Airline Pilot Forums

Just a few thought on ratios: No matter what the final list looks like, the average ratio of DL/NW pilots will be approx. 7/5 or 1.4/1. With that fact in mind, it is just a matter of applying ratios within the combined list to reflect or equalize the underlying demographics. My opinion only, but the most DL would plausibly compromise on the top of the list, which is 1.6/1 -which is the ratio of all WB pilots (DL/NW), would be a list constructed on strict (or nearly so) category positions. For example: 237 NW 747 capt./ 193 DL 777 capt. = 1.22/1 followed by 280 A330/181 767-400=1.54/1 for an average ratio of 517 NW/374 DL= 1.38/1. This, rather self-evidently, results in 517 NW pilots and 374 DL pilots in the top 891 positions at the combined airline. This ratio would address exactly the larger amount of flying NW brings in those.... (need I insert an adjective!?)...categories, as well as the greater short-term attrition at NW. Looks good so far for NW, but that rationale and resulting favorable ratio at the top comes unavoidably, and ultimately -mathematically, at a price. To be technically correct, Delta has 639 captains in a wide body category that NW does not have, ie. 767ER. But let's ignore that, for the purposes of speculating on a compromise by DL, and follow the NW proposition that their 757 category should be treated as "equal" to the entire DL 767/757 category (intnl. & dom.) This would result in 1420 DL to 447 NW capt. which equals a 3.17/1 ratio -unavoidably, in DL's favor. Quite a "hit" for NW on that one, but it only reflects exactly, in terms of numbers of specific quality pilot jobs, what we each brought to the merger. (and does so rather compromisingly, equating the NW 757 narrowbody dom. to the DL 767ER widebody international) As for the rest of the list, one can ratio various combinations of 737/A320/M88-90/DC-9 but overall the ratio would be close to 1202 (DL 737,M88) to 1039 (A320,DC-9) which equals 1.15/1 in DL's favor. All these category/ratio combinations average to the mathematically neccessary 7/5 ratio. Notice this smooth ratio toward the bottom of the list does away with the 400 NW pilot staple, to be replaced perhaps, by a fence containing that risk. Also, the the widebodies at the top would be fenced (but not the 767/757) for say, 5-8 yrs. I haven't by any means thought of all the contingencies, ie. aircraft deliveries/retirements etc. BTW, this proposal would result in a 2% relative loss of seniority for me.

well thought out but I think nw is more likely to compromise at the top of the list. Why? Well, most of our top 700 guys are already in the seat they want. The Dal captains that are already on the 777 most likely won't bid the 747 or the 330, at least for the forseeable future and most of the top 1000 nw guys will be out of here in the next 5. So, if you put a 777 1985 captain in front of 1980 whale captain, who cares? Neither will affect each other in category and so there is much room for compromise. I.E if you're a 57 year 330 captain and you bid number 20 in DTW and number 500 overall putting a 1985 777 captain in front of him would not affect his life whatsoever as that 777 captain isn't leaving atl for the 330 in dtw, well, probability would suggest. Ergo, we have a lot of room at the top of the list to compromise.

Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):DHonestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs.As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict.True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority.It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc.

Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):DHonestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs.As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict.True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority.It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc. Wiggy,

Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements.

Delta guy

Wiggy,

Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements.

Delta guy
For no particular reason did I pick that date, just a "wag" at what might be a compromise on the length of fences. It's not a benchmark, but I think it does show that while NW does have more shorter term retirements than DL, the actual difference between the two is not that great,--especially when compared to the total size of the pilot group. I was thinking of a limited dynamic list to address this difference, just speculating, and agree that if NW wants to take full advantage of all their retirements through a dynamic list, then they should have to "suffer" through all of ours which, as you say, comes later but is much larger.

Based on rumors and common sense.

If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it.

Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators.

Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now.

Based on rumors and common sense.

If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it.

Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators.

Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now.
I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.

Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators.

I agree. Date of Hire is the perfect status quo since both sides' seniority lists are made up predominately of Date of Hire.

Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes.

Yup. Who needs fences when everyone gets to keep their status quo Date of Hire.

Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now.

You bet. Same as we have now...Date of Hire.

Carl

I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.

Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.

