Airline Pilot Forums

In the hearings in D.C., Mr. Bloch made two important points on what the arbitrators thought was important when creating a list.

"The first, of course, is to create a list that recognizes the prevailing equities of the new relationship, some points on that, just a small digression. Numerous witnesses have alluded to the fact that this is a conglomeration of equals. You differ as to how equal, but I think Dr.Campbell was essentially correct in speaking of this being a merger and not some sort of an acquisition. I don't hear any serious argument from either side that one company is the savior of the other in this. And secondly, there is no doubt that you -- and I know that we -- will not cure the inequities, real or perceived, of the past, nor can we isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future. Talk about career expectations in this industry is a little like dreaming about income expectations and investment opportunities at a roulette table."

So, what's a current prevailing equity? Because it appears that prevailing equities brought to the merger will dominate the decision. Not future expectations or perceived inequities of the past.

If you edited some of the muttering and digression his statement boils down to this.

The first, of course, is to create a list that recognizes the prevailing equities of the new relationship. And secondly we will not cure the inequities, real or perceived, of the past, nor can we isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future. Talk about career expectations in this industry is a little like dreaming about income expectations and investment opportunities at a roulette table.

Mr. Bloch shed some light on how the arbitrators were leaning. It's difficult to decipher from the transcript, because there was some muttering and a digression in th middle, so I did take some liberty and do some editting by eliminating some of the muttering and the digression from the two main points he was trying to make. I've also included the uneditted quote for those who might think something of imporrtance might be in that.

So, what's a current prevailing equity? Because it appears that prevailing equities brought to the merger will dominate the decision. Not future expectations or perceived inequities of the past.

Please pardon my font malfunction:

edited
The first, of course, is to create a list that recognizes the prevailing equities of the new relationship and secondly, there is no doubt that you I know that we will not cure the inequities, real or perceived, of the past, nor can we isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future. Talk about career expectations in this industry is a little like dreaming about income expectations and investment opportunities at a roulette table.

uneditted

The first, of course, is to create a list
that recognizes the prevailing equities of the new relationship, some points on that, just a small digression. Numerous witnesses have alluded to the fact that this is a conglomeration of equals. You differ as to how equal, but I think Dr.Campbell was essentially correct in speaking of this being a merger and not some sort of an acquisition. I don't hear any serious argument from either side that one company is the savior of the other in this. And secondly, there is no doubt that you -- and I know that we -- will not cure the inequities, real or perceived, of the past, nor can we isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future. Talk about career expectations in this industry is a little like dreaming about income expectations and investment opportunities at a roulette table.


You've zoned in on one of the very important points, in my view. My interpretation of Bloch's use of the term "prevailing equities of the new relationship" is a reiteration of his comment that the arbitration board essentially agrees that neither airline is saving the other, and they view this as a merger of equals. Using the term "prevailing equitites of the new relationship" is shorthand for the board's overall view of the two companies and what they brought to the merger.

A bigger question for me is; why would he have said it? I have a strong suspicion as to why, but it's obviously only my opinon.

The comment of not being able to cure the inequities of the past is rather obvious. The comment of not being able to isolate or insulate anyone against the vagaries of the future means (I think) that they are going to use the tried and true method of taking a snapshot at some point (constructive notice, corporate closure, end of firm aircraft orders, etc.) and construct a list.

The only other question is, will they use the computer programs we've provided them to move the list forward into the future to see how the list will look down the road.

Carl

The only other question is, will they use the computer programs we've provided them to move the list forward into the future to see how the list will look down the road.

Carl

Carl,
Using a computer program to see how the list will look down the road sounds a lot like "isolating or insulating against the vagaries of the future."

And Carl we all what Yogi thinks about that. :)

Scoop

Carl,
Using a computer program to see how the list will look down the road sounds a lot like "isolating or insulating against the vagaries of the future."

And Carl we all what Yogi thinks about that. :)

Scoop

With one exception: Attrition is not a vagary, it's a statistical certainty. The NWA/REP arbitration used the attrition "look ahead" to decide how long the fences should be. With Bloch saying they hoped to craft a list that the pilots could live with now and in the future, it leads me to believe they will look at the attrition equation in any proposal they are contemplating.

Carl

With one exception: Attrition is not a vagary, it's a statistical certainty. The NWA/REP arbitration used the attrition "look ahead" to decide how long the fences should be. With Bloch saying they hoped to craft a list that the pilots could live with now and in the future, it leads me to believe they will look at the attrition equation in any proposal they are contemplating.

Carl
But is garanteeing future advancement based on that attrition a statistical certainty, within the context of this merger? I don't believe he set any priorities as to which basis for future expectations is more valid or more vague. The "now and in the future" comment is pretty general, unobjectionable platitude, I doubt he gave a little "wink" ;)to the NW side when he said it.

I kind of home'd in on the quote about not solving the inequities of the past. I suspect he is talking about the Red/Green issue. (If not then what?) If that is correct then it could be a blow to a DOH list. Just thinking out loud........probably shouldn't do that!!!!!:D

Not to change the subject, but has any one looked at the seniority list put out on a website called isoprepanalysis dot com? Looks like a straight ratio.

My understanding of the term "Prevailing Equities" concerns the status quo on what the value of a specific DOH brings to each pilot on each list. I have a lot of friends at NWA. Some hired before and some after me. Even those hired several years ahead of me fly lower paying equipment and don't enjoy the quality of life that I do. One of them the other day asked if I ever fly when I commented on how I never see him. (Yes, I do like 9 to 10 day a month schedules!)

With one exception: Attrition is not a vagary, it's a statistical certainty.

I agree, eventually 100% of both lists will have attrited in one way or another.

The NWA/REP arbitration used the attrition "look ahead" to decide how long the fences should be. With Bloch saying they hoped to craft a list that the pilots could live with now and in the future, it leads me to believe they will look at the attrition equation in any proposal they are contemplating.

Carl

A modest fence on a ratioed list should allow the NWA pilots to enjoy the temporary bump in their attrition. Down the road, more DAL pilots retire than NWA pilots.

You've zoned in on one of the very important points, in my view. My interpretation of Bloch's use of the term "prevailing equities of the new relationship" is a reiteration of his comment that the arbitration board essentially agrees that neither airline is saving the other, and they view this as a merger of equals.

I think the comment about both companies being equal isn't very significant, because as Mr. Bloch states, there has not been, "any serious argument from either side that one company is the savior of the other in this."

Using the term "prevailing equitites of the new relationship" is shorthand for the board's overall view of the two companies and what they brought to the merger.

I agree. It goes back to ALPA merger policy where the policy states that the committees need to balance the equities inherent in each airline in order to construct a list. This suggests an evaluation of the qualitative value of the jobs brought to the new venture. Who brought what and how does it stack up against what the other guy brought.

Down the road, more DAL pilots retire than NWA pilots.

15 to 20 years down the road....

15 to 20 years down the road....
--But just as "statistically certain" therefore, real, -as NW's 5-10 years down the road.

Well one statisical certainty will be the number of Northwest pilots who retire prior to DCC to go out under the old medical plan. For months we have been hearing that the number could be up to 1000 pilots. And if the SLI was finished prior to DCC that myth might have carried weight on the arbitrators decision.
I guess we can assume that if guys were going to go early they had their chance and the rest are in it for the long haul. I don't remember if this issue came up during the hearings but it is now irrelevant - we have a small number of guys that retired and that is now a fact.
BTW - do any NW guys know the actual number?

Scoop

Well one statisical certainty will be the number of Northwest pilots who retire prior to DCC to go out under the old medical plan. For months we have been hearing that the number could be up to 1000 pilots. And if the SLI was finished prior to DCC that myth might have carried weight on the arbitrators decision.
I guess we can assume that if guys were going to go early they had their chance and the rest are in it for the long haul. I don't remember if this issue came up during the hearings but it is now irrelevant - we have a small number of guys that retired and that is now a fact.
BTW - do any NW guys know the actual number?

Scoop

I don't know the actual numbers, but I know a number of guys were caught off guard. Now they're probably in until 60 so they don't have to pay $2,000 per month for medical premiums.

It didn't come up on our side. We simply displayed the blue/red chart that moved forward in one year increments based on a statistical 62.4 age of attrition.

Carl

--But just as "statistically certain" therefore, real, -as NW's 5-10 years down the road.

Not really, 75% of our list will be gone. They don't see it as real.

Not really, 75% of our list will be gone. They don't see it as real. On average NWA pilots are only a couple of years older than DAL pilots, so about 75% of Delta pilots should be gone also.

Regardless, future attrition has never played a part in seniority list integration under ALPA policy with the exception of a modest fence with AAA/AWA, where the age disparity was significantly larger than in this case, so I'm not at all surprised that Mr. Bloch has suggested that it wont play a role in this integration either. The emphasis will most likely be on the prevailing equities, which are the current and dominant equities, with little consideration of what's happened in the past or career expectations at the old Delta or the old NWA. This strongly suggests some form of ratio of current and comparable positions brought to the "new venture."

On average NWA pilots are only a couple of years older than DAL pilots...


The two groups are not even close to equal in age.

I for one hope for an arbitrated decision. We could not possibly do worse than what was offered to us by DALPA.

Regardless, future attrition has never played a part in seniority list integration under ALPA policy with the exception of a modest fence with AAA/AWA, where the age disparity was significantly larger than in this case,

Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in. It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?

so I'm not at all surprised that Mr. Bloch has suggested that it wont play a role in this integration either.

I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl

The two groups are not even close to equal in age.


At our last LEC meeting our negotiators said that NWA had nearly 200 guys over the age of 60 already on the list (most on some type of sick/disability with the rest being SO's). When those positions were taken out, the difference in both median and average age was less than 2 years. Even with those over 60's included it was about 2 years. FWIW

The "incredible" 1000 attrition a couple of days ago probably narrowed the difference a little more.:D

At our last LEC meeting our negotiators said that NWA had nearly 200 guys over the age of 60 already on the list (most on some type of sick/disability with the rest being SO's). When those positions were taken out, the difference in both median and average age was less than 2 years. Even with those over 60's included it was about 2 years.

That is a good argument for DOH, thanks.

Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in. It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?
Yeah, it might have been used for those purposes, but that is a far cry from using attrition as the basis for the actual construction of a list.


I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl
-And I imagine Bloch would be equally surprised at your characterization of "insulate from the vagaries of the future" translated as "take a snapshot, then make the list from that point in time." No one disputes that there will be 100% attrition from the list, by all of us, eventually. We have very little statistical evidence to say what the "average" retirement age will be since the law changed, 62.4 is a "wag" and is therefore speculative. --BUT--thats not the real issue here, is it, Carl. There is a 500 lb. gorilla lurking behind all the fluff of "statistical certainty" and "attrition" in your arguments, and that has to do with our old friend "vagaries of the future" - reiterated in "roulette table". Those simple statements are self-evident, and are not subject to interpretation...they put the very premiss of your list in jeopardy, that you are somehow inherently entitled in this merger, to realize 100% of your future attrition as future advancement. Why, Carl, is a NW pilot's claim "I would be very senior in 10 years" any more valid than a DL pilot making the same claim? It is not more valid, it is only equally valid, they are both "career expectations", and are equally subject to the arbitrator's unambiguous statements.

The "incredible" 1000 attrition a couple of days ago probably narrowed the difference a little more.:D

The 1000 pilots was managements guess at a worst case scenario. It is also why DCC was the same day as DOJ approval, this was very calculated on their part. They caught a bunch of our pilots with their pants down. At this point some will need to stay to cover the downgrade in health benefits and an upgrade in costs.

That is a good argument for DOH, thanks.

Not really, it's a far better argument for relative position, as it points out that the attrition argument is rather weak. The rest of the Delta case showed growth trumped attrition anyway.

Where is DOH mentioned in ALPA merger policy?

In any case, we can spin our wheels all day behind these anonymous keyboards and create some more fodder for the brainiacs at ALPAwatch. Or we can hope that the two parties actually negotiate from a basis of fact to a conclusion, either through agreement or a fair decision from the 3 wiseguys.

