Airline Pilot Forums

246 Delta guys out of the top 1500! Pretty close to my earlier post of "of the top 1500 positions, all but 40 were NWA!" I think Carl and Ferd pretty much blasted me for that assertion. A loss of over 9% for Delta in that range. I am an '88 hire who goes from 22% to 29%, a loss of over 7%. Every Delta seniority range is similarly impacted. As compared to the Delta SLI proposal, the first group of Delta guys remain the SAME % while I gain 1 %! Just to repeat, in these two examples the NWA proposal has the Delta guys lose 9% and 7%, while the Delta proposal has a 0% and 1% bump for the Delta guy!!!Guys, this DOH strategy is so ridiculously unrealistic and it offers no basis for compromise. How do you modify DOH or is this an all or nothing proposition? I'm speechless...almost

Cogf16
Delta guy

I lose 5 percent under the DAL proposal.... Just depends on how you are looking at it. Hopefully something will be worked out.

I've been watching these threads since the beginning and there is one thing that holds true. Neither side listens or cares about the other and neither is going to budge. A fence my man, that is how we work through differences. A good fence makes for good neighbors.

246 Delta guys out of the top 1500! Pretty close to my earlier post of "of the top 1500 positions, all but 40 were NWA!" I think Carl and Ferd pretty much blasted me for that assertion. A loss of over 9% for Delta in that range. I am an '88 hire who goes from 22% to 29%, a loss of over 7%. Every Delta seniority range is similarly impacted. As compared to the Delta SLI proposal, the first group of Delta guys remain the SAME % while I gain 1 %! Just to repeat, in these two examples the NWA proposal has the Delta guys lose 9% and 7%, while the Delta proposal has a 0% and 1% bump for the Delta guy!!!Guys, this DOH strategy is so ridiculously unrealistic and it offers no basis for compromise. How do you modify DOH or is this an all or nothing proposition? I'm speechless...almost

Cogf16
Delta guy


How do you feel about delta's proposal stapling 400+ nwa pilots to the bottom?

Can I assume that you also think it's "ridiculously unrealistic"?

DOH is completely unfair to the delta guys...without the fences. With the fences the job distro 10-15 years from SOC is extremely even-handed. With the DAL proposal, there will be a very small number of former NWA guys in the top 1500 10-15 years from now. Most of the former NWA widebody jobs will have transferred to pre-merger DAL pilots.

How do you feel about delta's proposal stapling 400+ nwa pilots to the bottom?

Can I assume that you also think it's "ridiculously unrealistic"?Yes. but...back to my post

Cog

DOH is completely unfair to the delta guys...without the fences. With the fences the job distro 10-15 years from SOC is extremely even-handed. With the DAL proposal, there will be a very small number of former NWA guys in the top 1500 10-15 years from now. Most of the former NWA widebody jobs will have transferred to pre-merger DAL pilots.Ten yr.(or longer) fences simply won't work. And the company won't go for it. Before you go there, yes the Delta proposal has 3 or 5 yr. fences, but only for a small portion of the widebody fleet. A system wide 10 yr. fence is a nonstarter. Haven't we learned from Green/Red/Blue book wars and 20 + arbitrations. We just can't go down that road. You gotta find a fair list WITHOUT massive fences

Cog

I agree, it would be great to find a fair list without massive fences. However, the DAL proposal (as presented in arbitration) is not the answer.

A good fence makes for good neighbors.

Yeah, it's worked so well with Roberts....

Is that why Eric Newman started your case busting on Greg Averill?:rolleyes:

At least the Redtails were 22-2, with a lot of carnage along the way.:D

I'm an April 87' hire at NWA and the Delta proposed list puts me after December 91' hires, a loss of 2700 positions. I'm really not getting too worked up, these two proposals are way out there. Relax, in three weeks we'll all be a little bit PO'd. I really hope that none of us is REALLY PO'd. This thing is going to work for all of us.

I'm an April 87' hire at NWA and the Delta proposed list puts me after December 91' hires, a loss of 2700 positions.

how do you figure its a loss of 2700 positions? Based on DOH?

Under the DAL proposal, what percentage are you today, and what are you on that list? What can you hold today, what can you hold on that list? Where are you forecast to be in 5, or 10 years today, vs on the Delta list?

Not making a judgement on the Delta list, but I want to know where you are coming from. I don't care when you were hired. What do you bring to the table, that's all that matters.

I would not get worked up. I go from 9 percent on the DAL list to 22 percent on the combined lists. The arbitrators have already stated that neither proposal will be the final product. They will let each side know which way they are leaning in the next couple of weeks in a attempt to force a agreement. If there is no agreement then they will make a ruling. It wont look like the proposal from either side. I hope I do better then going from able to hold 777 CA as a lineholder at both bases to a narrow body CA that the NWA proposal would grant me and I feel fairly safe the arbitrators will see it that way. Arbitration is a crapshoot however and nothing is for sure. That is why a negotiated agreement is in everyones best interest. NWA has proven fences don't work so I do not see that as a major component of any award.

Yeah, it's worked so well with Roberts....


Do you believe the comparison of ten year vs a twenty year fences is similar? Do you believe that the comparison of the merger of an international widebody airline(NWA) vs a domestic short haul airline(Republic) are similar to our case?

I'm an April 87' hire at NWA and the Delta proposed list puts me after December 91' hires, a loss of 2700 positions. I'm really not getting too worked up, these two proposals are way out there. Relax, in three weeks we'll all be a little bit PO'd. I really hope that none of us is REALLY PO'd. This thing is going to work for all of us.King,
Looking at both proposals, the first Apr 87 NWA hire premerger % now at NWA is 36%. The Delta plan drops him to 38 while the NWA plan RAISES HIM TO 22% !!!!! Again, he loses 2% in the Delta plan, but GAINS 14% in the NWA plan. This tells me 2 things. NWA plan is delusional and DOH is meaningless at the new Delta. King you claim to lose 2700 positions DOH but it only results in 2 % difference. This illustrates how completely baseless DOH is.

Cog

Ten yr.(or longer) fences simply won't work. And the company won't go for it. Before you go there, yes the Delta proposal has 3 or 5 yr. fences, but only for a small portion of the widebody fleet. A system wide 10 yr. fence is a nonstarter. Haven't we learned from Green/Red/Blue book wars and 20 + arbitrations. We just can't go down that road. You gotta find a fair list WITHOUT massive fences

Cog

Management has NOTHING to do with the seniority! They don't have to sign off on any of this.

Both sides should consider the others proposal as "worst case scenario". Its gong to fall somewhere in the middle. The 10 year fence is what makes the NWA proposal as "more fair". Those top DAL positions cannot be touched and therefore even though seniority number wise there are more NWA pilots initially it wont effect the DAL pilots negatively.

Time will show what happens. DALs proposal is not "fair" to most. The NWA proposal seems more "fair" to all involved. Each side has protections on their respective positions. We'll see

King,
Looking at both proposals, the first Apr 87 NWA hire premerger % now at NWA is 36%. The Delta plan drops him to 38 while the NWA plan RAISES HIM TO 22% !!!!! Again, he loses 2% in the Delta plan, but GAINS 14% in the NWA plan. This tells me 2 things. NWA plan is delusional and DOH is meaningless at the new Delta. King you claim to lose 2700 positions DOH but it only results in 2 % difference. This illustrates how completely baseless DOH is.

Cog

Well the DAL list gives ALL nwa pilots a negative effect on the list and ALL DAL pilots a positive effect on seniority. Sound familiar? Its not fair when your on the other side of the line huh? Your sides proposal does exactly what you're complaining about but in reverse. Only proves that both sides proposals aren't "fair" to ALL or MOST involved.

...Only proves that both sides proposals aren't "fair" to ALL or MOST involved.

Did anyone expect them to be? All negotiators claim to have made a truly "fair" opening offer, but none are foolish enough to actually do so.

Did anyone expect them to be? All negotiators claim to have made a truly "fair" opening offer, but none are foolish enough to actually do so.

Nope, i only said that because some DAL guys on here try and portray their sides proposal as "fair". Both sides are extremes as far as the other group is concerned.

Do you believe the comparison of ten year vs a twenty year fences is similar? Do you believe that the comparison of the merger of an international widebody airline(NWA) vs a domestic short haul airline(Republic) are similar to our case?

Hmmm, fact check time, boys. Don't believe all you read. At the time of the NWO/REP merger NWO had little domestic feed at its hubs for its big jumbo jets and it had UAL entering the Pacific markets (Pan Am routes). UAL would later run NWO out of ORD-NRT, etc. Without domestic feed NWO was dead. Likewise for REP, it's future was uncertain due to its size (too big to be small, too small to be big) and financial condition. So it was a marriage made in airline financial heaven. BTW, ALL of the current NWA routes out of DTW are being flown under route authority granted REP, not NWO.
Let's all take a deep breath and try to think long term, even tho we're pilots.