Carl

I agree. Date of Hire is the perfect status quo since both sides' seniority lists are made up predominately of Date of Hire.



Yup. Who needs fences when everyone gets to keep their status quo Date of Hire.



You bet. Same as we have now...Date of Hire.

Carl
Carl,
Do us all a favor......
Please flush the toilet after you use it. I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you. I promise to always flush from now on if you will....Thanks. :D

Cheers:cool:

Carl,
I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you.

Your debate skills are legendary.

I shouldn't mention Date of Hire anymore because Selcall thinks it's offensive?

Delta's cherry picking ratio is far more offensive. But I would not consider telling any Delta pilot that I don't want to see it mentioned anymore.

Get the hell over yourself. You're an internet character - not a moderator.:cool:

Carl

You are right Carl I am not a moderator. My apologies for even thinking I could come close to your ability. I will make sure to quibble in the future so I completely understand my place within this interent board. I just find your statements lacking any real understanding that the position of "Date of Hire" as a tool to intergrate two seprate seniority lists into one is extinct in today's world.

The chance of "Date of Hire" being a reality is like you finding the Holy Grail. Good luck in your quest. I understand that both MEC's positions are highly offensive to our respective pilot groups. Let me make it more clear for you then. You are beating a dead horse on a tireless argument that I truly believe is very close to be negoitiated to an final end by both our repsective MEC's.

If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.

Have fun on that "Super Premium Widebody". See you in ATL. :D

Gentlemen,

May I kindly suggest a "knock it off"?

We've beat this horse to death. We've each picked our respective gladiators and thrown them into the ring. In the end, I hope they decide to shake hands and live to fight side by side another day. If not, then they'll fight it out.

In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here. It will be over soon enough, and regardless of the outcome, I hope we all consider ourselves on the same team going forward.

PG

If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.

If we follow ALPA merger policy, ratios are not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Directors. But I'm sure you knew that.

Carl

If we follow ALPA merger policy, ratios are not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Directors. But I'm sure you knew that.

Carl

Why not enlighten us on what the policy does say?

Why not enlighten us on what the policy does say?

It mentions NO form of methodology. It only says "fair and equitable."

Carl

In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here.


Why not? It works for English soccer hooligans:D

I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.


Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW.

Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.


“a. Preserve jobs.
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”

Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.


“a. Preserve jobs.
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”


Basically impossible. ;)

How about DOB instead of DOH. Then we would all be #1, or close to it, for at least one day.

Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW.

Yes, you are responding to DL's opening position, I am assuming the negotiations have gone well beyond that.(both sides) I was speculating on what possible compromises are out there. I speculate that the risk associated with the DC-9 "problem" could be addressed through limited fences, which would confine the risk to the group that brought the "problem" to the merger. Yes, it is speculating about the future demise of the 9', but short-term (3-4yrs.) fences (which may never need to be "used") confines the risk in the most innocuous (or risk-free) manner, that is, without permanently jeopardizing the current or future relative seniority of the bottom 400 NW pilots........... Can anyone at NW make a proposal that does not permanently jeopardize the current and future relative seniority of the ENTIRE DL pilot group, without completely fencing off the entire airline (effectively, NOT merging the pilot groups, and effectively, heaping ALL the risk of future contingencies upon the DL group) for 10 or more years?...(and guaranteeing a divided, contentious pilot group)....Surely such a solution exists, and surely the fundamental principle of any such solution lies in preserving each group's pre-merger status... (right out of ALPA merger policy)...that is, --preserving each group's overall, current, relative seniority..... -then attempt, (not guarantee, because we can't guarantee anything in the future) to preserve career expectations for the (very) limited demographic that needs it. -And surely, Johnso29, you will forgive me for calling you "Shirley".;)

Why not just go straight to the "How much you bench?" solution? Darwinian solutions always win out over time.

Why not just go straight to the "How much you bench?" solution? Darwinian solutions always win out over time.

I like this idea, maybe a drinking competition. Remember Raiders of the Lost Arc where Miriam went shot for shot with that Huge Nepalese guy. Thats is how we'll organize the SLI. Last man standing is Captain of the 747, first guy down is FO 767 NYC.