Or maybe we can call for a telephonic vote of confidence for Carl, Capn, and Super as we conclude these proceedings:D

The 1000 pilots was managements guess at a worst case scenario. It is also why DCC was the same day as DOJ approval, this was very calculated on their part. They caught a bunch of our pilots with their pants down. At this point some will need to stay to cover the downgrade in health benefits and an upgrade in costs.

It's a math problem. A really senior guy got $50,000 in equity at today's prices (all tax sheltered). The increase in premiums over NWA for he and a spouse if retired at 60 is far less than that.

It's not a reason for most. It might have been a reason for somebody like Carl who should retire at 52.:D

Not really, it's a far better argument for relative position, as it points out that the attrition argument is rather weak. The rest of the Delta case showed growth trumped attrition anyway.

Our merger committees see and know the weaknesses of their proposals. Many of us cannot. For example, we have a DAL pilot here that says attrition is a weak argument, but says the DAL argument based on future growth "plans" and aircraft order "options" trumps other arguments. This despite Bloch's statement of future vagaries.

I see a third chance of either proposal being adoped, and a third chance of something in the middle. Anyone who doesn't see that is setting themselves up for disappointment.

Where is DOH mentioned in ALPA merger policy?

Nowhere, but (as you know) this isn't being done under ALPA merger policy. ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.

Carl

It's not a reason for most. It might have been a reason for somebody like Carl who should retire at 52.:D

No, if I did that, I might just spend time on the internet posting on...

Hey wait a minute!

Carl

this isn't being done under ALPA merger policy. ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.

Carl

You're technically correct that it's not being done under ALPA merger policy, but that's for the structure (no PID, etc.) Refer to the process agreement, paragraph 5:

5. The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy").

I'm hopeful that the wiseguys will provide suitable pressure to force the two parties to reach that "fair and equitable list" with no ruling required.

Future attrition models played a part in both mergers that I was personally involved in.

You better inform your merger committee ASAP. Here's what NWALPA's witness testified to:

CROSS-EXAMINATION LANE KRANZ

Q. Just not going in any particular order, at least not in the order of the slides. Let me just start by asking you, with respect to this so-called attrition argument that you're sponsoring, can you tell us whether there has been any case decided under ALPA merger policy in which an arbitrator has actually adjusted the construction of the list, put aside conditions and restrictions, adjusted the construction of the list based on attrition?

A. I cannot.

It's what was used to determine how long the fences would be for the DOH list at NWA/REP. Where's your data to support your thesis of "never" playing a part in an SLI?

I'll just have to rely on your witness. Maybe we can build taller fences after we ratio the seniority list for your 747s and our 777s.

I'll bet Mr. Bloch would be surprised at how you've characterized his statements. Where do you claim Mr. Bloch "suggested" this? Or are you one of those who thinks the retirement age is a "vagary" of the future?

Carl

It has never been the part of the construction of a seniority list, at least your own witness said. Maybe this will be the first time, you never know.

Nowhere, but (as you know) this isn't being done under ALPA merger policy.

You better go back an reread the SLI process agreement, something about "consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy" might ring a bell.

ALPA has always said DOH was never in merger policy, just a mention of it as a method. Even with that said, DOH found it's way into the majority of arbitrated decisions.

Carl

Have there been any changes to ALPA merger policy since 1991? Have there been any DOH integrations under ALPA merger policy since 1991? What's been removed from ALPA merger policy since 1991?

You're technically correct that it's not being done under ALPA merger policy, but that's for the structure (no PID, etc.) Refer to the process agreement, paragraph 5:

5. The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy").

I'm hopeful that the wiseguys will provide suitable pressure to force the two parties to reach that "fair and equitable list" with no ruling required.

I would bet that pressure is going to be absolutely enormous when the hearing reconvenes

Carl

It has never been the part of the construction of a seniority list, at least your own witness said. Maybe this will be the first time, you never know.

I think Lane Krantz is only speaking to his recollection. Here's my recollection:
1. After the case had been presented, Mr. Roberts asked for the ability to project into the future based on no growth and attrition at age 60.
2. The Republic proposal was DOH with a 5 year fence.
3. The NWA proposal was a ratio with a 5 year fence.
4. Mr Roberts decided on DOH with a 20 year fence.

I can't prove this beyond all doubt, but I think Roberts used the look ahead ability to institute a 20 year fence that neither side asked for. Since Lane couldn't prove this either, he was correct in not saying so.

Carl

Have there been any changes to ALPA merger policy since 1991? Have there been any DOH integrations under ALPA merger policy since 1991? What's been removed from ALPA merger policy since 1991?

Yes. My understanding was DOH used to be a method listed in ALPA merger policy. I believe DOH was removed from ALPA policy and replaced with "fair and equitable." That's what I've heard, but I don't know that for sure.

As far as DOH since 1991, I don't remember. USAir guys got the top 517 positions, but I don't know if DOH played into the arbitrator's decision to do that.

How many arbitrated SLI's have there been since 1991?

Carl

No Carl you know what they got those positions. It is spelled out in the award.

I think Lane Krantz is only speaking to his recollection. Here's my recollection:
1. After the case had been presented, Mr. Roberts asked for the ability to project into the future based on no growth and attrition at age 60.
2. The Republic proposal was DOH with a 5 year fence.
3. The NWA proposal was a ratio with a 5 year fence.
4. Mr Roberts decided on DOH with a 20 year fence.

I can't prove this beyond all doubt, but I think Roberts used the look ahead ability to institute a 20 year fence that neither side asked for. Since Lane couldn't prove this either, he was correct in not saying so.

Carl
Again, Carl, "looking ahead" in this manner is a far, far cry from the actual construction of a list based entirely on future attrition that benefits one pilot group only. (Please see my post #20, I assume you agree with the conclusions I draw?) BTW, why do you suppose ALPA got rid of any mention of DOH in their merger policy? That would be an interesting discussion.....and might shead some light on our current "predicament".

deleted, my link didn't work

Again, Carl, "looking ahead" in this manner is a far, far cry from the actual construction of a list based entirely on future attrition that benefits one pilot group only. (Please see my post #20, I assume you agree with the conclusions I draw?) BTW, why do you suppose ALPA got rid of any mention of DOH in their merger policy? That would be an interesting discussion.....and might shead some light on our current "predicament".

Your premise as to NWA using "look ahead" as the basis for constructing the seniority list is completely wrong. You seem to be implying that NWA is using that to somehow justify our whacky notion of DOH. If that is what you are implying, it shows how your own personal bias is blinding you. And your not alone.

NWA does not need to defend DOH as a methodology. It has been used in whole or in part for many arbitrated lists. NWA guys offer no apologies for wanting credit for every day of service from our airline - and thus we need no justification. Especially since the arbitrator's opinion is that we are a merger of equals. There is an inherent fairness to the DOH concept. If the demographics were reversed, every Delta pilot would see this with complete clarity. The "look ahead" is used to show why a 10 year fence is needed to protect DAL pilots until most of the senior NWA guys are gone. The 10 year fence doesn't protect NWA pilots. Since we are asking to be credited for every day that we have worked at NWA, we don't need the protection. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal.

Once again...the look ahead program was used to construct the fences, not the DOH seniority list. And we don't need a look ahead program to "justify" the DOH methodology given its long history in mergers. Especially in this merger of equals.

Carl

Carl,

I promised myself yesterday I was going to stay out of this debate but like the proverbial carrot on a string in front of the horse, I've got to just mention this.:D

We are equal in terms that we were both fairly well positioned separate companies that could have survived with out the merger. But as far as the rest of it goes (DOH, equipment, etc)......isn't that why we are having these debates?

If we were so equal, a straight ratio would work wouldn't it? Then there would be no need for fences or anything else.

Carl,

We are equal in terms that we were both fairly well positioned separate companies that could have survived with out the merger. But as far as the rest of it goes (DOH, equipment, etc)......isn't that why we are having these debates?

That is correct. Our only area of inequality is in our respective demographics...thus the catapult into arbitration. There are some other DAL guys however that feel they must try to make a case that NWA is not at all equal to DAL in many ways. The DAL merger team tried to make that case for 3 days. The result: arbitrators calling this a merger of equals.

If we were so equal, a straight ratio would work wouldn't it? Then there would be no need for fences or anything else.

As stated earlier, the unequal demographic is why a straight ratio or straight DOH is unfair without fences. Somehow I think that even if our demographic was equal, there would be guys justifying a new method to advantage themselves. You know - DAL pilots should rank higher on the list because, DAL has thinner FA's, DAL has better looking FA's, DAL has nicer FA's... On second thought, I probably better stop that line of reasoning. :D

Carl

PS: You haven't responded to my posting of the actual wording of our proposed fence. Did you see how any growth is shared 1 for 1? Or can you not say so for fear of being barred from future ribs n grits events? :D

Carl,

Like I said, I had promised myself to back off on this forum. I'm not much of a forum poster anyway. I've kinda gotten in over my head here!:D As far as writing goes, I am not a very articulate person and this medium has its inherent drawbacks.....one of which is typing....I hate it!! I much prefer face to face.

All I'll say about fences is that they can be porous and controversial (ala your 24 or however many abitrations there were for the NW/REP merger). If there is a need for fences, I would prefer to see shorter ones that would allow all of us to take advantage of the new "Delta" and all the bases and aircraft that come with it.

Please don't get the idea I'm trying move DL guys into your turf. I just want everyone, DL and NW, to be able to move bases/equipment to have a better QOL and I think fences are a pretty big hinderance to this idea.

I quess I'm feeling pessimistic today, but I just don't see a negotiated list coming out of this process. Maybe they could delay the list until Jan 1, 2009 so it wont ruin Christmas for whomever!!!:D

Denny

Carl,

Like I said, I had promised myself to back off on this forum. I'm not much of a forum poster anyway. I've kinda gotten in over my head here!:D As far as writing goes, I am not a very articulate person and this medium has its inherent drawbacks.....one of which is typing....I hate it!! I much prefer face to face.

All I'll say about fences is that they can be porous and controversial (ala your 24 or however many abitrations there were for the NW/REP merger). If there is a need for fences, I would prefer to see shorter ones that would allow all of us to take advantage of the new "Delta" and all the bases and aircraft that come with it.

Please don't get the idea I'm trying move DL guys into your turf. I just want everyone, DL and NW, to be able to move bases/equipment to have a better QOL and I think fences are a pretty big hinderance to this idea.

I quess I'm feeling pessimistic today, but I just don't see a negotiated list coming out of this process. Maybe they could delay the list until Jan 1, 2009 so it wont ruin Christmas for whomever!!!:D

Denny

Well, all I can say is that I'll miss your posts when you decide to back off. You're plenty articulate, and more importantly, you make a lot of sense.

Carl

[quote=Carl Spackler;490254]

The "look ahead" is used to show why a 10 year fence is needed to protect DAL pilots until most of the senior NWA guys are gone. The 10 year fence doesn't protect NWA pilots. Since we are asking to be credited for every day that we have worked at NWA, we don't need the protection. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal.

Carl,
On a seperate post I asked if any Green Book guys had any comments on the 20 year fences - not one response. It appears that fences are very popular if you are "fenced-in" not so popular if you are "fenced-out."
Anyhow I think most DAL guys would love fences but why no fence protection for junior FO's? IF you guys want to fence off your heavies - great, but if the DC-9's are rock solid with the price of oil declining back it up with a fence. If the 9's get parked the furloughs come from the NW side. If DAL parks 88's the furloughs come from the DAL side. I have said before this would allow much more flexiiblity with the bottom of both lists which seem to be a problem area.
You guys are definitely trying to "cherry-pick" where the fences will go, and I don't blame you, but at least admit it. Case in point, the 767ER - no fence proposed by NW.

Scoop

Denny,

I guess this is where I differ with everyone. I think too much like a management slug so I would like to see no fences and have the ability to maximize (in a perfect world and really smart managers - like strawberry fields forever) profit.

