Carl Spackler.... I wish I had 1/3 of the free time you have!!! Surely APC is embedded in your DNA by now...

Not nearly enough NWA guys junior to me. Now you have a DAL guy on record saying something negative about our proposed list.







(relax people, only a joke)



now that is funny...

Things are pretty quiet on the arbitration hearing front. Smells like an agreement is being worked on. :rolleyes:

Things are pretty quiet on the arbitration hearing front. Smells like an agreement is being worked on. :rolleyes:

I would think the transcripts from yesterday should be out soon. Should be fascinating.

I would think the transcripts from yesterday should be out soon. Should be fascinating.Yeah...facinating...like watching paint dry.

Carl Spackler.... I wish I had 1/3 of the free time you have!!! Surely APC is embedded in your DNA by now...

I wish I had 1/6 your ability to post something of interest.

Carl

Yeah...facinating...like watching paint dry.

That's OK... you don't have to read it.. Isn't Dancing with the stars on?

Most of the players that are not merger committee members are at the BOD meeting in Vegas.

I heard that the first one to win on the 0(zero) at roulette gets to merge the seniority lists.

That's OK... you don't have to read it.. Isn't Dancing with the stars on?GMAFB! If you think the transcripts are fascinating reading, I suggest you get out more. Informative yes, fascinating hardly. I heard Tony got the axe last night and Julianne Huff is hot!;) Btw...My wife won't even watch Dancing with the stars.:eek:

GMAFB! If you think the transcripts are fascinating reading, I suggest you get out more. Informative yes, fascinating hardly. I heard Tony got the axe last night and Julianne Huff is hot!;) Btw...My wife won't even watch Dancing with the stars.:eek:

Who's Tony? and for that matter, I wouldn't know Ms. Huff if she walked into my living room... But OK... point taken. The weather is (finally) nice enough here in Florida to get out.. so I'll take your advice.

.... just one more page.... :D

Who's Tony? and for that matter, I wouldn't know Ms. Huff if she walked into my living room... But OK... point taken. The weather is (finally) nice enough here in Florida to get out.. so I'll take your advice.

.... just one more page.... :DJust google Julianne Huff and take a look. If she walked into your living room you wouldn't care who she was, but you'd sure pay attention!:D I'm betting you are old enough to have hear of Tony Braxton (singer).;)

PS. I don't watch the show, but the results are all over the morning news program fluff.

PS. I don't watch the show, but the results are all over the morning news program fluff.

I believe you. No really, I do.

Hi!

Brooke Burke is THE hottest woman on that show, EVER.

I think that BB and Angeline Jolie are 1/2 or 2/1, in the world.

They are both AWESOME!

Julianne Hough is a typical young plastic Hollywood blonde-dime a dozen. When she's 35-45 she won't be hot like BB and AJ are.

cliff
YIP

Hi!

Brooke Burke is THE hottest woman on that show, EVER.

I think that BB and Angeline Jolie are 1/2 or 2/1, in the world.

They are both AWESOME!

Julianne Hough is a typical young plastic Hollywood blonde-dime a dozen. When she's 35-45 she won't be hot like BB and AJ are.

cliff
YIP


I'll give you Brooke Burke is hot but the hottest has to to be Edyta Sliwinska.

To even remotely say AJ is hotter than Julianne Hough is just plain crazy talk. Total all american, girl next door and she will still be hot well beyond 45.

Who are we really kidding though. Cloris Leachman takes the cake...yummy:D