I like this idea, maybe a drinking competition. Remember Raiders of the Lost Arc where Miriam went shot for shot with that Huge Nepalese guy. Thats is how we'll organize the SLI. Last man standing is Captain of the 747, first guy down is FO 767 NYC.

a beerfest (the movie) style competition would be much more enjoyable to watch. that requires skill as well as alcoholism. :D

with a straight shots competition you have to watch out for the clown that switches the vodka with water...

Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.





CarlCarl, -you sly sage of cyberspace, you clever, crafty conjurer of controversy, indeed -you whittling whit of word-play, you wriggling, wearisome wooer from the well-positioned, and all-around wily wisenheimer of the world wide web,---you tricked me!! Now, why'd you go an' do a thing like that? Well, let me see what I've got up my sleeve.........Let's see, if we give "each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company" - which I agree with, Carl, but then first, shouldn't we see what that "credit" amounts to for all those "DAYS" spent in "his/her" company? For a Sep. 1985 DL hire, his "DAYS" earn him, or "credit" to him, a junior 777 capt/ senior 767-400 capt. -international, "super premium" widebody variety. For his date of hire equivalent at NW, his "DAYS" "credit" him a mid-seniority A320 domestic, narrow-body capt. -of the non-international, non-"super premium", non-widebody variety. (these, of course, are stovepipe positions). It seems one pilot has "earned" more "credit" in the same amount of time than the other pilot. Should the one be penalized for bringing, and having more 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline, and the other rewarded for bringing, and having less 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline? Or do you think the 777 is equivalent to the A320? (A DL 777 equivalent to a NW A320?)P.S. -Carl, you are confusing longevity with seniority.

Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.

Carl

You have got to be kidding....

When is the next round of arbritration hearings........we need something new to "discuss":D

When is the next round of arbritration hearings........we need something new to "discuss":D

How bout them TITANS!!!!!

I have tried to stay out of these discussions but oh well here I go.

Bucking Bar says that we (NWA) should basically accept the ratios because they are "fair"

Carl says we should except DOH cause that is "fair"

Well as we all know life is not fair and we all need to compromise.

As a 1999 hire that would be Jr. to a 2007 hire I am not a big fan of ratios. Even though it lets me hold the same narrow body FO seat I hold today. I think I should have some protection of my (I hate the term) career expectations. At NWA I will retire in the top 30. If we go the ratios I wont crack 1000, so there is definitely some damage done.

Of course a straight DOH with fences benefits me more so I am in favor of that.

However I think there is a compromise out there. I would think a simple 7 to 5 ratio would be that compromise. Or I would even go with a straight ratio by where you are at on your SL. I.E. 15% at NWA then I would be 15% at the new DAL. I gain some in the short run lose some in the long run.

The DAL MEC could throw the NWA guys a bone on this that would help get it done. Since July when the SL at each company was locked in NWA has had about 200 retirements or about 4% of the list (200/5100).

So take a new snapshot that has NWA with the same number of total pilots about 5100 but with a newly computed SL as of DCC. i.e. the bottom guy would be 4900 out of 5100. Then refigure the ratios based upon the new list. For example I would go from about 14.5 to 17.5%. I would retire at 500 to 600 versus 200 with straight DOH. The caveat would be no one could move up more than 4% or DOH. I would put the NWA guys hired after 2001 in a straight DOH or a 7 to 5 ratio.

Bottom line is we are all not going to get what we want and need to work together so in the end we are all a little ****ed but unified.

Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.

...... Can anyone at NW make a proposal that does not permanently jeopardize the current and future relative seniority of the ENTIRE DL pilot group, without completely fencing off the entire airline (effectively, NOT merging the pilot groups, and effectively, heaping ALL the risk of future contingencies upon the DL group) for 10 or more years?..


I've already made one, but you all hated it because it didn't involve surrender. A great compromise would be a straight ratio right down to the exact .0000001% with dynamic seniority based on ACTUAL attrition. If I recall, the average negative response was: "as long as the dynamic seniority involves everything that could possibly be anticipated now and in the future."

Carl

Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.

Except it was a 3 to 1 ratio which put me junior to DAL pilots NOT EVEN HIRED YET!!! How about 7 to 5, and everyone after 2001 is straight DOH. Sounds more then fair to me.