Now with that said, the pure ratio doesn't work with our demographics because, in general, we are older. So, the senior guys retire and we all move up. Then Carl and I retire and more Delta guys move up to the point that 5 to 10 years down the road the upper third of the list (and the widebodys) are all old Delta.

The days of service idea sounds interesting, but I would like to see it before I say more. I know.............chicken!

Ferd
PS..........Allan and Shirley have signed on to represent exNWA guys in all future arbritrations

Carl,

I try not to get into the "your proposal is worse than my proposal" argument because the same argument can be thrown back and forth with nothing constructive to come of it. Although, at times, I've had a hard time not saying "Right back at ya!!!" (This comment is not directed at you)

We get an extra month now to go back and forth with the discussion. IMO, All to no avail because it is not up to us. Again, in my pessimistic mode, I just cannot see a negotiated agreement.

As I have said before, one side will have to come off it's basic premise of status and category or DOH for there to be an agreement and I just don't see that happening unless the arbitrators go to one side or the other and say something to the effect "you wont like our list more than the other guys wont like our list." I just don't see them doing that. I believe you mentioned in another post about length of service, that's still a DOH modified list and, as the basic premise, its DOH. Not gonna float on my side just as modified status and category list isn't gonna float on your side.

We are the proverbial dogs chasing their tails. Neither one of us is going to convince the other that they are right. It's an exercise in futility. Although, I like to think that I'm like the crusty old Capt. that once told me, when dealing with a angry gate agent, "Why get angry when you know you're going to win the argument?!":D:D Ahhh.......The power of the brakes!!!!! I love it!!

I'll always be around to ask questions, try to clarify what I know and TRY to stay out of the mudslinging........unless it's warm mud and there are bikini clad women involved!!!!!!:D Too much typing!!!

Denny

Ahhh Ferd,

Denny Crane has never lost a case!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D Be scared, be very, very scared!!!:D

Who am I? I'm DennyCrane!

(Wish there was some way to say that really fast in this medium!)

We are the proverbial dogs chasing their tails. Neither one of us is going to convince the other that they are right. It's an exercise in futility.
Denny

I agree completely, but what else are we going to do........watch election coverage, over and over and over:D

Well, now that you mention election coverage, I guess this isn't so bad!!!:D Good conversation with verying viewpoints. What more could one ask for?!!:D

I'm so sick and tired of getting recorded "vote for me" calls, I could just......sit on the pot!!!!!

Denny

PS. I agree with you, I don't like fences either. I hope people much smarter than I can figure this out.

Carl,
On a seperate post I asked if any Green Book guys had any comments on the 20 year fences - not one response. It appears that fences are very popular if you are "fenced-in" not so popular if you are "fenced-out."

I think most will tell you that they really like their DOH seniority number, but really hated the fence that only allowed them to share growth 1 for 1, and kept some seats protected for NWA guys.

Anyhow I think most DAL guys would love fences but why no fence protection for junior FO's? IF you guys want to fence off your heavies - great, but if the DC-9's are rock solid with the price of oil declining back it up with a fence. If the 9's get parked the furloughs come from the NW side. If DAL parks 88's the furloughs come from the DAL side. I have said before this would allow much more flexiiblity with the bottom of both lists which seem to be a problem area.

You're right on this. It sounds only fair to me.

You guys are definitely trying to "cherry-pick" where the fences will go, and I don't blame you, but at least admit it.

I do admit it. Our cherry picking is one of the weaknesses in our proposal if we are really interested in fairness. But, as I'm sure you know, the DAL proposal definitely leaves the cherry trees bare as well. ;)

Carl

Carl,

As I have said before, one side will have to come off it's basic premise of status and category or DOH for there to be an agreement and I just don't see that happening unless the arbitrators go to one side or the other and say something to the effect "you wont like our list more than the other guys wont like our list." I just don't see them doing that.

Actually Denny, I think that is EXACTLY what will happen. The arbitrators may even go to both sides privately and say just that.

If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration.

unless it's warm mud and there are bikini clad women involved!!!!!!:D

Denny, you are the king of the typewritten mental picture! :D

Carl - sadly, not Denny Crane

Your premise as to NWA using "look ahead" as the basis for constructing the seniority list is completely wrong. You seem to be implying that NWA is using that to somehow justify our whacky notion of DOH. If that is what you are implying, it shows how your own personal bias is blinding you. And your not alone.
Suppose the demographics were such that we had exactly equal attrition for the next 10 years. IOW, if the respective pilot group's ages were correspondingly the same from the top to the bottom of the list, and all else (fleets, positions held, DOHs etc.)was as it currently is. In that scenario I think you would be hard pressed to justify DOH in any form. Your proposal under that scenario would artificially place a solid block of 800 NW pilots between our #210 and #211, with attrition for the 800 DL pilots placed after #211 equal to the attrition of the 800 NW pilots placed between #210 and #211, this would be....obviously unfair, a seniority grab. Your extreme proposal therefore is constructed entirely around protecting your slightly greater short-medium term attrition ("look ahead"), which is what I have asserted. You chose DOH (with its extreme disregard of the actual, tangible seniority of DL pilots) to realize your goal of protecting 3% to 4% of NW pilots 10 years in the future. There is way too much risk in that for the DL pilots...it can be done in much less drastic ways..You won't trade seniority for wages...we won't gamble with our seniority. BTW, Carl, your observation that my "personal" bias blinds me is not neccessary, so I will refrain from characterizing your "personal" attitude if you'll do likewise.

NWA does not need to defend DOH as a methodology. Oh, I think you do, though, I'm sure the DL side and the arbitrators are keenly interested in your justification or "defense" of DOH as a methodology. Is any methodology so sacred and unassailable that it never needs justification?It has been used in whole or in part for many arbitrated lists. Yet it has been specifically and purposely removed from ALPA merger policy, why do you suppose that was done? NWA guys offer no apologies for wanting credit for every day of service from our airline - and thus we need no justification. No apologies are asked for, you can have all the credit for service you deserve, but realize it is "credit" at NW only, and NOT at DL... There is an inherent fairness to the DOH concept. As you like to say Carl, - that is only your opinion, nothing more..ie...-ask the DL pilots how "inherently fair" it is.If the demographics were reversed, every Delta pilot would see this with complete clarity. -Kind of like the NW pilots saw that "inherent fairness of DOH" with "complete clarity" when they proposed their ratioed list in 1986? (BTW, it was a surprise to me when your witness revealed that interesting tidbit) The "look ahead" is used to show why a 10 year fence is needed to protect DAL pilots until most of the senior NWA guys are gone. I disagree, you have put the cart before the horse. You have "looked ahead" and decided to try to protect the attrition and advancement of 3-4% of your group, constructed an extemely self-beneficial list to reflect that decision, -then, as an afterthought, threw a crumb at the DL pilots. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal...opinion only.....MY opinion is that jeopardizing the current and future seniority of 7300 pilots to insure the future seniority of 300-400 pilots is extreme...



The only time DOH is ever advocated is if it gives an advantage for one pilot group over another. This must be very evident and uncomfortably ironic to you, given your chosen SLI methodology in your last merger. Given the arbitrator's remarks, attempting to construct your entire list around "future expectations" would not seem smart, even if it is a so-called, "merger of equals".

Wiggy,

Studies have shown that most people listen to someone only long enough to defend or refute. As soon as the person thinks of a defense or a refutation, they're done listening. You are one of those people. There is so much wrong with what you've posted that I don't even want to try to correct. First of all you wouldn't listen, secondly it wouldn't matter. NWA pilots haven't surrendered, and that is the only thing that you're interested in.

Bye,

Carl

Carl, There is one simple fact about mergers. If DOH benefits your group then it if the only fair way to merge a list. If if does not then some form of ratio is the only fair way to merge the list. Prior to this round of merger talks I did not know a single Red book pilot at NWA who felt the Roberts award was fair.
I also have no doubt that if the positions were reversed and NWA had enjoyed greater growth and a newer fleet they would be on this forum screaming about how unfair DOH would be in merging the lists.
The truth in the end is simple. Each side will always 100 percent of the time advocate the positions that is best for them. In this case arbitrators will make the final decision. Regardless of how that award comes down I will honor the decision and not blame NWA pilots for the outcome if it goes bad. They are doing what we are doing. Seeking the best deal for both sides. The only complaint I have had is the questionable accurracy of some things put out by the NWA mec and the need for observers ect.. that hinder committee work. I have no complaint at all about NWA asking for DOH. I have no doubt that if DOH benefited the Delta pilots we would be asking for it and I have no doubt that if a ratio benefited the NWA pilots they would be asking for a ratio as they did in their last merger.

If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration.


Looks like we'll be letting the arbitrators decide then. The Delta team would be skewered for accepting your version of dynamic seniority.

Now if you wanted to include the BAD with the good, meaning both sides get credit for retirement attrition, and both sides get credit for fleet attrition, then it might work. That means for every 742, DC9 and 787 that leaves the fleet plan NWA pilots move down on "their" list, and for every 737 and 777 delivered DAL pilots move up. But I'm quite sure there'll be no negotiated list that only contains limited items favorable to NWA in the short and long term (retirement attrition and mid-length fences).

If you'll remember the February negotiations broke down over this very point.

Now if you wanted to include the BAD with the good, meaning both sides get credit for retirement attrition, and both sides get credit for fleet attrition, then it might work. That means for every 742, DC9 and 787 that leaves the fleet plan NWA pilots move down on "their" list, and for every 737 and 777 delivered DAL pilots move up. But I'm quite sure there'll be no negotiated list that only contains limited items favorable to NWA in the short and long term (retirement attrition and mid-length fences).


Exactly, Slowplay. Well put.

PG

Actually Denny, I think that is EXACTLY what will happen. The arbitrators may even go to both sides privately and say just that.

If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration.



Denny, you are the king of the typewritten mental picture! :D

Carl - sadly, not Denny CraneCarl,

A straight ratio is probably the fairest, but I think that using a dynamic list will create a mess for the categories in the future. So do you reshuffle EVERY category for the next umpteen years every time a pilot retires? You could never count on your relative position in a category month to month. Then there is the question about only making a list "dynamic" because of retirements. What about fleet retirements and previously announced growth airplanes. I think Delta guys lose if a dynamic list involves only retirements and the whole pilot group loses if we have to live under a dynamic list for years. Straight ratio and call it even for your nearterm retirements and our nearterm orders and mid to long term retirements

Cog

How about Dynamic only for early retirements? DAL guys keep saying early retirements won't happen, so they should be good with that, right?

How about Dynamic only for early retirements? DAL guys keep saying early retirements won't happen, so they should be good with that, right?

I don't think Delta guys are saying they wont happen. Early retirements however have limited value depending on how old the pilot is when he goes out early. We were hearing from NWA pilots that upwards of 1000 pilots would leave before DCC. We now hear the actual number was in single digits. If the list goes DOH many of your current domestic narrow body captains will go from 15 days a month of domestic flying to 9 or 10 days a month of international with great layovers. I think many will stay. Historically only 50% of pilots however make it to age 60 anyway because of medical or check ride issues. Many early retirements at Delta occur after a pilot has a check ride. He is quietly taken aside and told that it would be in his best interest to retire early.

I don't think Delta guys are saying they wont happen. Early retirements however have limited value depending on how old the pilot is when he goes out early. We were hearing from NWA pilots that upwards of 1000 pilots would leave before DCC. We now hear the actual number was in single digits. If the list goes DOH many of your current domestic narrow body captains will go from 15 days a month of domestic flying to 9 or 10 days a month of international with great layovers. I think many will stay. Historically only 50% of pilots however make it to age 60 anyway because of medical or check ride issues. Many early retirements at Delta occur after a pilot has a check ride. He is quietly taken aside and told that it would be in his best interest to retire early.

I keep seeing DAL guyspost how NWA. Pilots were saying 1000+ early retirements but I hven' actually been able to find any post stating this...... Can somebody show me where all these posts are?

I keep seeing DAL guyspost how NWA. Pilots were saying 1000+ early retirements but I hven' actually been able to find any post stating this...... Can somebody show me where all these posts are?

And the search bar says....