Well the DAL list gives ALL nwa pilots a negative effect on the list and ALL DAL pilots a positive effect on seniority. Sound familiar? Its not fair when your on the other side of the line huh? Your sides proposal does exactly what you're complaining about but in reverse. Only proves that both sides proposals aren't "fair" to ALL or MOST involved.Super,

Are you looking at the numbers??? The NWA guy gains 14% with your proposal and only loses 2% on the Delta plan. And as I showed, 2 different Delta guys only gain either 1% or nothing in the Delta plan but lose 7 and 9 % in NWA's plan. You lump these plans together as if they are equally unfair. Wake up and be honest with everyone. How can NWA justify a 14% gain for NWA pilots in their plan. The epitomy of a windfall.

Cog

Super,

Are you looking at the numbers??? The NWA guy gains 14% with your proposal and only loses 2% on the Delta plan. And as I showed, 2 different Delta guys only gain either 1% or nothing in the Delta plan but lose 7 and 9 % in NWA's plan. You lump these plans together as if they are equally unfair. Wake up and be honest with everyone. How can NWA justify a 14% gain for NWA pilots in their plan. The epitomy of a windfall.

Cog

The % on day one is high BECAUSE of the fence. ALSO your 2% on the DAL plan is WRONG. Its 1-6% Negative for ALL NWA pilots throughout their entire careers. While the DAL side gets 1-6% Positive for ALL DAL pilots throughout their entire careers. The higher % on the NWA proposal is temporary during the fence and levels out. During the Fence the DAL pilots cant be negatively effected and it doesnt negatively effect anyone over their entire career like the DAL proposal does.

Your seeing what you want to see. I atleast can admit that both sides proposals have their issues, yet you try to portray the DAL list as "Fair". Be honest with yourself and at least admit that neither side is FAIR.

Even the arbitrators spoke up and said neither proposal was going to be selected in its whole. They viewed the proposals as opposites so its ok for you to admit it ;). Like i said both sides proposals should be viewed by the opposite side as the worst case scenario.

Super,

Are you looking at the numbers??? The NWA guy gains 14% with your proposal and only loses 2% on the Delta plan. And as I showed, 2 different Delta guys only gain either 1% or nothing in the Delta plan but lose 7 and 9 % in NWA's plan. You lump these plans together as if they are equally unfair. Wake up and be honest with everyone. How can NWA justify a 14% gain for NWA pilots in their plan. The epitomy of a windfall.

Cog


Both plans are unfair. Why should a NWA guy hired in 2001 be junior to a DAL guy hired in 2008? Why should any NWA pilot hired post 9-11 be junior to a DAL pilot hired after him? Unfair. The arbitrators have stated this is merger of equals, looks like we'll just have to wait for their decision.

Super,

Are you looking at the numbers??? The NWA guy gains 14% with your proposal and only loses 2% on the Delta plan. And as I showed, 2 different Delta guys only gain either 1% or nothing in the Delta plan but lose 7 and 9 % in NWA's plan. You lump these plans together as if they are equally unfair. Wake up and be honest with everyone. How can NWA justify a 14% gain for NWA pilots in their plan. The epitomy of a windfall.

Cog

Then why is a 5% loss in senority OK under the DAL proposal. Both sides pretty much due to each other what we are complaining about. I would never count out DOH as I am reading some preach on here will never happen...... If DOH happens it will have fences and all will want them.

Both plans are unfair. Why should a NWA guy hired in 2001 be junior to a DAL guy hired in 2008? Why should any NWA pilot hired post 9-11 be junior to a DAL pilot hired after him? Unfair. The arbitrators have stated this is merger of equals, looks like we'll just have to wait for their decision.Your DOH at NWA is meaningless! Each pilot groups demographics are unique. Its a crapshoot when you were hired and relative position on YOUR list can vary widely with other airlines pilots hired around your DOH. Maybe thats why DOH was removed from ALPA merger policy

Your DOH at NWA is meaningless! Each pilot groups demographics are unique. Its a crapshoot when you were hired and relative position on YOUR list can vary widely with other airlines pilots hired around your DOH. Maybe thats why DOH was removed from ALPA merger policy

You can argue with me all you want, but our opinions are meaningless. Neither one of us are involved in the arbitration. And in their eyes, neither list is fair. Cry all ya want, but the only opinions that matter are the arbitrators, and they agree with me.

Agree to disagree. I'm growing a little weary of this whole process. Good luck to all of us. Thanks for the civil discourse

Your DOH at NWA is meaningless! Each pilot groups demographics are unique. Its a crapshoot when you were hired and relative position on YOUR list can vary widely with other airlines pilots hired around your DOH. Maybe thats why DOH was removed from ALPA merger policy

Yet another DAL pilot who doesn't know what ARBITRATION means. Sing it with me now...A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N...

Carl

Yeah, it's worked so well with Roberts....

Actually, Roberts did work. The 20 year fence was very manageable. NWA pilots grew into the airplanes they brought to the merger. Almost 1,000 Republic pilots retired as Captains on the 747-400, 747-200, DC-10 and A-330 - none of which they brought to the merger. I still think both sides did pretty well.

Carl

I would not get worked up. I go from 9 percent on the DAL list to 22 percent on the combined lists. The arbitrators have already stated that neither proposal will be the final product. They will let each side know which way they are leaning in the next couple of weeks in a attempt to force a agreement. If there is no agreement then they will make a ruling. It wont look like the proposal from either side. I hope I do better then going from able to hold 777 CA as a lineholder at both bases to a narrow body CA that the NWA proposal would grant me and I feel fairly safe the arbitrators will see it that way. Arbitration is a crapshoot however and nothing is for sure. That is why a negotiated agreement is in everyones best interest. NWA has proven fences don't work so I do not see that as a major component of any award.

NWA and many other mergers have proven that fences DO work. Since you don't fly for NWA, why do you talk so definitively about something you know virtually nothing about? My prediction: Fences will be a MAJOR part of any award.

Carl

Yet another DAL pilot who doesn't know what ARBITRATION means. Sing it with me now...A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N...

CarlCarl,
What is your point about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N and DOH? Can't people make there argument about their opinion without your condesending comments? Please enlighten us on why us DAL guys don't understand A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N

Did anyone expect them to be? All negotiators claim to have made a truly "fair" opening offer, but none are foolish enough to actually do so.

Here's the problem I have Tom. Myself and many other NWA guys have been posting here and we have stated the obvious warts and other unfair portions of the NWA proposal. I have yet to see a single DAL post that does anything but praise as perfect and fair - the DAL proposal. Some are even angry that DALPA's proposal started too close to the middle!

Here are my questions:

Do DAL pilots really not see the unfairness in their sides proposal?
Do they see it, but not want to post anything negative for fear that an arbitrator might read it? Or give a rip?

So you see, your question: "Did anyone expect them to be?" is an important one. Apparently an awful lot of DAL guys not only expected it to be fair...they think it IS fair.

I would add this postscript to your last statement: "All negotiators claim to have made a truly "fair" opening offer, but none are foolish enough to actually do so" or actually believe it to be fair.

Carl

Hmmm, fact check time, boys. Don't believe all you read. At the time of the NWO/REP merger NWO had little domestic feed at its hubs for its big jumbo jets and it had UAL entering the Pacific markets (Pan Am routes). UAL would later run NWO out of ORD-NRT, etc. Without domestic feed NWO was dead. Likewise for REP, it's future was uncertain due to its size (too big to be small, too small to be big) and financial condition. So it was a marriage made in airline financial heaven. BTW, ALL of the current NWA routes out of DTW are being flown under route authority granted REP, not NWO.
Let's all take a deep breath and try to think long term, even tho we're pilots.

Since we're fact checking, NWA (not NWO) had a balance sheet with NO debt back then. When the Reagan administration was allowing companies to buy their competition, NWA did just that. They bought Republic Airlines for $880 million dollars, and they did it the same way they bought all the aircraft...they wrote a check. No financing, no investment banking, just a check for 880 million from internally generated cash.

As you state, it was good for NWA and great for Republic.

Carl

Carl,
What is your point about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N and DOH? Can't people make there argument about their opinion without your condesending comments? Please enlighten us on why us DAL guys don't understand A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N

Here's why YOU don't understand the meaning of arbitration:

NWA plan is delusional and DOH is meaningless at the new Delta.

Your DOH at NWA is meaningless!

Arbitration means that DOH could be very meaningful despite your emotional protestations.

Sorry about sounding condescending there - Einstein. :D

Carl

Carl,
What is your point about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N and DOH? Can't people make there argument about their opinion without your condesending comments? Please enlighten us on why us DAL guys don't understand A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N

POT MEET KETTLE!! :cool:

Super,
There will not a be a system wide 10 yr. fence! No way, no how. Its laughable. Instead lets just not do the SLI for 10 yrs. You guys fly your fleet, we'll fly ours. See how ridiculous both those ideas sound?

POT MEET KETTLE!! :cool:Carl, Super, 320 et al,
Agree to disagree. My apologies for the tone and the demeanor.

Cog

Question about NWA's plan and the fences?

If the 747's are replaced with 777's in 5 years I've heard that nwa would get those seats as they are replacements. First off is this true? If it is true, can I assume that both delta and nwa pilots would be combined for bidding purposes at each base. How would the seniority within that position look. Would the nwa pilots most likely push the delta pilots down or is there some type of ratio for this kind of scenerio?