Carl, -you sly sage of cyberspace, you clever, crafty conjurer of controversy, indeed -you whittling whit of word-play, you wriggling, wearisome wooer from the well-positioned, and all-around wily wisenheimer of the world wide web,---you tricked me!! Now, why'd you go an' do a thing like that? Well, let me see what I've got up my sleeve.........Let's see, if we give "each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company" - which I agree with, Carl, but then first, shouldn't we see what that "credit" amounts to for all those "DAYS" spent in "his/her" company? For a Sep. 1985 DL hire, his "DAYS" earn him, or "credit" to him, a junior 777 capt/ senior 767-400 capt. -international, "super premium" widebody variety. For his date of hire equivalent at NW, his "DAYS" "credit" him a mid-seniority A320 domestic, narrow-body capt. -of the non-international, non-"super premium", non-widebody variety. (these, of course, are stovepipe positions). It seems one pilot has "earned" more "credit" in the same amount of time than the other pilot. Should the one be penalized for bringing, and having more 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline, and the other rewarded for bringing, and having less 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline? Or do you think the 777 is equivalent to the A320? (A DL 777 equivalent to a NW A320?)P.S. -Carl, you are confusing longevity with seniority.

No wiggy, I'm not confusing anything. You guys tickle me with your premise that DOH is the most far fetched concept on the planet. Most mergers have either gone straight DOH or have some DOH component in it.

There is an inherent fairness in giving each employee credit for every day that employee has worked for their pre-merger company. You must cross a very high bar to overcome that. In the previous distress mergers with DAL, you easily overcame that because there was no arbitration. America West was able to overcome it by showing USAir as an all but dead airline. I don't think you guys successfully showed that with NWA - although your team sure tried.

Each merger is different and there are many ways to overcome any unfairness involved with DOH. But DOH as a methodology is time tested, with a very long history. Does it get chosen as the method of construction in our case?...anybody's guess.

Carl

Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.

Carl


You have got to be kidding....

I am absolutely NOT kidding. I'm amazed that you would think it unfair to want credit for every day that you've worked at your pre-merger company. There are plenty of creative ways to ensure that no NWA guy benefits at the expense of a DAL guy and vice versa. How you could think that preserving credit for your working time is a joke, is beyond me.

If the roles were reversed, it would be beyond you too.

Carl

Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.

BS. Nobody knows what was in that agreement. The people that do aren't talking and it's never been in print.

The only thing I've heard is that the ratio was a very "inventive" one based on DAL getting credit for all their options, and NWA getting no credit for their firm orders. But since I've never seen that one either, it's as much BS as the DAL "offer."

Carl

America West was able to overcome it by showing USAir as an all but dead airline.

Carl

Could you show us where Nicolau stated that the award was based on USAir being all but dead? I could have sworn that he said that they both needed each other equally.

You need to take the emotion out of it and look at the facts.

Discussing the AWA/USAir merger:


NWA ALPA
Merger Committee News Update
Mike Lazarowicz Chairman
Steve Mayer May 15, 2007 Member
Lane Kranz Member

"Some US pilots have been “shocked” to see that
their DOH of 1985 puts them in the same group
as AW pilots with a DOH of 1998. Removing the
emotion and looking at the facts, a US pilot with
a DOH of 1985 means that he was a very junior
Narrowbody Captain at US. And looking at an
America West pilot, hired in 1998 means that he
is a junior Captain. On the combined list, each
of these pilots is in the exact same, relative
position.

If you were furloughed on the old list, you are
still furloughed on the new list. If you are
recalled, and choose to return, you will be a
junior F/O for a long time. The same conditions
held true on the previous US list.

Conclusion
Mr. Nicolau was charged with deciding a case
that was notably difficult, but he used ALPA
Merger Policy to lay the framework for his
decision. "

I am absolutely NOT kidding. I'm amazed that you would think it unfair to want credit for every day that you've worked at your pre-merger company. There are plenty of creative ways to ensure that no NWA guy benefits at the expense of a DAL guy and vice versa. How you could think that preserving credit for your working time is a joke, is beyond me.

If the roles were reversed, it would be beyond you too.


If you were merging with USAir east would you want DOH?