Scoopy, I don't think so. NWA is looking at upwards of 1000 guys jumping ship before DCC to avoid the increase in benefit premiums. Combine that with the probable 10 year fence and were short big time. I also heard that were pulling upwards of 25 DC9-30s from the desert because of the price of oil. That being said, NWAs side of the new Delta will be hiring.

PS
My guess on the 5 to 10 year fence is that it will be negotiated because the arbitrator warned Delta that this is a merger of equals.

from "NWA Furloughs" thread, post #14

So one post from one guy? Hardly seems like "NWA pilots" were saying this. Maybe what should me posted in "NWA pilot posted 1 time" :)

Wiggy,

Studies have shown that most people listen to someone only long enough to defend or refute. As soon as the person thinks of a defense or a refutation, they're done listening. You are one of those people. There is so much wrong with what you've posted that I don't even want to try to correct. First of all you wouldn't listen, secondly it wouldn't matter. NWA pilots haven't surrendered, and that is the only thing that you're interested in.

Bye,

Carl
Come on, Carl, "studies have shown...."? To put it bluntly: What kind of dismissive B.S. is that? Very weak, Carl, and uncharacteristic of you. To cite "studies" to justify ignoring questions and comments that might be in opposition to your viewpoint is (...for the purposes of this august institution known as A.P.C. forums...) somewhat pedantic or doctrinaire, Carl. (yeah, I should know!:rolleyes:) Why don't you simply say: "Wiggy, we've agreed on very little in our exchanges, so when we disagree, let's just agree to disagree" or "Wiggy, I'm tired of arguing back and forth on these (somewhat) trivial topics, let's give it a rest." rather than: "Wiggy, I can read your mind and you don't 'listen to' or 'hear' my viewpoint, -therefore you do not deserve responses to your questions and comments." Now, on a lighter note, I see you've come off DOH a little bit, good!...welcome over to the real world of ratios, dude! (you'll be much happier here)....... just kidding, Carl..(;)) Dynamic lists... sounds complicated...I'll have to think about it for a while...It wouldn't surprise me if our negotiators might be talking about it, too. It might be familiar ground to them if the rumors about last March are true..... (.... now, let's see, how can I, personally, get an advantage through dynamic lists?:cool:)

For what it's worth, I have a buddy that is a professional mediator (family law, accidents etc.) and he says hands down that respective parties that do not come to the middle end up with a third party decision that, he says, for the majority is unacceptable to both sides. Thus, if neither DAL nor NWA are willing to move to the middle we will end up with an arbitrated agreement. So, while both sides emote how they are right in the arena of ideas we may end up with a decision that both sides hate. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

So, to my fellow NWAers and to DALPA, split our differences in half and call it a day.

So one post from one guy? Hardly seems like "NWA pilots" were saying this. Maybe what should me posted in "NWA pilot posted 1 time" :)

Dude, please.

First you get me to do your work for you, then you complain that I only answered your question by quoting one post instead of all of them? OK, so only one dude flat out said it (throughout several posts, not just one), but plenty of other NWA dudes carried on the discussion without scoffing at least the premise. For example:

From Carl Spackler:
"For those talking about NWA management not "letting" 1000 guys retire, you should know it's not management's decision to make. If 1000 NWA guys want to retire early, there's nothing that can be done......I know it's a high number, but I don't think it's quite 1000 guys."

From NwaF16dude:
"I'd have a hard time believing they'd let a 1000 go, but I'd sure love it if they did. Hope you're right"

I can't figure out how to quote from another thread and I'm sick of copy/paste, so that's all you get. You can look up the rest yourself. Take it or leave it. I'm out.

So, to my fellow NWAers and to DALPA, split our differences in half and call it a day.

And that would be a monstrous win for NWA. Look at the net difference in relative position between the proposals and the opportunistic fence construction. I'm much more comfortable with an arbitrated decision based on recent history (especially Nicolau) than I am surrendering to an illogical position.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Yup, I hope both sides hear that. While the airlines aren't similar at all, the rationale used in the last ALPA case, using the same attorneys, with one party using the same "losing" economic model may give the Delta guys some cheer.

But a "win" for either side is a loss for all of us.:eek:

Slowplay,

I am confused at what you're point is. If it's that DAL is more likely to win with the arbitraitors and they shouldn't compromise because you're sure to win but a win for either side would be a loss for both then wouldn't that contradict you're premise of not moving from your position?

Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded. Further, our argument that we have no desire to bid DAL equipment for ten years was to demonstrate to the arbitraitors that we are not looking for a windfall.

My point, and let me clear on this, is that I do not feel that neither Date of Hire nor Relative Seniority would be good for the combined airline. A move to the middle where we split our differences, and I personally would lose 850 numbers of seniority per DOH under that scenario, would be preferable to having either an arbritration board dictate our seniority or having one side win out. Neither side wants 5000 plus pilots or 7000 plus pilot disgrumbled and disenfranchised for the next twenty years.

My vote is we go to the middle. Any takers?

My understanding of the term "Prevailing Equities" concerns the status quo on what the value of a specific DOH brings to each pilot on each list. I have a lot of friends at NWA. Some hired before and some after me. Even those hired several years ahead of me fly lower paying equipment and don't enjoy the quality of life that I do. One of them the other day asked if I ever fly when I commented on how I never see him. (Yes, I do like 9 to 10 day a month schedules!)
Exactly correct. He could have just said "preserve status quo" but he is a lawyer and why use three words when you can use thirty. Here are some legal definitions:
When two parties want the same thing and the court cannot in good conscience say that one has a better right to the item than the other, the court will leave it where it is.

My vote is we go to the middle. Any takers?
No Way. The Delta proposal takes into account the NWA fleet reductions and moves seniority 1 to 2% in favor of Delta. The NWA proposal moves seniority 11 to 17% in favor of NWA. So the "middle" is a huge gain for NWA.

The Delta side is obviously counting on getting a reasonable position accepted. The NWA side figures it is going to get split up the middle and presented a skewed position to throw the middle off on their side.

Both parties have their strategies. Middle is the absolute worst case for Delta, so no, no thanks. I can wait until Christmas for a decision that effects the next 30 years.

Slowplay,

I am confused at what you're point is. If it's that DAL is more likely to win with the arbitraitors and they shouldn't compromise because you're sure to win but a win for either side would be a loss for both then wouldn't that contradict you're premise of not moving from your position? Nowhere did I say we should not compromise. NWA started on the 10 yard line. DAL started on the 40. Meeting in the middle takes us to the 35, an unrealistic result. Acceptable compromise puts us within a yard of the 50 either side.

Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded.

Relative seniority a windfall? I'm sure you've had some nice gaps in hiring. Does a pilot on your list hired in 92 that's one number senior to a pilot hired in 94 have substantially greater relative seniority, even though his DOH is 2.5 years longer? Heck no. DOH is a specious argument except for pass priviliges and other benefits determined by longevity.

Neither side wants 5000 plus pilots or 7000 plus pilot disgrumbled and disenfranchised for the next twenty years.



I've seen this movie, and so have the arbitrators. I think I'd rather see the 5000 ****ed than the 7000. The other way worked out very badly last time.

Of course, the best would be to have 12000 mildly irritated.:D

Are you girls done bickering yet? ;)

If you think the arbitraitors are going to award Relative Seniority b/c you 2k more pilots than we do I would say you're wrong. Relative Seniority, the Dal list, has many of losing 1700 numbers. In ten years nwa/dal relative seniority will be close to the same to date of hire. So, effectively it will take ten years to get back to where I am today. Go ahead and try and justify that all you want but that would be an unbelievable windfall for DAL. So, don't go around saying you don't want to bid our airplanes if you're against fences. If Dal doesn't move from its position it will go to arbitraition. In the spring your premise was either take our proposal or the whole deal is off. Now, the deal is on no matter what. No more walking away b/c you didn't get your way. Our proposal, whether you like it or not, is a low cost proposal as it will not cause the displacement of one Dal pilot. So, don't think for a moment that the arbitraitiors won't take that into account.

The middle is the answer. A windfall for either side isn't. I realize I went to public schools so this seems so elemental and beyond me why others don't get it. Do you really want to spend the next decades working in an environment, from the training deptartment to line flying, where both sides are resentful and going after each other?

Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded.

actually I do take heart from that statement. I believe equal means a Delta narrowbody captain is equal to a NWA narrowbody captain, a Delta widebody captain is equal to a NWA widebody captain, and the guy halfway up the Delta list is equal to the guy halfway up the NWA list......no matter when you were hired.

Pride before the fall! Equality does not mean a huge windfall for DAL, who under their will ratio puts nwa pilots behind them and then take full advantage of the nwa retirements. That is not equality. Date of hire with a ten year fence guarantees that not one nwa pilot will displace a Dal pilot and while you have zero attrition for the next decade you will watch tremendous attrition on the nwa side.

You can continue to argue your point but do not think for one second that the Nwaers are going to cave. Won't happen.

Opus,

As per the comparison of retirements I showed in another thread based on age 65 retirements, you only have 204 more retirements by 2018 and then we start taking over and then it's not even close. I can see why you want to have only a 10 year fence.:rolleyes:

Denny

I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.

I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.
That's because it isn't "super premium.":rolleyes:

I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.

Actually in the DL proposal, the A330 is NOT fenced but the 767-400 IS fenced.

That's because Airbus products don't need fences to keep pilots out. They need fences to keep pilots in!

If it aint Boeing ....

What! Mein Gott! No fences around my precious 767? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Both parties have their strategies. Middle is the absolute worst case for Delta, so no, no thanks. I can wait until Christmas for a decision that effects the next 30 years.

Fortunately, the merger teams don't employ your logic Buck

For you to say the middle is the absolute worst case scenario shows that you believe there is no possibility of DOH being chosen as the SLI construction method. Unbelievable. If you are this careless and cavalier with your investments and personal matters...Yikes!

You've really unmasked yourself for the extremist that you are. The middle is the worst case scenario...absolutely unreal.

Carl

For you to say the middle is the absolute worst case scenario shows that you believe there is no possibility of DOH being chosen as the SLI construction method.


I think there is zero chance of DOH being the method.

Pride before the fall! Equality does not mean a huge windfall for DAL, who under their will ratio puts nwa pilots behind them

Just to be clear, you're fine with 1400 NWA pilots and 200 DAL pilots at the top of the list, but you're not fine with 900 NWA pilots and 700 DAL pilots at the bottom...

Fair and equitable?:p

The middle ground is at the 50, not the 35. You want credit for all your "super premium" even though it was compensated less than our standard widebody flying, but you don't want credit for bringing in 800 of the lowest paying (and high risk) jobs on the DC-9.

Tell me again the difference in bidding power of a 2001 and 2007 hire at your airline? Is that caused by DOH or their relative position on your list?:rolleyes:

I think there is zero chance of DOH being the method.

This is the kind of hubris that makes for bitterness after an award. You're so convinced that the chances are zero, that your angry for the rest of your career when the impossible (in your view) happens.

We've agreed to a process over which we have little control. The truth is that either side's proposal could be adopted as is. Knowing that will keep all of our expectations in check

Carl

This is the kind of hubris that makes for bitterness after an award. You're so convinced that the chances are zero, that your angry for the rest of your career when the impossible (in your view) happens.

We've agreed to a process over which we have little control. The truth is that either side's proposal could be adopted as is. Knowing that will keep all of our expectations in check.


Well, if ALPA policy made even one mention about DOH, I would not say its about a zero chance.

But yes, I am convinced that a straight DOH merger will not happen. On the 1% chance it does, I think it will be accompanied by very long fences, ala the Roberts award.

I disagree on the amount of control. The arbitrators are bound to abide by ALPA policy. You seem to think they have a lot of latitude, which in theory they may, but in practice, they do not. Arbitrators are hired all the time to rule on disputes. Many times, like this, ground rules and conditions are spelled out. They are not going to rule on the outer edge of their authority or they risk never being hired again to arbitrate a dispute. DOH will not happen. Neither will the DALPA proposal for that matter, but the DALPA proposal is a whole lot closer to any reasonable read of ALPA policy than a DOH list.