Here's the problem I have Tom. Myself and many other NWA guys have been posting here and we have stated the obvious warts and other unfair portions of the NWA proposal. I have yet to see a single DAL post that does anything but praise as perfect and fair - the DAL proposal. Some are even angry that DALPA's proposal started too close to the middle!

Carl,

Perhaps this is because, like football fans at a cricket match, they have never attended an arbitration game before, and are unfamiliar with the customary cheering etiquette. :p

Nope, i only said that because some DAL guys on here try and portray their sides proposal as "fair". Both sides are extremes as far as the other group is concerned.

Thats because we KNOW from being told that our MEC did NOT walk into the negotiations with the WORST case proposal. Yeah...Im saying they had a worse one..as bad as yours. Instead they walked in with something closer to the middle.

I give you guys that the 500 NWA stapled to the bottom isnt great...but if THAT issue were worked out, I FIRMLY believe the ratio is much better as we all remain closer to where we are now. Say. everyone after 9-11 as DOH, etc...that idea has been floated around in both circles, I believe..but it never made it onto paper.

Yalls proposal is pure crack rock....sorry to say.

Folks at DAL are now worried the "middle ground" will be closer to yours since we didn't come in with an extreme proposal.

Thats because we KNOW from being told that our MEC did NOT walk into the negotiations with the WORST case proposal. Yeah...Im saying they had a worse one..as bad as yours. Instead they walked in with something closer to the middle.

I give you guys that the 500 NWA stapled to the bottom isnt great...but if THAT issue were worked out, I FIRMLY believe the ratio is much better as we all remain closer to where we are now. Say. everyone after 9-11 as DOH, etc...that idea has been floated around in both circles, I believe..but it never made it onto paper.

Yalls proposal is pure crack rock....sorry to say.

Folks at DAL are now worried the "middle ground" will be closer to yours since we didn't come in with an extreme proposal.

Its to bad they didnt go with ratio for pre-911 guys and DOH for the Post 911 guys. That would have made the MAJORITY of both pilot groups happier. Who knows maybe they can come up with something like that.

I know your side doesnt like the nwa proposal and its common knowledge that we didnt find yours appealing either and that was expected. Time will show soon how it will play out but hopefully the middle ground is something we can all grit our teeth at and push on. Either way, i am ready for it to be over with so we can get this thing moving.

Guys,
Both sides have presented their respective positions. They are positions. As one of those DAL guys who chooses to not drink the kool aid I can definately see where NALPA would find our position offensive.

- There: I said said it. So can we get over the quibling for a while.

One of the toughest things for all of us type A personalities to do is to admit that someone else is in charge. That is exactly what we are doing. Here is the bad part. When we leave it to the aribitrators then we collectively have absolutely zero control on how the SLI goes down. When we negotiate a list then both sides not only know what the result is but how best to present those results to their respective pilot groups.

I would like to see a negotiated list even though I find it unlikely. My reason is because of statements made by Chairman Bloch in an effort to get both sides to determine their own fate. He stated neither side would like the results of an arbritrated decision and I firmly believe that.

If we get a negotiated list it will happen after the last arbitration session.

I know a lot, if not most, pilots would prefer a negotiated list.

I'm in the other camp and would prefer an arbitrated one. In my experience at Delta, I have seem consistently how DALPA sells out the junior guys in favor of the senior ones with the mantra "You'll be senior one day, too".

I also belive DALPA's current MEC led by Lee (I won't blink) Moak are lousy negotiators, and likely would capitulate in the end game of any negotiations.

I'll take my chances with the arbitrators who will try and be fair to both pilot groups and all seniority levels....

Do you believe the comparison of ten year vs a twenty year fences is similar? Do you believe that the comparison of the merger of an international widebody airline(NWA) vs a domestic short haul airline(Republic) are similar to our case?

When the international airline (NWA) brings less than 1/2 the widebodies to the table than its purchaser (DAL) then yes!
I know its not super duper premium wide body, but widebody nonetheless.;)

MY experience has been the opposite. If you look at all the major choices Dalpa has made they have been in favor of the junior pilots. Many changes have never been made at any other union airline prior to DALPA leading the way. A few examples.

1. Service credit while furloughed (Huge for prior NWA furloughs as well as Delta)
2. Retirement credit while furloughed. (Will increase PBGC payments for some pilots)
3. Health insurance while furloughed (First airline to do it)
4. Decision to allow the termination of the DB retirement plan in favor of junior pilots and a huge loss for senior pilots.
5. When DB plan was frozen targeted the DC money for junior pilots. When plan terminated did not retarget DC plan to pay back money lost by senior pilots or have a matrix to try and provide senior pilots with as much retirement as junior pilots.
6. Higher co pilot pay percentages then most airlines.
7. Did not target with a matrix DC increase in joint contract to provide a equal retirement expectation for senior pilots.
8. Distributed the majority of the note money based on factors other then lost retirement to increase payout for junior pilots. (Plussed junior pilots up to 205,000 FAE and added years of service minimum)

These are just a few off the top of my head. Junior pilots are well represented by the Delta MEC.

I just hope that DOH is not the rule of the day on the SLI for the junior folks. That would be a major hit to all the 07 hires.

I just hope that DOH is not the rule of the day on the SLI for the junior folks. That would be a major hit to all the 07 hires.

how is that a big hit, especially to both sides of new hires?

I just hope that DOH is not the rule of the day on the SLI for the junior folks. That would be a major hit to all the 07 hires.

Without DOH the junior NWA guys take a huge hit.... Just depends which side of the fence you are standing.

Without DOH the junior NWA guys take a huge hit.... Just depends which side of the fence you are standing.

No, they don't. They get furlough credit and a pay raise. Their relative seniority remains the same. But it is the NWA airplanes that are being retired in large numbers not the DAL ones. Absent the merger, the NW junior guys would be in the same jeopardy without the raises. Junior Delta guys would be in jeopardy too, but to a much smaller degree.

No, they don't. They get furlough credit and a pay raise. Their relative seniority remains the same. But it is the NWA airplanes that are being retired in large numbers not the DAL ones. Absent the merger, the NW junior guys would be in the same jeopardy without the raises. Junior Delta guys would be in jeopardy too, but to a much smaller degree.

wasn't delta parking airplanes too. both called for cut backs this past spring.

what is furlough credit? years of service pay increase while on furlough. I've been told that most airline get that on the next contract following a furlough. Is that true?

nwa new hires will also be sharing the nwa retirements with delta pilots.

I just hope that DOH is not the rule of the day on the SLI for the junior folks. That would be a major hit to all the 07 hires.Just how big can that hit be when they have been on the property for just 1 year give or take a few months. "Major hit"...listen to yourself.:rolleyes:

Sailingfun,

I disagree with your take on the various distributions regarding retirement. From my perspective, the senior guys, (who are PBGC PC category 3) received significantly more in total retirement benefits than the category 4 pilots.

You are correct that DALPA has been generous with pilots who have been furloughed, but not all junior pilots have been.

I did note that you did not refute my comments regarding the perfomance (or lack thereof) of the DALPA's MEC.

Let's agree to disagree.

I think the 2007/08 hires think it will be a "major hit" if they don't have 500 NWA pilots below them. It is shocking that anyone hired after 9/11 thinks they deserve more than DOH, especially the late 2007 and 2008 hires who know full well about the merger.

I just hope that DOH is not the rule of the day on the SLI for the junior folks. That would be a major hit to all the 07 hires.

I normally enjoy reading your posts, but that is just about the silliest thing I have ever read on this forum.

SO be it. Some of the -07 guys are at the 90th% or better.

wasn't delta parking airplanes too. both called for cut backs this past spring.

what is furlough credit? years of service pay increase while on furlough. I've been told that most airline get that on the next contract following a furlough. Is that true?

nwa new hires will also be sharing the nwa retirements with delta pilots.

Delta was parking RJs (50 seaters) and a few mainline planes that were up on hvy mx, nothing compared to the numbers of 9s that have been and are going to be retired.

Furlough credit (maybe the wrong term) is credit for pay purposes for time served while on furlough. Delta did that for their furloughees and the JPWA grants that to the NW guys also. So a 01 hire may have only worked 640 days, he will in the 7th year pay wise, a huge plus. Correct me if I am wrong but under the NW contract he is only payed for years of flying.

As for retirements, NW new hires will be sharing the Delta retirements too. They far outstrip the NW retirements if you look past 10 years. They also get access to over twice as many widebody cockpits as before.

Just how big can that hit be when they have been on the property for just 1 year give or take a few months. "Major hit"...listen to yourself.:rolleyes:

Pretty damned big one if they are sitting in the right seat of a (according to you... non premium widebody 767ER) and get bumped back to a DC9.

Or worse get bumped back to the unemployment line or a Compass RJ.

Well year three pay for a 767 domestic guy is 96.00 an hr. Some are line holders. In my opinion now being able to hold that is a big hit.

No, they don't. They get furlough credit and a pay raise. Their relative seniority remains the same. But it is the NWA airplanes that are being retired in large numbers not the DAL ones. Absent the merger, the NW junior guys would be in the same jeopardy without the raises. Junior Delta guys would be in jeopardy too, but to a much smaller degree.