Well, if ALPA policy made even one mention about DOH, I would not say its about a zero chance.


Heyas,

And here is the critical error in your thinking. One of the arbitrator's goals, among many other things, is to ATTEMPT to provide an award within ALPA policy. HOWEVER, since DOH is not specifically excluded in the policy, it becomes a method of integration, as long as it meets the other criteria. Just because it is not mentioned in the policy, does not mean a method is excluded.

If the arbitration panel (not you, or I, or any of the other Brainiacs here) decides that the most fair and equitable method of integration is DOH, then that's what it will be.

The slides at the arbitration showed that after the 10 year fence comes down, even by the most conservative retirement estimate, the resulting two groups will be demographically matched.

If the NWA guys wanted to be complete A-holes about the whole thing, and wanted to really swing for the fence, they could have just asked for DOH, with no fences. But the fences are there to PROTECT DAL pilot's career expectations, just as they are there to protect the NWA pilot's. When the fence comes down a 330 NWA captain will have the same LOS and relative seniority as a 767-400 captain (although it should really be paired with the 777). And fences are WHAT YOU GUYS WANTED. "Fly what you brought" was the mantra we all heard for 8 months now.

But this is all OBE. I understand that a deal has already been made, and both sides will be ****ed.

Nu

Nu,

If the DL guys really wanted to be a-holes, we could have proposed a list based on W-2 earnings. It's not specifically excluded from merger policy either. (Not saying we made more, just an example) But we didn't.

The fences in DL's proposal were 5 yrs for the widebody flying, if I remember correctly, and they protected us both. It seems a little convenient that the 10 yr fence comes down just when Delta's age 65 retirements start kicking in.

We all want a fair list. I quess we will be told what is "fair" on Dec. 20th. Hope we can all have Happy Holidays!!!(politically correct, Denny Crane for President!!):D

Denny

Opus,

As per the comparison of retirements I showed in another thread based on age 65 retirements, you only have 204 more retirements by 2018 and then we start taking over and then it's not even close. I can see why you want to have only a 10 year fence.:rolleyes:

Denny

A ten year fence does nothing but fence those aircraft. Either way, everyone moves up a number when someone retires regardless of which side that retirement comes from. The fence protects the movement in the near term that the DAL list doesnt provide. Just like your side wants protections for the aircraft you hold NOW. Are you saying you want credit for your sides aircraft, and OUR retirements?:eek: It sure sounds that way.

I dont know if there will be a fence or not but your trying to down play near term movement on the NWA side. Bottom line is both sides have "wants" and whether either side sees those "wants" has yet to be seen. I personally dont really care how fast i move up the list in 10, 20, 30 years i want the most seniority in the shortest amount of time ala the NWA retirements.

That's because Airbus products don't need fences to keep pilots out. They need fences to keep pilots in!

If it aint Boeing ....

What! Mein Gott! No fences around my precious 767?

The obvious (and IMO funny) retort would be Mr. Reagan's quote to "tear down this wall". But as a fellow Boeing guy, my real feeling is "Mr Gorbachev, build this wall higher!"

Steve
Yes... if it ain't Boeing... I ain't going:cool:

A ten year fence does nothing but fence those aircraft. Either way, everyone moves up a number when someone retires regardless of which side that retirement comes from. The fence protects the movement in the near term that the DAL list doesnt provide. Just like your side wants protections for the aircraft you hold NOW. Are you saying you want credit for your sides aircraft, and OUR retirements?:eek: It sure sounds that way.

I dont know if there will be a fence or not but your trying to down play near term movement on the NWA side. Bottom line is both sides have "wants" and whether either side sees those "wants" has yet to be seen. I personally dont really care how fast i move up the list in 10, 20, 30 years i want the most seniority in the shortest amount of time ala the NWA retirements.


Heyas Super,

And here you find where their logic falls apart. Pre-JCBA, all we heard was "bad bases, old aircraft, crappy flying" from the DAL side. You would think that REGARDLESS of the integration method, that they would say "you want 10 year fences? whoo hoo! Good deal!.

But as you point out, all of a sudden, that's not what they want. A close look at their proposal shows that it lowers the fence just as NWA retirements crank up, giving them full access to highest paying postions in NWA metal.

But it doesn't matter. The fix is in. They won't win, and neither will we.

Nu

Heyas Super,

And here you find where their logic falls apart. Pre-JCBA, all we heard was "bad bases, old aircraft, crappy flying" from the DAL side. You would think that REGARDLESS of the integration method, that they would say "you want 10 year fences? whoo hoo! Good deal!.

But as you point out, all of a sudden, that's not what they want. A close look at their proposal shows that it lowers the fence just as NWA retirements crank up, giving them full access to highest paying postions in NWA metal.

But it doesn't matter. The fix is in. They won't win, and neither will we.

Nu


Exactly, IF the fence was ever to happen, when the time came for the fence to come down EVERYONE will have moved up in overall seniority and the ONLY downfall for the DAL side would be that they couldn't bid our UNDESIRABLE positions that they didn't want in the first place. Therefore during that time the NWA side could benefit from OUR aircraft just as their side can with theirs. Our side would move up into OUR positions quicker because of the retirements but thats ok right? I mean afterall they're all already in their DESIRED positions.

The fence does NOTHING to hurt the DAL pilots except block them from our equipment that they didn't want in the first place.;) Overall we will ALL move up in overall seniority regardless of the fence. Its ONLY the specific positions that are fenced during the 10 years not seniority numbers. After the assumed fence, the top of the DELTA list would be mostly original DAL pilots. The fence give the NWA side time to get into the positions we wanted before the DAL guys reaped the benefits of our retirements following the tearing down of the fence.

Moot point because neither side will likely get what they want which is what makes these discussions almost pointless. ;)

Well, if ALPA policy made even one mention about DOH, I would not say its about a zero chance.

Oh yeah...I forgot. If I had only read ALPA merger policy, I would have seen that mention of an equipment and pay based ratio. How could I have missed that! ;)

PS: This arbitration is not being done under ALPA merger policy. Both sides agreed to use this method which is outside ALPA merger policy.

Carl

The obvious (and IMO funny) retort would be Mr. Reagan's quote to "tear down this wall". But as a fellow Boeing guy, my real feeling is "Mr Gorbachev, build this wall higher!"

Steve
Yes... if it ain't Boeing... I ain't going:cool:

Now that's funny...I don't care who ya are.

Carl

Pre-JCBA, all we heard was "bad bases, old aircraft, crappy flying" from the DAL side.

What do you mean Pre-JCBA? The DALPA merger team continued that mantra for the first 3 days of their presentation before the arbitrator as well.

Wonder how that worked out for 'em...Oh yes - a merger of equals. :D

Carl

[quote=NuGuy;491422]Heyas Super,

And here you find where their logic falls apart. Pre-JCBA, all we heard was "bad bases, old aircraft, crappy flying" from the DAL side. You would think that REGARDLESS of the integration method, that they would say "you want 10 year fences? whoo hoo! Good deal!.

NU,
I have the above far more from NW guys bringing it up as in your post above then from DAL guys.


They won't win, and neither will we.

I agree.

Scoop

Heyas,

When the fence comes down a 330 NWA captain will have the same LOS and relative seniority as a 767-400 captain (although it should really be paired with the 777).
Nu

Nu,
Why should the 330 be paired with the 777? :confused: Current 12 year Capt rates are:
A 330 - $162/hour
767-400 $181/hour

Joint payrates ratified overwhelmingly by NW Pilots:

A 330- $182
767-400 $ 189

Unless its that "Super Premium" factor which we cannot put a price on. As a matter of fact its "priceless." :)

Scoop

Okay, how about we have the Delta list and fence it for 10 years? You get the protection you wanted. I'm not trying to take anything from you, please don't try to take anything from me.

A 5 year fence does protect your movement in the near term. My point with the chart was your retirements, based on age 65, are not that much different than ours. If there is some way for you to get credit for the 204 more earlier and us to get it 3years later, I'm all for it. But the argument that you have so many more pilots retiring, I recall someone saying 1000's,before we do is falling on deaf ears over on this side because the numbers just don't support it. It seems to me that you want your cake (DOH and your retirements) and to eat it too (our retirements later).

This is just going to go back and forth and is futile on both sides. The lawyers are gonna decide this one. But it is fun to go back and forth!!!:D


I truly do look forward to flying with you all and I got the first beer!!! Gotta go pick the kid up from football practice, be back later.:D

Denny

Nu,
Why should the 330 be paired with the 777? :confused: Current 12 year Capt rates are:
A 330 - $162/hour
767-400 $181/hour

Joint payrates ratified overwhelmingly by NW Pilots:

A 330- $182
767-400 $ 189

Unless its that "Super Premium" factor which we cannot put a price on. As a matter of fact its "priceless." :)

Scoop

Payrates are meaningless when comparing because all of the rates, including the "new" ones are concessionary rates. Every rate was set up based on different circumstances. Pay rates change like the wind in this job, everyone knows that ;)

PS: This arbitration is not being done under ALPA merger policy. Both sides agreed to use this method which is outside ALPA merger policy.

the only thing both sides agreed too was to modify the timeline and the number of arbitrators. Something allowed by ALPA merger policy. As far as how the arbitrators rule, I qoute from the SLI process agreement:

"The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy"). In making this determination, the Arbitrators will be bound by the pre-arbitration statement of resolved issues presented by the Representatives and will determine the remaining open issues with respect to an integrated seniority list."

Nu,
Why should the 330 be paired with the 777? :confused: Current 12 year Capt rates are:
A 330 - $162/hour
767-400 $181/hour

Joint payrates ratified overwhelmingly by NW Pilots:

A 330- $182
767-400 $ 189

Unless its that "Super Premium" factor which we cannot put a price on. As a matter of fact its "priceless." :)

Scoop

I can promise you one thing Scoop - NWA pilots ratified the JCBA IN SPITE of the way those pay rates combined aircraft. The 747 being paid the same as a 777 even though the 747 carries over 100 more passengers made it pretty clear that DAL couldn't tolerate NWA operating an aircraft that would pay more than a 777. It was made all the more grating now that DALPA has made pay part of the equation for the SLI proposal.

That pay thing was a real and obvious sore point, but it was one of those "greater good" votes.

Carl

the only thing both sides agreed too was to modify the timeline and the number of arbitrators. Something allowed by ALPA merger policy. As far as how the arbitrators rule, I qoute from the SLI process agreement:

"The issue for resolution before the Arbitrators will be the fair and equitable integration of the pre-merger Delta and Northwest seniority lists consistent with ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy ("ALPA Merger Policy"). In making this determination, the Arbitrators will be bound by the pre-arbitration statement of resolved issues presented by the Representatives and will determine the remaining open issues with respect to an integrated seniority list."


We've been over this already Xray. Consistent with ALPA merger policy is different from being IN ALPA merger policy. This arbitration is outside the process. We're plowing new ground

Carl

[quote=Carl Spackler;491496]I can promise you one thing Scoop - NWA pilots ratified the JCBA IN SPITE of the way those pay rates combined aircraft. The 747 being paid the same as a 777 even though the 747 carries over 100 more passengers made it pretty clear that DAL couldn't tolerate NWA operating an aircraft that would pay more than a 777. It was made all the more grating now that DALPA has made pay part of the equation for the SLI proposal.

Carl,
The only other US passenger carrier that flies both the 747 and 777 is UAL and guess what the pay rate is? The same! This rate was calculated by a single unified ALPA Pilot group who realized the 777 is the future and 747 is the past. Why would the UAL pilot group commit such a travesty? Could they not see what the NW pilots see, which is what exactly, that compensation should be based on seats exclusivley and not take other factors such as the newest equipment into account.? I hope not, because planes are certianly going to keep getting newer but not necessarily bigger.
And Super it was the same before the concessions. Lets face it the 747 was the biggest and best in 1970, now its just big and old. It is no longer the biggest, it doesn't fly the farthest or carry the most. In its heday it was the King, the biggest baddest thing around but then again thats when the F-4 ruled the skies.

Scoop

Payrates are meaningless when comparing because all of the rates, including the "new" ones are concessionary rates. Every rate was set up based on different circumstances. Pay rates change like the wind in this job, everyone knows that ;)

............

Carl,
The only other US passenger carrier that flies both the 747 and 777 is UAL and guess what the pay rate is? The same! This rate was calculated by a single unified ALPA Pilot group who realized the 777 is the future and 747 is the past.

You would have a point were it not for the fact that this same pay disparity exists on the A330 as well. Also, United didn't use this pair up of different aircraft to most advantage part of the seniority list. I think it was a bad tactic involving short term thinking. If in the future we get the A380 or something like it, the company will be able to come to us and say: you should get paid the same as the 777 because it was OK for you back in 2008.

Oh well, water under the bridge now. Speaking of water, got to go do an ocean crossing now. Later.

Carl

Oh well, water under the bridge now. Speaking of water, got to go do an ocean crossing now. Later.

Carl

You are right - water under the bridge. Have a good flight. :)

Scoop

Payrates are meaningless when comparing because all of the rates, including the "new" ones are concessionary rates.;)

Um no...

When my mortgage is due my payrate is most decidedly not meaningless. How your pilot group came to arrive at their rate may be water under the bridge, but what that rate currently stands at is huge. Both in QOL and what they may or may not bring to the table. As long as one of the companies involved in a merger is not "circling the bowl" as neither of us are, then from where I stand it matters not how much NW or DL made in the last quarter. I care about how much of that profit you saw in your paycheck. DAL's quarterly reports don't mean a damn to me as long as they are black. What my W-2 says reflects the QOL of my wife & kids. So I expect that W-2 and QOL to stay exactly the same or better than they were before.

Why wouldn't they? This aquisition is a good thing for everybody right?

We've been over this already Xray. Consistent with ALPA merger policy is different from being IN ALPA merger policy. This arbitration is outside the process. We're plowing new ground

yeah, keep believing that. You know, of all the stuff I have read by NWA pilots on various forums, you are the only one who seems to think that ALPA merger policy does not apply here.

If in the future we get the A380 or something like it,

Carl,
You really need to start understanding the mindset of the Delta bureaucracy. Regardless of the fact that RA was former NW and half the senior executive suite is former NW, the management minions, much like the eunuchs of the old Chinese Emperors, are the true decision makers.

The ATL airport is incapable of handling the A380, and there are no plans to ever modify the infastructure to do so. Accordingly, DL will not operate the A380 because, even though LAX and JFK can handle it, ATL can't and therefore DL's eunuchs, not being able to see beyond the borders of their fiefdoms, will determine that we don't need it.

The 380 is like the Concorde, just bigger. It is built and owned for reasons of national pride. It isn't a money maker.

If it was about profit, do you think Airlines would be installing hotel rooms, showers, a jacuzzi and spa facilities?

Delta is here to make money. We need it to make money.

disregard...

[quote=Carl Spackler;491496]I can promise you one thing Scoop - NWA pilots ratified the JCBA IN SPITE of the way those pay rates combined aircraft. The 747 being paid the same as a 777 even though the 747 carries over 100 more passengers made it pretty clear that DAL couldn't tolerate NWA operating an aircraft that would pay more than a 777. It was made all the more grating now that DALPA has made pay part of the equation for the SLI proposal.

Carl,
The only other US passenger carrier that flies both the 747 and 777 is UAL and guess what the pay rate is? The same! This rate was calculated by a single unified ALPA Pilot group who realized the 777 is the future and 747 is the past. Why would the UAL pilot group commit such a travesty? Could they not see what the NW pilots see, which is what exactly, that compensation should be based on seats exclusivley and not take other factors such as the newest equipment into account.? I hope not, because planes are certianly going to keep getting newer but not necessarily bigger.
And Super it was the same before the concessions. Lets face it the 747 was the biggest and best in 1970, now its just big and old. It is no longer the biggest, it doesn't fly the farthest or carry the most. In its heday it was the King, the biggest baddest thing around but then again thats when the F-4 ruled the skies.

Scoop

Scoop wasn't the travesty the concessionary contract that brought the 2 payscales together?

I thought United used to max out at around $350 for the 747 and around $300 for the 777 prior to the concessions?

Nu,
Why should the 330 be paired with the 777? :confused: Current 12 year Capt rates are:
A 330 - $162/hour
767-400 $181/hour

Joint payrates ratified overwhelmingly by NW Pilots:

A 330- $182
767-400 $ 189

Unless its that "Super Premium" factor which we cannot put a price on. As a matter of fact its "priceless." :)

Scoop

Why would there be two different payrates for those airplanes?

Isn't the A330-300 actually larger than both the 767-400 and 777?

Why would there be two different payrates for those airplanes?

Isn't the A330-300 actually larger than both the 767-400 and 777?

max T/O weight for the A330-300 is about 507,000. Max T/O for the 777 is about 750,000. For the 764 its about 450,000.

[quote=Scoop;491522]

Scoop wasn't the travesty the concessionary contract that brought the 2 payscales together?

I thought United used to max out at around $350 for the 747 and around $300 for the 777 prior to the concessions?

Eric,
The concessions lowered all payrates the same %.

Scoop

max T/O weight for the A330-300 is about 507,000. Max T/O for the 777 is about 750,000. For the 764 its about 450,000.

I was thinking seating capacity over T/O weight.

That still doesn't explain why there is a pay difference between the A330 and 764.

That still doesn't explain why there is a pay difference between the A330 and 764.

no it doesn't. The simple answer to your question is the 764 and the 330 pay what they do because it was negotiated that way and we voted yes to it. If you don't like it, vote no next time.

no it doesn't. The simple answer to your question is the 764 and the 330 pay what they do because it was negotiated that way and we voted yes to it. If you don't like it, vote no next time.

Well that certainly is the elementary school answer but I guess I was looking for more of the college level answer.

You can't vote on something you aren't allowed to vote on.

Well that certainly is the elementary school answer but I guess I was looking for more of the college level answer.

You can't vote on something you aren't allowed to vote on.

the pay rates were a part of the JCBA. We voted on the JCBA. The NWA pilots voted about 87% yes for it.

and now that I think about it, don't the 330 and 764 pay the same in the JCBA?

Eric doesn't work for NWA or DAL. He is an innocent, objective bystander. :)

Well that certainly is the elementary school answer but I guess I was looking for more of the college level answer.

You can't vote on something you aren't allowed to vote on.
Eric you "innocent bystander"...might I add "naive" to that description, too? The pre-merger payrates on NW's 32 A330s were only $1.50/hr more than DL's 80 767- 300s and 137 757s. ( that's 217 DL widebody/ medium narrowbody aircraft paying virtually the same, $160+ 1.5/hr., as 32 NW widebody aircraft, that is, DL had nearly 7 times...that's right!...count 'em!...SEVEN TIMES the number of aircraft that NW had in that pay range.) The pre-merger pay rates on the 21 DL 767-400s were approx. $18-20/hr. more than the 767-300/A330, about the same as the NW 747s. The 10 DL 777s of course, payed the most of all. The reckoning that is done to find a fair SLI is based entirely on:......(suspense)......What the two respective pilot groups BRING (in terms of quality jobs) to the merger!!!!! Now, that preamble over with, -to actually answer your question....those payrates on those particular aircraft were all we (DL and NW) could "get" out of management. To have set the 747 pay from the JPWA as the highest and then "rationalized" payrates on smaller aircraft based on that, -would have resulted in significant pay CUTS for the 777 and 76-400. (we all know how well that would have "worked"!) As it was, though, the 777 and 76-400 pay stayed the same, and the 747 and A330 rates were RAISED to equal (or nearly so) them. (the adage "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind) Every single NW pilot (100%) experienced a raise in payrates from the JPWA. The overwhelming "war-cry" from NW before and during those contract negotiations was "PARITY" (ie. a "raise" up to what the DL pilots had). NW got parity, but lately has tried, very disingenuously, to convince arbitrators that their raise up to parity was actually a decline to parity. And, last May and June, all the embellished rhetoric, hand-wringing, and gnashing of teeth about the injustice of a "B" scale was actually a fiendishly clever, Machiavellian attempt by the NW MEC to secure a "worse" and "lower paying" contract! (a devilishly duplicitous endeavor in which they not only succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, but won the overwhelming support (87%) of their unsuspecting rank-and-file membership!)

Nice Numbers. :)

Eric you "innocent bystander"...might I add "naive" to that description, too? The pre-merger payrates on NW's 32 A330s were only $1.50/hr more than DL's 80 767- 300s and 137 757s. ( that's 217 DL widebody/ medium narrowbody aircraft paying virtually the same, $160+ 1.5/hr., as 32 NW widebody aircraft, that is, DL had nearly 7 times...that's right!...count 'em!...SEVEN TIMES the number of aircraft that NW had in that pay range.) The pre-merger pay rates on the 21 DL 767-400s were approx. $18-20/hr. more than the 767-300/A330, about the same as the NW 747s. The 10 DL 777s of course, payed the most of all. The reckoning that is done to find a fair SLI is based entirely on:......(suspense)......What the two respective pilot groups BRING (in terms of quality jobs) to the merger!!!!! Now, that preamble over with, -to actually answer your question....those payrates on those particular aircraft were all we (DL and NW) could "get" out of management. To have set the 747 pay from the JPWA as the highest and then "rationalized" payrates on smaller aircraft based on that, -would have resulted in significant pay CUTS for the 777 and 76-400. (we all know how well that would have "worked"!) As it was, though, the 777 and 76-400 pay stayed the same, and the 747 and A330 rates were RAISED to equal (or nearly so) them. (the adage "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind) Every single NW pilot (100%) experienced a raise in payrates from the JPWA. The overwhelming "war-cry" from NW before and during those contract negotiations was "PARITY" (ie. a "raise" up to what the DL pilots had). NW got parity, but lately has tried, very disingenuously, to convince arbitrators that their raise up to parity was actually a decline to parity. And, last May and June, all the embellished rhetoric, hand-wringing, and gnashing of teeth about the injustice of a "B" scale was actually a fiendishly clever, Machiavellian attempt by the NW MEC to secure a "worse" and "lower paying" contract! (a devilishly duplicitous endeavor in which they not only succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, but won the overwhelming support (87%) of their unsuspecting rank-and-file membership!)

Wiggy,

Remember Shakespeare's great saying: "Brevity is the soul of wit"?

Try learning to say more with less.

Carl

Wiggy,

Remember Shakespeare's great saying: "Brevity is the soul of wit"?

Try learning to say more with less.

Carl

Carl,
Eric did ask for the "college level" answer.:)
Anyway as you very wisely said earlier - it is water under the bridge, the payrates are what they are. But since most of us are making less than 250K we will all be getting our big Obama promised taxcut.:rolleyes:

Scoop - waiting for the "Oh yeah, about that tax cut..."

[quote=Eric Stratton;492045]

Eric,
The concessions lowered all payrates the same %.

Scoop

Scoop,

The 747 and 777 did have different pay rates prior to the concessions at UAL. This was according to what Air Inc had put out. It had the 747 at around $285 and the 777 around $265.