Furlough credit and pay raises are not part of the SLI. These were addressed in the JPWA (different subject).
Latest rumor is DAL reduction in flying and NWA bringing planes back. (Although to me this is not an issue as I feel we are all one company).
Relative seniority does NOT remain the same under the DALPA plan, I personally lose right at 5% compared to my relative seniority at NWA. My seniority on the DAL proposal has me with guys that are almost 3 years junior to me.
As for NWA guys being in jeopardy or not is a good question.... Maybe or maybe not, I feel a lot of the fleet planning is already being done with the merger in mind. So that said no merger might have made a difference in the airframes at NWA.
As for furloughs, if the NWA pilots were subject to furlough with no merger they would have the NWA retirements to help bring them back. The furloughed DAL pilots would pretty much only have growth to help them.

Delta was parking RJs (50 seaters) and a few mainline planes that were up on hvy mx, nothing compared to the numbers of 9s that have been and are going to be retired.

Furlough credit (maybe the wrong term) is credit for pay purposes for time served while on furlough. Delta did that for their furloughees and the JPWA grants that to the NW guys also. So a 01 hire may have only worked 640 days, he will in the 7th year pay wise, a huge plus. Correct me if I am wrong but under the NW contract he is only payed for years of flying.

As for retirements, NW new hires will be sharing the Delta retirements too. They far outstrip the NW retirements if you look past 10 years. They also get access to over twice as many widebody cockpits as before.

How many more 9's were planned on being parked? Last I heard it was only an additional 10 from this past spring. It was the same time that delta said it was also cutting capacity which included mainline airframes.

I think the nwa furloughed pilots didn't get longevity but I've heard that most airlines take care of that at the next contract when it comes up. If that is true, then it would have happened and it just happened now rather than a little later because of the merger.

For new hires I would want the retirements now rather than later. I know the numbers are bigger down the road for delta but how do the %'s compare? Delta would have higher #'s because they are larger that's why I think the %'s are also important. Movement up the seniority will also bring higher pay and better quality of life.

Pretty damned big one if they are sitting in the right seat of a (according to you... non premium widebody 767ER) and get bumped back to a DC9.

did nwa have a justification as to why the 767er's didn't have a fence?

Pretty damned big one if they are sitting in the right seat of a (according to you... non premium widebody 767ER) and get bumped back to a DC9.

no bump no flush, therefore not an issue. Also in the unlikely event something like that happened, purely hypothetical, those pilots are pay protected. Plus from what you guys are saying that won't happen because the 9's are going away right?? Which is it? ;)

They are Super but not in the near term. In the mid term yes, but we can still use them for the next few years.
FWIW it is better than giving more 76 seaters to DCI...

They are Super but not in the near term. In the mid term yes, but we can still use them for the next few years.
FWIW it is better than giving more 76 seaters to DCI...

latest rumor of more DC9's is getting stronger. I 100% agree more flying to the regionals isn't and shouldn't be in the cards.

I mean it will be work after being on another jet, but at least it is our jet.

At these prices it truly would be stupid not to use them.

I was also thinking (yeah yeah I know). But remember the article from about a week ago in the Minneapolis paper saying basically "bring in on" to Southwest? Back in the mid 90s we had hourly service from MSP to ORD on the DC-9, which we have slowly given back to AA and United. I have no direct knowledge, but if we are going to wingtip SWA we can't do it with an RJ as SWA will kick our butts with "full sized airplane" adds. We could, however, do it with the DC-9.

I'm not say'en, I'm just say'en.

Ferd

PS........I did alot of Midway on the 757 a few years ago during the ATA war.

They are Super but not in the near term. In the mid term yes, but we can still use them for the next few years.
FWIW it is better than giving more 76 seaters to DCI...

If they are worth keeping now, wouldn't delta just replace them in the future. Otherwise what is the purpose of them sticking around even for a little while?

I just don't see why they would be parked rather than replaced if they are making money.

I hope you guys ask for the CRJ-1000 to go to mainline.... it's 100 seats. :eek:

If they are worth keeping now, wouldn't delta just replace them in the future. Otherwise what is the purpose of them sticking around even for a little while?

I just don't see why they would be parked rather than replaced if they are making money.

Paid for DC-9's give you much more flexibility to quickly react to market conditions than a replacement aircraft that comes with a monthly lease payment. If there is an economic downturn or spike in fuel prices, you can park some of them with no penalty. If you park a new jet you still have to make the payments. So basically, the nine it gives you options without making huge decisions about financing new aircraft or trying to get out of a lease payment.

especially the late 2007 and 2008 hires who know full well about the merger.

Interesting... just what do you mean by that? Should an international widebody first officer at DAL shrug his shoulders and give his seat up to a NWA DC9 FO that got hired at NWA a year before? Why do you think this is fair? Are they pawns for YOU to make the dicision about? Well guess what cap'n... it's precisely this attitude that's going to drive a wedge between our groups.. I'm oh so looking forward to working with you.

Interesting... just what do you mean by that? Should an international widebody first officer at DAL shrug his shoulders and give his seat up to a NWA DC9 FO that got hired at NWA a year before? Why do you think this is fair? Are they pawns for YOU to make the dicision about? Well guess what cap'n... it's precisely this attitude that's going to drive a wedge between our groups.. I'm oh so looking forward to working with you.

And do YOU think it's fair for the VERY LAST DAL pilot to be senior to 400 NWA pilots. Don't give me that relative seniority BS either, because he just went from dead last to 400 guys under him. I guarantee you that many of those 400 pilots could hold multiple airplanes that pay more, but CHOOSE not to for better QOL. There is also no guarantee that those 767 FOs will continue to hold that seat with the rapid decline in travel across the Atlantic. Anyone hired post 9-11 should be DOH. They lucked into those seats due to timing.

Anyone hired post 9-11 should be DOH. They lucked into those seats due to timing.

Yeah, Delta had over 700 lucky ones, and NWA had just under 200...you might want to count how many airframes NWA had on property when your first new hire came aboard compared to Delta.

Couldn't be a difference in fleet plans, demographics, business, etc. Just pure luck.

Interesting... just what do you mean by that? Should an international widebody first officer at DAL shrug his shoulders and give his seat up to a NWA DC9 FO that got hired at NWA a year before? Why do you think this is fair? Are they pawns for YOU to make the dicision about? Well guess what cap'n... it's precisely this attitude that's going to drive a wedge between our groups.. I'm oh so looking forward to working with you.

thats the thing, no one is giving up their seat. No bump no flush, for whatever reason you conveniently try and pretend that doesnt exist.

Interesting... just what do you mean by that? Should an international widebody first officer at DAL shrug his shoulders and give his seat up to a NWA DC9 FO that got hired at NWA a year before? Why do you think this is fair? Are they pawns for YOU to make the dicision about? Well guess what cap'n... it's precisely this attitude that's going to drive a wedge between our groups.. I'm oh so looking forward to working with you.

isn't that what fences/no flush bid's are for?

why does a first year employee even get widebody FO right off the bat? isn't it because senior people don't actually want the position? I'm not bashing it, just stating it isn't always what everyone wants. It shouldn't give someone the right to leap frog over someone else at another company where it might be a more desirable position within that airline.

Yeah, Delta had over 700 lucky ones, and NWA had a little over 100...

Couldn't be a difference in fleet plans, demographics, business, etc. Just pure luck.


A little over 100? How about a little under 200 ;) (190 to be exact) Funny you spun that. :cool:

Every argument has a reverse for the other side. The guys on the DAL side hold higher positions now but will stagnate there for the next 15+ years where the nwa side will see constant attrition over the next 15 years.

A little over 100? How about a little under 200 ;) (190 to be exact) Funny you spun that. :cool:

Ever argument has a reverse for the other side. The guys on the DAL side hold higher positions now but will stagnate there for the next 15+ years where the nwa side will see constant attrition over the next 15 years.

I'll fix that in the previous post. My apologies. I can't read my own notes. I showed NWA with 140 new hires.

As far as attrition, according to our merger guys NWA has a total of 370 more guys hitting age 65 in the next 5 years. At the 10 year point it heads toward Delta. Makes the call for 10 year fences seem a little selfish, doesn't it. Spin is what you make it...

I cannot see a 10 yr fence. 3-5 and maybe a straight ratio. If you are 80% you will be that way after the merger.
For me it is a loss of 500 numbers over the dal proposal, and a gain of 200 numbers over DOH.

I'll fix that in the previous post. My apologies. I can't read my own notes. I showed NWA with 140 new hires.

As far as attrition, according to our merger guys NWA has a total of 370 more guys hitting age 65 in the next 5 years. At the 10 year point it heads toward Delta. Makes the call for 10 year fences seem a little selfish, doesn't it. Spin is what you make it...

Selfish? how so? Everyone moves up in seniority numbers even with the fence. Only those positions listed on BOTH sides were fenced, everyone moves up in numbers when someone retires. As far as the 370 number i dont have the numbers in front of me but lets just say your number was accurate. That number would have to assume all of them will fly to 65. Truth is we have more people trying to or are going to retire than the company was expecting. We have had over 200+ leave already this year alone. After the fences the playing field would be leveled and the SLI will look more equal. imho

bottom line we will find out in less than a month what is going to happen. Both sides have weaknesses and both sides have strengths. lets hope the puzzle fits.