Eric

Eric you "innocent bystander"...might I add "naive" to that description, too? The pre-merger payrates on NW's 32 A330s were only $1.50/hr more than DL's 80 767- 300s and 137 757s. ( that's 217 DL widebody/ medium narrowbody aircraft paying virtually the same, $160+ 1.5/hr., as 32 NW widebody aircraft, that is, DL had nearly 7 times...that's right!...count 'em!...SEVEN TIMES the number of aircraft that NW had in that pay range.) The pre-merger pay rates on the 21 DL 767-400s were approx. $18-20/hr. more than the 767-300/A330, about the same as the NW 747s. The 10 DL 777s of course, payed the most of all. The reckoning that is done to find a fair SLI is based entirely on:......(suspense)......What the two respective pilot groups BRING (in terms of quality jobs) to the merger!!!!! Now, that preamble over with, -to actually answer your question....those payrates on those particular aircraft were all we (DL and NW) could "get" out of management. To have set the 747 pay from the JPWA as the highest and then "rationalized" payrates on smaller aircraft based on that, -would have resulted in significant pay CUTS for the 777 and 76-400. (we all know how well that would have "worked"!) As it was, though, the 777 and 76-400 pay stayed the same, and the 747 and A330 rates were RAISED to equal (or nearly so) them. (the adage "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind) Every single NW pilot (100%) experienced a raise in payrates from the JPWA. The overwhelming "war-cry" from NW before and during those contract negotiations was "PARITY" (ie. a "raise" up to what the DL pilots had). NW got parity, but lately has tried, very disingenuously, to convince arbitrators that their raise up to parity was actually a decline to parity. And, last May and June, all the embellished rhetoric, hand-wringing, and gnashing of teeth about the injustice of a "B" scale was actually a fiendishly clever, Machiavellian attempt by the NW MEC to secure a "worse" and "lower paying" contract! (a devilishly duplicitous endeavor in which they not only succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, but won the overwhelming support (87%) of their unsuspecting rank-and-file membership!)

All you had to say is was, "we wanted to keep their pay down so that it wouldn't look like they were bringing quality jobs over. That way we could do better in the SLI."

I think we all know nwa got the bigger pay raise. Get over it. You both had concessionary contracts and this is a combined new one and having a larger airplane with a smaller payscale seems bizarre. Like xray678 said, they might now have the same pay.

By the way, are you trying to say that the number of airplanes you have helps determines it's pay rate?

Carl,
Eric did ask for the "college level" answer.:)
Anyway as you very wisely said earlier - it is water under the bridge, the payrates are what they are. But since most of us are making less than 250K we will all be getting our big Obama promised taxcut.:rolleyes:

Scoop - waiting for the "Oh yeah, about that tax cut..."

Can't people actually make over the $250k with the green slip pick up method? I don't know because I actually am naive about that.

All you have to do is look at our debt to see that no one should be getting a tax cut :(

But since most of us are making less than 250K we will all be getting our big Obama promised taxcut.:rolleyes:

Scoop - waiting for the "Oh yeah, about that tax cut..."

Wait...are you saying that the Messiah won't keep that promise?

You...youuuuu...blasphemer!

Atheist!

Carl - working my way up to High School answers

All you had to say is was, "we wanted to keep their pay down so that it wouldn't look like they were bringing quality jobs over. That way we could do better in the SLI."

As was stated above, the SLI process is supposed to be about the pre-merger jobs each group brought to the table. There was a "no prejudice" letter signed by the NWA and DAL MEC leaderships as part of the SLI process agreement that prevented each side from arguing that the JCBA rates were what they brought. NWA's SLI team tried (and failed) to violate that concept early in the arbitration.

Hey, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.... :D

By the way, are you trying to say that the number of airplanes you have helps determines it's pay rate?

I think the point he was trying to make is that NWA brought 61 "super premium" widebodies out of a fleet of 316 to the dance. Delta brought 268 of 444 aircraft that paid the same or better than those "super premium" aircraft. NWA also brought the 58-68 lowest paying aircraft jobs. While airframes alone don't determine pilot job value (pilot block hours on those airframes is a better read) it's all part of the SLI argument.

Wiggy,

Remember Shakespeare's great saying: "Brevity is the soul of wit"?

Try learning to say more with less.

Carl

I think he said it just right.

All you had to say is was, "we wanted to keep their pay down so that it wouldn't look like they were bringing quality jobs over. That way we could do better in the SLI."

Have you forgotten the non prejudicial agreement where both MEC's agreed that post JCBA payrates would not be used for ranking aircraft?

All you have to do is look at our debt to see that no one should be getting a tax cut :(

Ok, last time. Cut marginal tax rates, raise revenues. Works every time. The only way to reduce our debt is to limit spending and grow our way out of it.

Raise taxes, reduce revenue. Works every time.

[quote=Eric Stratton;492644]Can't people actually make over the $250k with the green slip pick up method? I don't know because I actually am naive about that.


Eric,
Yeah, probably, if they have no life outside flying. Which is why I said "most of us make less than...."

Scoop

Carl,
Eric did ask for the "college level" answer.:)
Anyway as you very wisely said earlier - it is water under the bridge, the payrates are what they are. But since most of us are making less than 250K we will all be getting our big Obama promised taxcut.:rolleyes:

Scoop - waiting for the "Oh yeah, about that tax cut..."

I also think the "college level" answer also requires the use of the [Enter] key after every four sentences, or so.

Seperate paragraphs = A's.
One big lump of words = F's (and migraines for its readers) :eek:

Have you forgotten the non prejudicial agreement where both MEC's agreed that post JCBA payrates would not be used for ranking aircraft?

Then there's still the question as to why you would have two different payscales under new delta?

If people don't know other than "that's what was negotiated", that's fine.

As was stated above, the SLI process is supposed to be about the pre-merger jobs each group brought to the table. There was a "no prejudice" letter signed by the NWA and DAL MEC leaderships as part of the SLI process agreement that prevented each side from arguing that the JCBA rates were what they brought. NWA's SLI team tried (and failed) to violate that concept early in the arbitration.

Hey, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.... :D



I think the point he was trying to make is that NWA brought 61 "super premium" widebodies out of a fleet of 316 to the dance. Delta brought 268 of 444 aircraft that paid the same or better than those "super premium" aircraft. NWA also brought the 58-68 lowest paying aircraft jobs. While airframes alone don't determine pilot job value (pilot block hours on those airframes is a better read) it's all part of the SLI argument.

slowplay,

I know what both sides brought but the question is why under the new contract is a larger airplane getting paid less than a smaller one. This isn't to rip on delta or anything. It just seem bizarre and was wondering if there was actually a reason.

On another note, alot of people bring up the fact that nwa's planes payed less than delta's. Both of you were working under concessionary contracts. Delta got rid of the pension and nwa froze theirs. I've heard that is part of the reason they had lower pay because some of it was going to pay for the pension. Has either side said what the total cost was for each pilot group when the entire contract is included?

Ok, last time. Cut marginal tax rates, raise revenues. Works every time. The only way to reduce our debt is to limit spending and grow our way out of it.

Raise taxes, reduce revenue. Works every time.

How well did that work in the 80's and the last 8 years? I do remember when Bush senior raised the taxes. Those were horrible years that followed. I do agree with limiting spending (I don't want to pay more than I have to) but putting your essencial bill's on a credit card is not fiscally responsible.



Scoop, looks like I missed that word "most". Oops..

How well did that work in the 80's and the last 8 years? I do remember when Bush senior raised the taxes. Those were horrible years that followed. I do agree with limiting spending (I don't want to pay more than I have to) but putting your essencial bill's on a credit card is not fiscally responsible.



Scoop, looks like I missed that word "most". Oops..

It worked great in the 80's. Remember stagflation and the misery gap that Carter left. In comes Ronaldus Magnus and the Laffer curve and voila you have the longest peace time period of economic growth in history. It was only broken by GHWB and his breaking of the no new taxes pledge.
Now before you bring up the deficits under Reagan let me head you off at the pass. First of all he had a very liberal Democratic Congress headed by Tip O'Niel that would not actually cut spending and Reagan aquiessed in his second term. Also Reagan recognized that the USSR could not compete with us economically and he won the Cold War by bankruting the Soviets. We out spent them into the dustbin of history. Defict spending was a small price to pay for the world wide peace it bought.

As for the last 8 years, Bush's tax cuts were wildly successful. He inherited a recession then had 9/11. His tax cuts kept the economy going and up unitll last year we had the highest growth and lowest unemployment ever. Bush however was less able or willing to hold the line on spending and thus our rising debt. The GOP Congress that was booted in 2006 and yesterday's election are reflections of Conservatives disgust with the Republican party and their move away from proven conservative economic principles.

Cut marginal tax rates and you get economic growth. It's undeniable.

Wiggy,

Remember Shakespeare's great saying: "Brevity is the soul of wit"?

Try learning to say more with less.

Carl
I'll agree with that, Carl. One thought leads to another and then I end up wanting to recapitulate (selectively, of course) all of the many wrongs and rights done by each side, which leads to many long run-on sentences which, in itself, inevitably arouses, out of his slumbering wrath, the great, renowned professor of English composition and literature...none other than NW's very own, nefariously noxious nincompoop known as newKnow, who nerdily nullifies neutral numerical analysis on the future nexus of our pilot group, namely, the SLI. NewKnow's "notably novel" notion of negation however, -through the niggling, nitpicking niceties of composition, exposes his true nature, a noisome, nettlesome, narcissistic nuisance....yet, simultaneously, he somehow retains the refreshingly haughty qualities of the pedant. (I promise I'll figure out how to do paragraphs)........( there, I tried, how do you do paragraphs? ) ....sorry professor newKnow....How does one construct paragraphs on the "reply to thread" page? Carl, any ideas?

(I promise I'll figure out how to do paragraphs)........( there, I tried, how do you do paragraphs? ) ....sorry professor newKnow....How does one construct paragraphs on the "reply to thread" page? Carl, any ideas?

From Dr. Strangelove: We cannot allow a "paragraph gap" to develop!

:o Scoop

From Dr. Strangelove: We cannot allow a "paragraph gap" to develop!

:o Scoop

Now that's just funny!!:D

From Dr. Strangelove: We cannot allow a "paragraph gap" to develop!

:o Scoop
I agree, Scoop, no "paragraph gap". I would go further, though, and insist that we pilots be allowed to select all flight attendents coming over to the combined airline. The selection would be based strictly on "sexual characteristics"......."which, of course, Mr. President, would have to be of a highly stimulating nature." (pilots and FAs) would have, afterall, many long layovers together, -"with much time, and little to do!"

Speaking of layovers.............do ya'll still stay at seperate hotels? Not that I care as I'm a married guy..........honest dear I really don't care.

Speaking of layovers.............do ya'll still stay at seperate hotels?

That's what I tell my wife.....ah, ex wife. International crews stay together. It seemed that domestic crews split up quite a bit.

I'll agree with that, Carl. One thought leads to another and then I end up wanting to recapitulate (selectively, of course) all of the many wrongs and rights done by each side, which leads to many long run-on sentences which, in itself, inevitably arouses, out of his slumbering wrath, the great, renowned professor of English composition and literature...none other than NW's very own, nefariously noxious nincompoop known as newKnow, who nerdily nullifies neutral numerical analysis on the future nexus of our pilot group, namely, the SLI. NewKnow's "notably novel" notion of negation however, -through the niggling, nitpicking niceties of composition, exposes his true nature, a noisome, nettlesome, narcissistic nuisance....yet, simultaneously, he somehow retains the refreshingly haughty qualities of the pedant. (I promise I'll figure out how to do paragraphs)........( there, I tried, how do you do paragraphs? ) ....sorry professor newKnow....How does one construct paragraphs on the "reply to thread" page? Carl, any ideas?

That was pretty funny Wiggy.

Carl

I'll agree with that, Carl. One thought leads to another and then I end up wanting to recapitulate (selectively, of course) all of the many wrongs and rights done by each side, which leads to many long run-on sentences which, in itself, inevitably arouses, out of his slumbering wrath, the great, renowned professor of English composition and literature...none other than NW's very own, nefariously noxious nincompoop known as newKnow, who nerdily nullifies neutral numerical analysis on the future nexus of our pilot group, namely, the SLI. NewKnow's "notably novel" notion of negation however, -through the niggling, nitpicking niceties of composition, exposes his true nature, a noisome, nettlesome, narcissistic nuisance....yet, simultaneously, he somehow retains the refreshingly haughty qualities of the pedant. (I promise I'll figure out how to do paragraphs)........( there, I tried, how do you do paragraphs? ) ....sorry professor newKnow....How does one construct paragraphs on the "reply to thread" page? Carl, any ideas?

Ever see the movie "V?" This reminds me of the guy in the mask, rambling on.