Selfish? how so?

Ask your greenbook pilots. btw, what's a Greenliner?:D

Ask your greenbook pilots. btw, what's a Greenliner?:D

I dont get wrapped up in that garbage. As far as i am concerned we are all orange books.;) Diversity is what we dont need from this merger. I have way to much time with the new DAL to get bent out of shape in all this mess.

I give, whats a greenliner? :confused:

Yeah, Delta had over 700 lucky ones, and NWA had just under 200...you might want to count how many airframes NWA had on property when your first new hire came aboard compared to Delta.

Couldn't be a difference in fleet plans, demographics, business, etc. Just pure luck.

Yeah, I'm sure they checked out the fleet plan, crunched some numbers, and figured out the perfect time to submit their resume. :rolleyes: They got to the widebody seat by lucky timing. That's what this industry is, luck and timing. Some win, some lose, and some float around in purgatory their entire careers. You trying to argue that they timed getting hired into those seats is as ridiculous as the proposed lists that BOTH groups presented.

Ask your greenbook pilots. btw, what's a Greenliner?:D

A greenliner is a 787. Sarcastic nickname due to the 787 being the first widebody on NW property since 1986 to be unaffected by fences and supplemental awards, thus allowing all the now senior green pilots to bid 787 Captain.

Many green book pilots would use this as an example of why DOH is important because conditions and restrictions are under constant attack after an SLI, but the combined list is rarely challenged.

Interesting... just what do you mean by that? Should an international widebody first officer at DAL shrug his shoulders and give his seat up to a NWA DC9 FO that got hired at NWA a year before? Why do you think this is fair? Are they pawns for YOU to make the dicision about? Well guess what cap'n... it's precisely this attitude that's going to drive a wedge between our groups.. I'm oh so looking forward to working with you.

ts,

This is where I think a lot of you DAL guys assumptions are wrong. You think all NWA new hires are stuck on the DC-9 as FO's. They are not. There are NWA new hires-- Fall '07, who are B-757 FO's. Many of the latest ones hired back in the spring of '08, can hold A-320 FO.

That NWA OCT '07 hires 757 FO seat potentially gets him to Amsterdam, London, Germany, Hawaii, and more cities in Asia than your "international wide body first officer at DAL" can shake a stick at.

So, please stop assuming that the junior NWA pilots are just stuck on the DC-9, they are not. If a NWA new hire goes ahead of a DAL new hire on the seniority list, there won't be the huge shock of all of a sudden being able to fly international that you seem to think there will be.

I am looking forward to flying with you guys as well, but I think it would be best that before we do, we educate ourselves about what the other side has availiable to it without this merger. If we do, maybe we will find that most of these disagreements on here are avoidable.

New K Now

By the way....

Flight Ops just posted:

19 retirements in October.

8 of them 330 CA's
6 of them 747-400 CA's
The rest 320 and 757 CA's.

Earlier this year, one of them told me he wanted to stay for a few more years. I gues he did the math and figured how much it would cost him.

thats the thing, no one is giving up their seat. No bump no flush, for whatever reason you conveniently try and pretend that doesnt exist.Super,
No bump no flush is a bandaid for the bigger wound. So you don't get bumped out of your seat, but lots of NWA guys come in on top of you and you go from lineholder to bottom reserve. A huge QOL issue.

isn't that what fences/no flush bid's are for?

why does a first year employee even get widebody FO right off the bat? isn't it because senior people don't actually want the position? I'm not bashing it, just stating it isn't always what everyone wants. It shouldn't give someone the right to leap frog over someone else at another company where it might be a more desirable position within that airline.A person is in a seat or relative seniority position because of the vagaries of timing, demographics etc. There is no room, or rationale for asking "why or how" someone got in their specific "place" Its called luck, fortune, "timing is everything", or something like that.

Yeah, I'm sure they checked out the fleet plan, crunched some numbers, and figured out the perfect time to submit their resume. :rolleyes: They got to the widebody seat by lucky timing. That's what this industry is, luck and timing. Some win, some lose, and some float around in purgatory their entire careers. You trying to argue that they timed getting hired into those seats is as ridiculous as the proposed lists that BOTH groups presented.I think you are missing his point. We are all at our specific spot in the list or in a category by external influences beyond our control except our choice of which airline to try to get hired by. Much of it is luck but that is meaningless. In SLI negotiations, there should be no room for "why or how" We are where we are, period. Timing is everything. Don't hold that against anyone, NWA guys included.

Pretty damned big one if they are sitting in the right seat of a (according to you... non premium widebody 767ER) and get bumped back to a DC9.Me thinks if the seat (with its pay and QOL) is that junior, it will still be that junior after the merger. It goes junior for a reason. They are there now because someone senior to them didn't want to be for whatever the reason. So I don't see how it is a seniority hit. Are you assuming that NWA pilots are going to stampede an undesirable seat? If current DAL pilots don't value the position, I doubt any NWA pilots will value the seat either. We really arent that different you know. Fences or no bump/no flush should allow them to keep their junior seats from falling into NWA hands anyway. Junior is junior. If you've been on the property for roughly a year or a year and change, you are junior no matter who you fly for or what seat you occupy.

Just for Fun...


Everyone Please Step Back from the Punch Bowl. Too Much Kool Aid will leave you with a Huge Hangover and trying to figure out what you did last night. :eek:

Have a great day....Cheers

I think you are missing his point. We are all at our specific spot in the list or in a category by external influences beyond our control except our choice of which airline to try to get hired by. Much of it is luck but that is meaningless. In SLI negotiations, there should be no room for "why or how" We are where we are, period. Timing is everything. Don't hold that against anyone, NWA guys included.

Oh, I see. So the guy on the MD88 in ATL who chose to not take the higher paying 76E in JFK should be behind the junior 76E JFK FO because he is not on a widebody. And the very last DAL pilot magically gets 400 guys under him, many of whom are on a higher paying airplane. That wonderful relative seniority has some funky math.

Oh, I see. So the guy on the MD88 in ATL who chose to not take the higher paying 76E in JFK should be behind the junior 76E JFK FO because he is not on a widebody. And the very last DAL pilot magically gets 400 guys under him, many of whom are on a higher paying airplane. That wonderful relative seniority has some funky math.No, I am arguing the merits of relative seniority. Obviously, seat position is widely disparate for many reasons. My point was about systemwide seniority and the how invalid and irrelevent the "hows and whys" argument is

Cog,

You keep arguing for relative seniority and how DAL's proposed list is fair, but you still haven't told me how the last DAL pilot ending up with 400 guys underneath him is fair. I fail to see how he maintains his relative seniority. Looks like he gets a REALLY big bump to me. That's some convienent math.

Cog,

You keep arguing for relative seniority and how DAL's proposed list is fair, but you still haven't told me how the last DAL pilot ending up with 400 guys underneath him is fair. I fail to see how he maintains his relative seniority. Looks like he gets a REALLY big bump to me. That's some convienent math.I have said this on another thread also. I don't know our rationale behind the staple job but on the surface it seems unfair. Maybe we are projecting addl. DC-9 retirements. As oil plummets, I can see why this is probably flawed. I will say thought that maybe this is a place where we can compromise and come towars NWA's plan some. I believe however that our opening/current position is pretty close to our bottom line, with the exception of the bottom 400 and maybe a little for your nearterm retirements.

Cog

ts,

That NWA OCT '07 hires 757 FO seat potentially gets him to Amsterdam, London, Germany, Hawaii, and more cities in Asia than your "international wide body first officer at DAL" can shake a stick at.


New K Now
"Potentially" gets him to Amsterdam..etc.---Isn't NW 757 a combined category? Doesn't the international flying go way senior? JFK ER flying is all (100%) international, with probably 90% across the Atlantic. This is actual flying, not "potential". I would venture to say that "DL 07' hire" actual international block hours flown exceeds by a wide margin the "NW 07' hire" actual or even potential international block hours flown. To compare NW newhires ability to fly international wide body with their counterparts at DL is quite a stretch. "More destinations than he can shake a stick at?" I think if you do a comparison of international destinations you'll find that....oh, thats right, nevermind, any destination south of Florida doesn't "count" as international ...I forgot that commonly accepted industry "rule" (we'll just pretend one of the Continents on our planet doesn't exist as an "international" destination)

"Potentially" gets him to Amsterdam..etc.---Isn't NW 757 a combined category? Doesn't the international flying go way senior? JFK ER flying is all (100%) international, with probably 90% across the Atlantic. This is actual flying, not "potential". I would venture to say that "DL 07' hire" actual international block hours flown exceeds by a wide margin the "NW 07' hire" actual or even potential international block hours flown. To compare NW newhires ability to fly international wide body with their counterparts at DL is quite a stretch. "More destinations than he can shake a stick at?" I think if you do a comparison of international destinations you'll find that....oh, thats right, nevermind, any destination south of Florida doesn't
"count" as international...I forgot that commonly accepted industry "rule". (we'll just pretend one of the Continents on our planet doesn't exist as an "international" destination.)

And why do you think those JFK slots are junior? Hmmm. Because it's JFK. And just because someone at NWA decided to stay on a narrowbody for better QOL does not justify making him junior. The high sought positions are awarded by seniority, which is determined by DOH.

Just for Fun...


Everyone Please Step Back from the Punch Bowl. Too Much Kool Aid will leave you with a Huge Hangover and trying to figure out what you did last night. :eek:

Have a great day....Cheers


What he said :D

And why do you think those JFK slots are junior? Hmmm. Because it's JFK. And just because someone at NWA decided to stay on a narrowbody for better QOL does not justify making him junior. The high sought positions are awarded by seniority, which is determined by DOH.

Friendly wager proposal:
I'll bet you a cold one that when cross pollination is allowed, there will be VASTLY bigger numbers of pilots bailing off the DC9 for the 767ER at the junior positions than vice versa.... and... there will be VASTLY more NWA pilots jumoing to DAL equipment than vice versa.

Friendly wager proposal:
I'll bet you a cold one that when cross pollination is allowed, there will be VASTLY bigger numbers of pilots bailing off the DC9 for the 767ER at the junior positions than vice versa.... and... there will be VASTLY more NWA pilots jumoing to DAL equipment than vice versa.

I think you will see more people moving to different bases (excluding JFK *shivers*) but not because of the DAL equipment but because of OUR aircraft getting moved around to DAL bases. Of course there will be cross pollination in the long run, thats what happens in a merger but it will occur on both sides. Time will tell ;) PS. I promise i wont bid JFK ;)

wide body[/U] with their counterparts at DL is quite a stretch.

Wiggy,

Yes, NW 757 guys "do it all" from Europe to Asia and all the domestic "stuff" in between.

I've never had a problem with the 767 guys calling themselves widebody guys as loing as I can call myself a longbody guy when I fly the 757-300 (224 seats).:D

Ferd

I have said this on another thread also. I don't know our rationale behind the staple job but on the surface it seems unfair. Maybe we are projecting addl. DC-9 retirements. As oil plummets, I can see why this is probably flawed. I will say thought that maybe this is a place where we can compromise and come towars NWA's plan some. I believe however that our opening/current position is pretty close to our bottom line, with the exception of the bottom 400 and maybe a little for your nearterm retirements.

Cog

Cog,

I think you and I have about the same thinking on this issue. I've thought we would end up with some sort of ratio since almost day one.

The problem is with our "demographics." the ratio looks great on day one. Since we are (in general) older than you guys, we are trapped below a guy younger us. So, on day one the list looks ok. At year three, not so much and at year 5 it really starts to look bad.

Right now, as the old green guys retire we both move up somewhat. Then I retire below younger Delta guys and then Delta guys below me move up etc.

So, what is the answer? Don't know, but from what little I've heard we may actually be close.

I have said this on another thread also. I don't know our rationale behind the staple job but on the surface it seems unfair. Maybe we are projecting addl. DC-9 retirements. As oil plummets, I can see why this is probably flawed. I will say thought that maybe this is a place where we can compromise and come towars NWA's plan some. I believe however that our opening/current position is pretty close to our bottom line, with the exception of the bottom 400 and maybe a little for your nearterm retirements.

Cog

It was said on here the staple was because the dc9 is smaller than anything delta has even though the -50 has one more seat than the 737-700.

"Potentially" gets him to Amsterdam..etc.---Isn't NW 757 a combined category? Doesn't the international flying go way senior? JFK ER flying is all (100%) international, with probably 90% across the Atlantic. This is actual flying, not "potential". I would venture to say that "DL 07' hire" actual international block hours flown exceeds by a wide margin the "NW 07' hire" actual or even potential international block hours flown. To compare NW newhires ability to fly international wide body with their counterparts at DL is quite a stretch. "More destinations than he can shake a stick at?" I think if you do a comparison of international destinations you'll find that....oh, thats right, nevermind, any destination south of Florida doesn't "count" as international...I forgot that commonly accepted industry "rule". (we'll just pretend one of the Continents on our planet doesn't exist as an "international" destination.)

Dude,

When you use quotes you are supposed to cite EXACTLY what the person you are quoting said.

I said...."more cities in Asia than your "international wide body first officer at DAL" can shake a stick at."

I wasn't comparing international destinations. I wasn't even comparing the two positions. I was only trying to point out to tsquare that it wouldn't be a shock for a NWA new hire to find himself flying over the pond. He or she if they wanted to, could have bid the 757.

Those that have, are trained in international procedures and have SIC types. So, any higher eniority they would get over a DAL new hire is not an upwards windfall for them, and vice versa. Basically, I was only pointing out that all NWA new hires are not stuck on the DC-9 like he insinuated.

This is a merger of equals and NWA has international flying just as DAL does. So, a fairly merged seniority list is not going to shock any pilots as to what and where they can fly.

So, would it be horrible if a NWA '07 hire was senior to a DAL '08 hire on the new list? Do you think you are really giving him/her something so great that he doesn't have availiable to him/her already? I don't think so.

New K Now

It was said on here the staple was because the dc9 is smaller than anything delta has even though the -50 has one more seat than the 737-700.

Isn't the same true of the NWA A319-100? How are the -9's ranked against the A319 on NWA's own pay/progression table?

If the 747-400 is Super Premium, what's a DC-9? :D I forgot, overengineered!

And why do you think those JFK slots are junior? Hmmm. Because it's JFK. And just because someone at NWA decided to stay on a narrowbody for better QOL does not justify making him junior. The high sought positions are awarded by seniority, which is determined by DOH.
I agree with you almost 100%, johnso. But I would modify your last sentence: ......positions...seniority...which is determined by DOH AT YOUR OWN COMPANY. This last is undeniably true, johnso, otherwise we would not be having this discussion about who can hold better equipment at our respective airlines. If, for example, NW newhires could consistently hold 100% 757 or A330 international (and only international) and those attendant payrates, then this particular aspect of this discussion would be moot. But they can't, if they could, you know they would. But they can't hold the same as a DL newhire, it is a fact. And I agree that that fact should not influence their respective seniority integration. The 400 pilot staple is obviously tied to the jeopardy of the DC-9, (the equipment brought to the merger, not the seniority (or lack thereof) of the pilots) If the NW pilots "bring" an uneconomical asset to the merger, and that asset is subequently retired, for whatever reason (and that reason, at any conceivable bottom line, is that the asset is uneconomical)-- why should DL pilots be put in danger of furlough? I will go on record as saying that the proposed staple is not fair, I think it could be handled some other way..fences, perhaps. The point is I think we both acknowledge the risk, and we could come to a compromise over the risk that the DC-9 represents. Now, how do we address the unfairness, for one example, among many, of the NW proposal that simply "places" or "staples" approx. 800 NW pilots between DL seniority numbers 210 and 211 (or thereabouts)? Those POSITIONS being very senior 767-400 CA "blockholders" / junior 777 captains. One DL pilot retains that 2% seniority and it's equipt. position while the other falls to 12% to meet in the "middle" a NW pilot who came from 24% (and it's equivalent POSITION at NW of A320 CA!!! ( these are stovepipe positions..apples to apples) Bottom line, DL guy loses 10% and is demoted to junior 76ER, NW guy gains 12% and is promoted to 76ER. I know your answer is "fences" ( which, of course, implicitly acknowledges the unfairness of DOH) but fences make MANY assumptions about the future, and we all know about assumptions in this industry. Much like the complaints of your bottom 400 proposed "staples", why should we suffer a huge loss of seniority now for events, both forseen and unanticipated, that may or may not occur in the future? (I think we can address the NW attrition concerns inside the framework of ratios) As a practical matter, the NW proposal is a sure recipe for future litigation/arbitration as the combined airline evolves its demographics, equipment, routes, basing, etc...etc.

Isn't the same true of the NWA A319-100? How are the -9's ranked against the A319 on NWA's own pay/progression table?

If the 747-400 is Super Premium, what's a DC-9? :D I forgot, overengineered!

Slow,

One of those little trivia questions out of the union contract. Management insisted that all DC-9s be paid a fleet rate. IE, a DC-9-50 (125 seats) was paid the same as a DC-9-30 (100 seats) So, when the 319s showed up, we turned the worm and insisted they be paid the fleet rated or like an A-320. Now you can discuss trivia with the best of us:D

Ferd

Johnso29........you don't understand the category list, your position is not based on what you're currently on. Just a way of stovepiping the ratio.

Wiggy........you seem like a real smart guy but you do see that the category list is as big a non-starter and DOH, right?

Cog,

I think you and I have about the same thinking on this issue. I've thought we would end up with some sort of ratio since almost day one.

The problem is with our "demographics." the ratio looks great on day one. Since we are (in general) older than you guys, we are trapped below a guy younger us. So, on day one the list looks ok. At year three, not so much and at year 5 it really starts to look bad.

Right now, as the old green guys retire we both move up somewhat. Then I retire below younger Delta guys and then Delta guys below me move up etc.