It worked great in the 80's. Remember stagflation and the misery gap that Carter left. In comes Ronaldus Magnus and the Laffer curve and voila you have the longest peace time period of economic growth in history. It was only broken by GHWB and his breaking of the no new taxes pledge.
Now before you bring up the deficits under Reagan let me head you off at the pass. First of all he had a very liberal Democratic Congress headed by Tip O'Niel that would not actually cut spending and Reagan aquiessed in his second term. Also Reagan recognized that the USSR could not compete with us economically and he won the Cold War by bankruting the Soviets. We out spent them into the dustbin of history. Defict spending was a small price to pay for the world wide peace it bought.

As for the last 8 years, Bush's tax cuts were wildly successful. He inherited a recession then had 9/11. His tax cuts kept the economy going and up unitll last year we had the highest growth and lowest unemployment ever.

How does the complete economic collapse under your Republican president fit in with your utopian view of the party? My guess is that its the Democrats fault....classic.

How does the complete economic collapse under your Republican president fit in with your utopian view of the party? My guess is that its the Democrats fault....classic.

CAPN,

Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political fence and also the people who were taking out loans that they could not pay for. Some clowns in my neighborhood stopped paying rent when they realized they couldn't make it, figuring they would live 8-10 months rent free (avg CA eviction times) and then bought a Lexus on credit before their credit rating tanked.

Scoop

CAPN, Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political fence and also the people who were taking out loans that they could not pay for.

True, lots of blame. It just gets old hearing the red team blame it all on the blue.

Personally, I put the majority of blame on the banks whos job it is to size up the loanee and make the fiscally responsible choice to not extend the credit. Did they do that, no, they made the bad loan anyway. On top of that they sold the bad paper to another financial institution who had no clue as to the viability of the loan. That was bad business and greed propelled those transactions.

How does the complete economic collapse under your Republican president fit in with your utopian view of the party? My guess is that its the Democrats fault....classic.

1. Which party was in control of congress for the last few years?
2. Which branch of the government is responsible for "legislating" laws that regulate (or not) different industries?
3. Is banking and lending a generally recognized "industry"?
4. While I think W put the "blithering idiot" in the phrase "blithering idiot", how can he (and by default the republican party) be blamed for something over which they had little if any control/input? (see question 1)
5. Can't wait for Barry's plan... As Ross Perot said.. we are gonna hear a giant sucking sound when corporations head overseas...

All that being said, I am a recovering republican, because the difference between the 2 parties is hardly recognizeable.

1. Which party was in control of congress for the last few years?
2. Which branch of the government is responsible for "legislating" laws that regulate (or not) different industries?
3. Is banking and lending a generally recognized "industry"?
4. While I think W put the "blithering idiot" in the phrase "blithering idiot", how can he (and by default the republican party) be blamed for something over which they had little if any control/input? (see question 1)
5. Can't wait for Barry's plan... As Ross Perot said.. we are gonna hear a giant sucking sound when corporations head overseas...

All that being said, I am a recovering republican, because the difference between the 2 parties is hardly recognizeable.

1. which party controled it for the first 6 years?
4. wasn't bush pushing home ownership and saying the economy was strong because more people were owning homes than ever before?
5. haven't we been hearing that giant sucking sound for the last few years?

both parties share blame in this mess along with quite a few others.

How does the complete economic collapse under your Republican president fit in with your utopian view of the party? My guess is that its the Democrats fault....classic.

Actually, If we confine the current economic mess to the housing debacle and the subsequent meltdown of the financial markets, yes it was all the Democrats fault. This mess is a result of the Community Housing Reinvestment Act enacted under the Carter administration and strengthened under the Clinton administration. That law, in the name of minority/low income home ownership, forced lenders to write loans where they had refused to before. The Reno Justice Dept threatened banks that did not write enough loans to certain demographics and addresses. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were GOVERNMENT entities created and run by Democrats to back those loans. Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae was in the Carter admin. He looted FM for a 100 million dollars (said with a Mike Meyers accent). When W tried to propose stricter regulations for FM and FM he was rebuffed and defeated by the Democrats in Congress led by Barney Frank (House Banking Co) and Chris Dodd (Senate Finance Co)..

So yes, in this case it was the Dems fault. If we are talking in a more Macro sense about the US Economy's woes, then I would agree there is plenty of blame to spread around. The Reps and W forgot how they got there and who put them there and our money willy nilly, thus negating the good effects of the tax cuts. Our deficit and debt are results of way too much spending, not a lack of revenue.

Actually, If we confine the current economic mess to the housing debacle and the subsequent meltdown of the financial markets, yes it was all the Democrats fault. This mess is a result of the Community Housing Reinvestment Act enacted under the Carter administration and strengthened under the Clinton administration. That law, in the name of minority/low income home ownership, forced lenders to write loans where they had refused to before. The Reno Justice Dept threatened banks that did not write enough loans to certain demographics and addresses. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were GOVERNMENT entities created and run by Democrats to back those loans. Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae was in the Carter admin. He looted FM for a 100 million dollars (said with a Mike Meyers accent). When W tried to propose stricter regulations for FM and FM he was rebuffed and defeated by the Democrats in Congress led by Barney Frank (House Banking Co) and Chris Dodd (Senate Finance Co)..

So yes, in this case it was the Dems fault. If we are talking in a more Macro sense about the US Economy's woes, then I would agree there is plenty of blame to spread around. The Reps and W forgot how they got there and who put them there and our money willy nilly, thus negating the good effects of the tax cuts. Our deficit and debt are results of way too much spending, not a lack of revenue.

Doesn't matter what side you're on, facts are facts. Everything in your post is a factual matter of record...The Congressional Record that is.

Great post.

Carl

satchip,

How much did the drop in interest rates have on the price of homes sky rocketing? That was being pushed by Bush.

There is alot money is being sucked out of the economy going to pay for those inflated prices?

For the loans that are going bust now do you know when they originated or what kind of loans they were? I'm interested in finding this out. A real estate agent friend of mine said the majority of them originated in the last 8 years and had balloon payments.

Weren't the republicans in control of congress at the time when clinton strengthened the Community Housing Reinvestment Act. Clinton gave into something they wanted and the republicans gave in on this. I've heard this more than one time. That's really where both parties share the blame.

Eric

To keep it from getting closed, good luck with your merger.

Gentlemen/women,

Can you all say "bully pulpit?" Yes, the President has the privilege of being able to use the bully pulpit. If there is an issue that needs to be addressed, then he can use that forum to get things done. If congress is out of line, the President is supposed to be able to put them back in place. Sort of like what you do every day as Captains, First Officers, Second Officers and pilots in general. That's what leaders do. Make things right. Not make excuses.

If something goes wrong, I bet "Barry"-- since some of you like to be cute--will take the blame, unlike the "other guy."


Ok, mods. I quit. :)

If anyone wants to discuss more, PM me.

Doesn't matter what side you're on, facts are facts. Everything in your post is a factual matter of record...The Congressional Record that is.

Great post.

Carl

It's just like associations with known CONVICTED terrorists, a pastor who condems his country for 20 years unquestioned, a wife who is only now proud to be an American... the list goes on...
These things will get a pass.

Great post satchip... too bad it will be ignored

Actually, If we confine the current economic mess to the housing debacle and the subsequent meltdown of the financial markets, yes it was all the Democrats fault. This mess is a result of the Community Housing Reinvestment Act enacted under the Carter administration and strengthened under the Clinton administration. That law, in the name of minority/low income home ownership, forced lenders to write loans where they had refused to before. The Reno Justice Dept threatened banks that did not write enough loans to certain demographics and addresses. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were GOVERNMENT entities created and run by Democrats to back those loans. Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae was in the Carter admin. He looted FM for a 100 million dollars (said with a Mike Meyers accent). When W tried to propose stricter regulations for FM and FM he was rebuffed and defeated by the Democrats in Congress led by Barney Frank (House Banking Co) and Chris Dodd (Senate Finance Co)..

That is entertaining. Not an accurate assessment but entertaining none the less. My favorite part is the first sentence, very simplistic. I like that your "housing debacle" assessment fails to factor in home loans becoming non-transparent commodities traded on the open market.

It's just like associations with known CONVICTED terrorists, a pastor who condems his country for 20 years unquestioned, a wife who is only now proud to be an American... the list goes on...
These things will get a pass.

Great post satchip... too bad it will be ignored

Convicted? No, never convicted. - Russell Ziskey

It's just like associations with known CONVICTED terrorists, a pastor who condems his country for 20 years unquestioned, a wife who is only now proud to be an American... the list goes on...
These things will get a pass.

Great post satchip... too bad it will be ignored

ts,

I responded to his post. Might you be ignoring mine.... :rolleyes:

ts,

I responded to his post. Might you be ignoring mine.... :rolleyes:

I wasn't referring to you in particular nK.. It just sickens me that "the One" has gotten a pass on just about everything from the liberal media... and there will be no change for the next four years, I don't care how bad he messes up. It will still all be attributable to W. (and as I said before, he put the "blithering idiot" in the term "blithering idiot".) I hope Obama does well.... I really do, because his will be our president, but I am not confident from what I am hearing so far.

I wasn't referring to you in particular nK.. It just sickens me that "the One" has gotten a pass on just about everything from the liberal media... and there will be no change for the next four years, I don't care how bad he messes up. It will still all be attributable to W. (and as I said before, he put the "blithering idiot" in the term "blithering idiot".) I hope Obama does well.... I really do, because his will be our president, but I am not confident from what I am hearing so far.

We shall see. Only time will tell. I look forward to evaluating and assessing the matter over a beer and a long layover somewhere nice. Who says political discussions can't be civil? :)

I wasn't referring to you in particular nK.. It just sickens me that "the One" has gotten a pass on just about everything from the liberal media... and there will be no change for the next four years, I don't care how bad he messes up. It will still all be attributable to W. (and as I said before, he put the "blithering idiot" in the term "blithering idiot".) I hope Obama does well.... I really do, because his will be our president, but I am not confident from what I am hearing so far.

What is it about the media that makes it liberal? I here this all the time and when I ask to get an explanation or who is the liberal media it's a vague "you know who they are" kind of answer.

Larry King asked the congress woman from minnesota (the one on hard ball) and she couldn't or wouldn't answer it.

Fox and MSNBC balance each other out. Talk radio is primarily Right with the occasional Air America if that is even still around.

Just wondering what your take is on "liberal media". This is not ment to be inflamatory.

Eric

Talk about thread creep, boy has this one crept. The elections over, anyone seen a merger around here lately. ;)

What is it about the media that makes it liberal? I here this all the time and when I ask to get an explanation or who is the liberal media it's a vague "you know who they are" kind of answer.

Larry King asked the congress woman from minnesota (the one on hard ball) and she couldn't or wouldn't answer it.

Fox and MSNBC balance each other out. Talk radio is primarily Right with the occasional Air America if that is even still around.

Just wondering what your take is on "liberal media". This is not ment to be inflamatory.

Eric

Eric,
I am a recovering republican because of the way the party has been hijacked by spend and taxers. So for the most part, The democrats and republicans are one in the same party with a few hard right (anti-abortion) and hard left (gay rights) issues (among others). These issues have tended to polarize the parties on general election days because most of the people like me (middle of the roaders) don't vote in the primaries, or if they do, it's merely a toss of a dart. That being said, the way that katie couric, tom brokaw, charlie gibson treated Sarah Palin was appaling. She gets trashed because she wears around expensive clothing bought by the RNC. BO gets a pass (by those same "reporters" for his questionable associations with Wright, Ayres and others as just a normal part of Chicago politics. If that doesn't define a liberal media, I don't know what does. I didn't vote for BO for these very reasons. (his associations). That being said, he will be our president, and I want him to succeeed, but I am fearful of his tactics. I will enjoy paying this years' tax bill, because I have no doubt it will be the smallest I will see for quite some time. And as far as balance, Fox is the only balance to the liberal media. Talk radio is entertainment, and entertainment only. Al Franken failed mmiserably in his Air America project, and I guess the only way he can get his message across is to shut down talk radio with the equal time act. Can you say Facist?

Chinese? curse: May you live in interesting times.... we soon will