So, what is the answer? Don't know, but from what little I've heard we may actually be close.Ferd,

Thanks for the friendly words. They are few and far between but I know that I am a big part of that! Yes a ratio is probably the answer and I see how the snapshot on day 1 doesn't look so good for you guys in the future. However, if we modify it now to account for the near term, we hurt the Delta guys in the long term when our retirements outpace yours in about 15 yrs. Tough question

Cog

[quote=newKnow;488032]Dude,

I said...."more cities in Asia than your "international wide body first officer at DAL" can shake a stick at."
I know, I can read, I was just yanking your chain. See my post to johnso29 regarding this seniority "controversy".


This is a merger of equals and NWA has international flying just as DAL does. So, a fairly merged seniority list is not going to shock any pilots as to what and where they can fly.
Yes, and DOH with the fences you propose ain't it. Your proposed list and the fence on the 767ER, for example, will result in the entire top 1/3 of the ER category being all NW, well before 10 years are up.

[quote=newKnow;488032]Dude,

I know, I can read, I was just yanking your chain. See my post to johnso29 regarding this seniority "controversy".


Aaahh, I see. Hey!! You have got to use the smiley face when you are yanking my chain. :D

[quote=wiggy;488079]


Aaahh, I see. Hey!! You have got to use the smiley face when you are yanking my chain. :D

Actually, I want to see a different kind of face when I'm getting my chain yanked.

Oh crap, wrong forum :eek:

Johnso29........you don't understand the category list, your position is not based on what you're currently on. Just a way of stovepiping the ratio.

Wiggy........you seem like a real smart guy but you do see that the category list is as big a non-starter and DOH, right?
Well, sure, but the percentage losses for DL under DOH are far greater than what NW suffers under our ratio proposal. The NW propsal is entirely centered around one, single aspect of the future,--attrition, not age 65 attrition, but age 62.4 attrition! -- it effectively sacrifices the current, real, tangible seniority, (and thus the future seniority) of 98% of the DL pilots to preserve a future, speculative (62.4) expected seniority for NW. In the process it reaps a current seniority windfall for NW. It allocates current and future jobs behind the fences in an extremely naive, biased manner, using best-case future scenarios for NW and worse-case for DAL. "Predictions are difficult, especially about the future" "...nor can we isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future" This SLI is about pilot jobs and the economic benefits they bring to the merger. If the sole issue of NW attrition can be addressed ---without sacrificing the current relative and actual seniority that DL pilots enjoy, and would at worse continue to enjoy as a stand -alone, then we would have some basis for an agreement. We will not gamble or sacrifice our current or future seniority based on NW's over simplified and tidy version of the future. To paraphrase: "talk about carreer expectations is a little like dreaming about income expectations at a roulette table" Relative seniority as a concept, with adjustments for realistic expected attrition, comes closest to "insulating" us both from those "vagaries of a roulette table".

Why I spent so much time defending pure DOH eh?

As I said somewhere in another post, the differences between our two positions is 909 numbers for me personally as a 9/95 hire. You can drive a truck through that gap. Yes, I'm much better off with DOH than the category list and why I'm not betting the house on it.

Step back from the punch bowl and catch a breath........and drink the beer I just gave ya.

Ferd

"Potentially" gets him to Amsterdam..etc.---Isn't NW 757 a combined category? Doesn't the international flying go way senior? JFK ER flying is all (100%) international, with probably 90% across the Atlantic. This is actual flying, not "potential". I would venture to say that "DL 07' hire" actual international block hours flown exceeds by a wide margin the "NW 07' hire" actual or even potential international block hours flown. To compare NW newhires ability to fly international wide body with their counterparts at DL is quite a stretch. "More destinations than he can shake a stick at?";) I think if you do a comparison of international destinations you'll find that....oh, thats right, nevermind, any destination south of Florida doesn't "count" as international ...I forgot that commonly accepted industry "rule" (we'll just pretend one of the Continents on our planet doesn't exist as an "international" destination);)
There knew know, you "nattering nabob of..." (I'm sure you've heard them all)....knuckleheaded narcissistic (but highly nuanced) nihilism...:D

Why I spent so much time defending pure DOH eh?

As I said somewhere in another post, the differences between our two positions is 909 numbers for me personally as a 9/95 hire. You can drive a truck through that gap. Yes, I'm much better off with DOH than the category list and why I'm not betting the house on it.

Step back from the punch bowl and catch a breath........and drink the beer I just gave ya.

Ferd
You're right, Ferd, I just can't resist keeping my head in that punchbowl, since it is a "Polish" wedding.;) Thanks for the beer, though. As to your post, the difference for me would be 1400 numbers or 11% relative, w/ NW's proposal. With DL's it would be 0% relative difference. What a choice, huh? ...I think rather than having a beer, I'll have a shot of tequila!!:eek:

Tequila it is my friend!

I call that stuff liquid stupid........one and I'm real dumb, two and senior FAs start to look good:eek:

Wiggy,

Yes, NW 757 guys "do it all" from Europe to Asia and all the domestic "stuff" in between.

I've never had a problem with the 767 guys calling themselves widebody guys as loing as I can call myself a longbody guy when I fly the 757-300 (224 seats).:D

Ferd

Ferd,
I hate to interrupt this string of confrontational posts with a question, but how long does it take to load that plane? It seems to me like it takes forever to board and de-plane our 757's. It must seem like an eternity on the 757-300, especially if you are laying over with the FA's and the only thing between you and a cold one is the Griswalds getting their collective butts off the plane. Also, are tail-strikes an issue with the -300?

Scoop

Scoop,

Yeah they are a pain in the arse. I want to say 45 minutes for boarding? (vs 40 for a -200). And, you are so right for unloading. I've never timed it but it is forever. Just as an example, going into HNL one night we followed one of your 767s to the gate and pulled in about the same time. The Delta guys were curbside when we walked out..........

What makes it worse is the -300 is really 3 classes. First, coach and flip flop. The back section is actually a smaller seat pitch and guess where all the families with kids on cheep tickets are? Gathering the kids, seats and "stuff" REALLY takes forever.

I think we have only dragged one tail, on landing as I recall. They redesigned the stab (I think) and they actually land alot flatter than a -200.

Ferd

I actually did time the deplaning once, when I was in the aft galley F/A jumpseat (every seat full) and figured this was a good chance.

Twelve minutes from door 2L open until I got out! F/A said it's always like that. :eek:

Scoop,

Yeah they are a pain in the arse. I want to say 45 minutes for boarding? (vs 40 for a -200). And, you are so right for unloading. I've never timed it but it is forever. Just as an example, going into HNL one night we followed one of your 767s to the gate and pulled in about the same time. The Delta guys were curbside when we walked out..........


Ferd


That is because DAL Flight Attendants are taught to say "Welcome to Las Vegas" as they open the door at unloading. People get off the aircraft as if a vacuum hoses was put to the door. ;)

It's interesting how we're all checking to see what percentage (of relative seniority) we gain or lose with either proposal. Does that mean that a list which allows you to keep the same relative percentage would be fair to the most people? That would sound good to me. (FWIW, I lose 11% with NWALPA's proposal, and gain .75% under DALPA's)

Welcome aboard to the NWA guys; the vino tinto's on me if we end up in Barcelona together!

The NW propsal is entirely centered around one, single aspect of the future,--attrition, not age 65 attrition, but age 62.4 attrition! -- it effectively sacrifices the current, real, tangible seniority, (and thus the future seniority) of 98% of the DL pilots to preserve a future, speculative (62.4) expected seniority for NW.

It's not speculative wiggy. Retirements are what they are. They are precisely defined and quantifiable. One of the few things that are.

If our guys raised the statistical age from 62.4 to age 65, the numbers look exactly the same. Maybe they should have done that so nobody could use the term speculation when it comes to retirement.

Carl

It's interesting how we're all checking to see what percentage (of relative seniority) we gain or lose with either proposal. Does that mean that a list which allows you to keep the same relative percentage would be fair to the most people? That would sound good to me. (FWIW, I lose 11% with NWALPA's proposal, and gain .75% under DALPA's)

Welcome aboard to the NWA guys; the vino tinto's on me if we end up in Barcelona together! I lose 9% with NWALPA's and gain 1% with DALPA! Fair

Depends on how you define fair.

It's not speculative wiggy. Retirements are what they are. They are precisely defined and quantifiable. One of the few things that are.

Exactly Carl.. and the only quantifiable defineable retirement age is 65... 62.4 is a pipe dream.

Exactly Carl.. and the only quantifiable defineable retirement age is 65... 62.4 is a pipe dream.

That's fine tsquare. If your guys actually try to make that arguement during their rebuttal case, our guys will run the program again with an age 65 attrition, and the charts will look almost exactly the same. If we add 2.6 years to the current NWA proposed fence, the charts will look exactly the same. That's why I use the term "statistical certainty."

Our guys will have to preface the age 65 assumption as totally inaccurate and done only for demonstration purposes. No serious person could possibly claim that all pilots will work until 65. There are too many life insurance actuarial experts available to completely refute such a claim.

Carl

I'm thinking that a lot of green book guys are going to (a) finally be able to hold 747 captain, and (b) be based in ATL (way closer to home for many of them). Why would they retire early. I wouldn't if I were in their position.

I'm thinking that a lot of green book guys are going to (a) finally be able to hold 747 captain,

Finally? The top 30% of the current 747 list are all green book. Hundreds more have retired as Captains on the 747 since the merger, despite REP bringing zero 747's to the merger.

and (b) be based in ATL (way closer to home for many of them). Why would they retire early. I wouldn't if I were in their position.

That may be right. Of the six DTW 747 guys that are retiring this month, only 1 is REP, the rest are NWA.

Carl

That's fine tsquare. If your guys actually try to make that arguement during their rebuttal case, our guys will run the program again with an age 65 attrition, and the charts will look almost exactly the same. If we add 2.6 years to the current NWA proposed fence, the charts will look exactly the same. That's why I use the term "statistical certainty."

Our guys will have to preface the age 65 assumption as totally inaccurate and done only for demonstration purposes. No serious person could possibly claim that all pilots will work until 65. There are too many life insurance actuarial experts available to completely refute such a claim.

Carl

Its always fun to run numbers and make them skew in your direction Carl. Especially when nobody is there to correct them;)

Carl,

You are right, no one can possibly claim that all pilots will work until age 65. But all the assumptions as to why guys will not go to age 65 apply to each pilot group and hence, in my mind, cancel each other out.

IMO, the only variable is early retirements and nobody knows how many, on either side, will take that option. I know your argument is that guys will loose retirement if they go beyond 60. Who knows what motivates people, whether they are independantly wealthy, have 3 ex-wives, are concerned about healthcare costs, or they just love this job, the only constant is age 65 now.

I posted in another thread a comparison of retirements based on age 65. I know our numbers are correct and if Super posted correct numbers, our retirements are just not that different (204 thru 2018) and, in any case, are made up very quickly and then favor the NW guys pretty heavily.

I didn't realize it until I crunched the numbers, that there really is not that much difference, based on age 65 and, after doing it, I can see why your merger committee proposed only a 10 year fence and not a 20 year fence like the previous Roberts award. I believe I remember, from a previous post, you were OK with a longer fence, I don't think your junior guys feel the same way!!!!:D

Have we talked about this before?! Must be the Mad Cow kicking in!!!!:D

Denny

I didn't realize it until I crunched the numbers, that there really is not that much difference, based on age 65 and, after doing it, I can see why your merger committee proposed only a 10 year fence and not a 20 year fence like the previous Roberts award. I believe I remember, from a previous post, you were OK with a longer fence, I don't think your junior guys feel the same way!!!!:D

Denny

Thanks for running the numbers. A 10 year fence would be the ultimate kick in the crotch to the DL guys. It would allow the NW guys to take full advantage of their marginally higher retirements early on then be on equal footing when DL retires hundreds more a year. You'd have to go to 20+ years and we've seen how that fosters group unity. DOH with a 10 year fence is about as bad a deal for DL guys as any proposal could have been IMO. A dynamic list that would allow each side to reap the benfits of the equipment they bring and retirements would be great but way too complex. My guess, we'll see a ratioed list pretty close to what was shot down in the Spring with some 3 year fences. All but the most senior will take a hit of some form or another (they'll still whine) and we'll move on to hopefully a more stable career.

Thanks for running the numbers. A 10 year fence would be the ultimate kick in the crotch to the DL guys. It would allow the NW guys to take full advantage of their marginally higher retirements early on then be on equal footing when DL retires hundreds more a year. You'd have to go to 20+ years and we've seen how that fosters group unity. DOH with a 10 year fence is about as bad a deal for DL guys as any proposal could have been IMO. A dynamic list that would allow each side to reap the benfits of the equipment they bring and retirements would be great but way too complex. My guess, we'll see a ratioed list pretty close to what was shot down in the Spring with some 3 year fences. All but the most senior will take a hit of some form or another (they'll still whine) and we'll move on to hopefully a more stable career.

First, let me state that I don't agree with excluding the 7ER's from the fence proposal. I really don't expect to get DOH, and I understand why you think DOH would be such a bad deal. But please answer this... how is a ten year fence "the ultimate kick in the crotch" for DAL guys? All the fence does is protect each side's seats from transfers to the otherside for 10 years. The fences prevent NWA guys from taking DAL seats and likewise unless there are insufficient bidders from the other side. You get to keep the seat you're in, and no NWA guy is going to get any DAL captain seat 10 years. Are you angry because you can't bid over to an NWA seat that you want?

I think you reveal your true mindset when you say that it is somehow bad for NWA guys to "be on equal footing" at the end of the fences. Lord knows we wouldn't want those NWA guys to be on equal footing.

I think you reveal your true mindset when you say that it is somehow bad for NWA guys to "be on equal footing" at the end of the fences. Lord knows we wouldn't want those NWA guys to be on equal footing.

Bingo!

Carl

First, let me state that I don't agree with excluding the 7ER's from the fence proposal. I really don't expect to get DOH, and I understand why you think DOH would be such a bad deal. But please answer this... how is a ten year fence "the ultimate kick in the crotch" for DAL guys? All the fence does is protect each side's seats from transfers to the otherside for 10 years. The fences prevent NWA guys from taking DAL seats and likewise unless there are insufficient bidders from the other side. You get to keep the seat you're in, and no NWA guy is going to get any DAL captain seat 10 years. Are you angry because you can't bid over to an NWA seat that you want?

I think you reveal your true mindset when you say that it is somehow bad for NWA guys to "be on equal footing" at the end of the fences. Lord knows we wouldn't want those NWA guys to be on equal footing.

Come on, you know what I'm saying. 10 year fence set to expire right as DL retirements kick into overdrive, so you basically get yours and a good portion of ours. Make it 20 and you get yours and we get ours.

Come on, you know what I'm saying. 10 year fence set to expire right as DL retirements kick into overdrive, so you basically get yours and a good portion of ours. Make it 20 and you get yours and we get ours.

You say make it 20 years, then another DAL guy says "see there...only shows how ridiculous your proposal is because it requires a 20 year fence!!!"

Which is it?

I know, I know - if your NWA...you're wrong.

Carl

Come on, you know what I'm saying. 10 year fence set to expire right as DL retirements kick into overdrive, so you basically get yours and a good portion of ours. Make it 20 and you get yours and we get ours.

The fence protects what both sides wanted. You guys wanted to protect CURRENT positions and we wanted to protect movement. It is meeting in the middle UNLESS you want your cake and our cake also. YOU would get seniority bumps everytime a NWA guy retires just like us. The only thing you couldnt do with the fence is bid over to our specific fenced positions just like we couldnt bid over to your specific positions. We ALL move up regardless of the fence after the fence comes down it would be a free for all for you DAL guys at that point. We'll see

Dont worry i am sure we will all get a "fair" list :eek: :D

I'm sure you'll disagree, but there is actually a very reasonable mix of each pre-merger group in the top 1500 at the end of the ten year fence, assuming age 62.4 year retirements from both groups. Under the DAL proposal with short fences and relative seniority by equipment, former NWA widebody seats will very quickly transfer to your side, beginning with the A-330 at the end of year three, which will really be only year two (or so) from SOC, because your proposed fences begin at DCC and not SOC. So, actually your fences protect us for less than two years since there is no cross bidding until SOC.

I apologize if my comment at the end was inflammatory. It is hard to "know what you're saying." Nuance and emotion don't translate well here.

The fence protects what both sides wanted. You guys wanted to protect CURRENT positions and we wanted to protect movement. It is meeting in the middle UNLESS you want your cake and our cake also. YOU would get seniority bumps everytime a NWA guy retires just like us. The only thing you couldnt do with the fence is bid over to our specific fenced positions just like we couldnt bid over to your specific positions. We ALL move up regardless of the fence after the fence comes down it would be a free for all for you DAL guys at that point. We'll see

Dont worry i am sure we will all get a "fair" list :eek: :D

Just not sure how DOH with a 10 year fence which doesn't include our biggest fleet (757/767) protects our current positions or our movement. I do see how it protects your movement then allows you to move again as our guys retire in droves around 2020. I'm definitely a fan of fences because I like where I am but a 10 year fence that doesn't protect the 767 and expires just before DL guys start to retire in large numbers doesn't look anywhere near fair to me. If we're going to protect somebody's retirements and positions we need to protect them for both sides. The alternative is finding a compromise where we share in the good and bad each side brings to the table.

My point with the original post was that we'd probably all be better off in the long run taking our medicine now then working off a combined list. Tweak a ratio one way or another with mid-term fences. You may lose some near term retirement movement but see greater opportunity on larger aircraft and big movement as DL guys retire while DL guys get a few more early retirements but share exposure to the lower paying DC-9 and have to split the larger number of DL retirements down the road. My opinion only. I'm definitely no expert and I don't want your cake.

I apologize if my comment at the end was inflammatory. It is hard to "know what you're saying." Nuance and emotion don't translate well here.

No apology necessary. I'm not looking to jump the fence and bid your equipment. I'm within a couple hundred numbers of upgrading to 75/76 Capt here now. I'd like to upgrade in my current base at roughly the same time I expect to now. We'll see... I'm not looking for any sudden increase in circumstances at all. The 10 year fence would probably be a great deal for me personally but I just don't see the fairness in a fence that dissappears just before big DL retirements kick in. Both sides have good guys working on this. Hopefully they'll come up with a solution we can all live with. By the way, I see your on mil leave. Thanks for your service and be safe.