Preserving credit for the time you have worked is meaningless. My neighbor has been at ASA longer than I have been at DAL. Should he go ahead of me on a combined ASA/DAL list? Even he thinks that is bullsh*t.

How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters.

How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters.

Excellent point. Sounds like ALPA merger policy in a nutshell.

If you were merging with USAir east would you want DOH?

Preserving credit for the time you have worked is meaningless. My neighbor has been at ASA longer than I have been at DAL. Should he go ahead of me on a combined ASA/DAL list? Even he thinks that is bullsh*t.

How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters.

This is of course just your opinion. Which is no more or less valid than mine or anyone elses. And it wouldn't be meaningless to you if the roles were reversed.

Carl

Preserving credit for the time you have worked is meaningless. My neighbor has been at ASA longer than I have been at DAL. Should he go ahead of me on a combined ASA/DAL list? Even he thinks that is bullsh*t.


Xray,

Your comparing an international carrier with a regional RJ operator?

Ferd <-------confused at your point

[quote=Ferd149;495700]Xray,

Your comparing an international carrier with a regional RJ operator?/quote]

ALPA policy has to work in any merger, no matter how far fetched. No two airlines are the same. DAL and NWA are pretty close, but they are not the same. Therefore, no two DOHs are the same. Fortunes rise and fall at airlines. Todays start-up may grow into a mainline legacy type carrier. Or todays mainline airline may end up a small regional. What has happened since you got hired should not work for you....or against you. Where you are today is all that matters.

But yes, I think to argue DOH is to argue that an ASA pilot hired one day before I was hired at DAL should go ahead of me should we merge. Or to look at it another way, supposed the combined DAL/NWA were to merge with AK down the road. Should a 737 captain who has no career expectation to an international widebody seat go ahead of a DL/NW pilot because of DOH?

Speaking of Alaska, beware of what you wonder about.........................

[quote=Ferd149;495700]Xray,

Your comparing an international carrier with a regional RJ operator?/quote]

ALPA policy has to work in any merger, no matter how far fetched. No two airlines are the same. DAL and NWA are pretty close, but they are not the same. Therefore, no two DOHs are the same. Fortunes rise and fall at airlines. Todays start-up may grow into a mainline legacy type carrier. Or todays mainline airline may end up a small regional. What has happened since you got hired should not work for you....or against you. Where you are today is all that matters.

But yes, I think to argue DOH is to argue that an ASA pilot hired one day before I was hired at DAL should go ahead of me should we merge. Or to look at it another way, supposed the combined DAL/NWA were to merge with AK down the road. Should a 737 captain who has no career expectation to an international widebody seat go ahead of a DL/NW pilot because of DOH?

You could use the same argument in regards to a straight ratio. Should a pilot at ASA sitting 25% on the list end up at 25% after you merge with them.

Wouldn't fences be needed to protect you from that AK 737 pilot taking your international widebody whether it's ratio or DOH?

[quote=Ferd149;495700]
But yes, I think to argue DOH is to argue that an ASA pilot hired one day before I was hired at DAL should go ahead of me should we merge. Or to look at it another way, supposed the combined DAL/NWA were to merge with AK down the road. Should a 737 captain who has no career expectation to an international widebody seat go ahead of a DL/NW pilot because of DOH?

You would understand if we were to merge with Virgin America for example. Somehow I don't think ratio would be in your vocabulary at all. Why - because ratioing a two year old airline in with Delta would be a HUGE windfall for VA. It would/should go DOH with fences to protect VA guys from being bumped from the equipment they brought. See how well that works?. It even works for an extreme example like Virgin America.

Carl

I've already made one, but you all hated it because it didn't involve surrender. A great compromise would be a straight ratio right down to the exact .0000001% with dynamic seniority based on ACTUAL attrition. If I recall, the average negative response was: "as long as the dynamic seniority involves everything that could possibly be anticipated now and in the future."CarlCarl, upon further review I might be able, just barely, and with much trepidation, hesitation, and in need of further clarifications, to accept, on a highly contingent and conditional basis, with possible need of further modifications, your proposal.;)By staight ratio I assume you mean 7/5 or 1.4/1? (1:1 ratio would, of course, result in 2000 DL on the bottom......where have I heard that before?:confused:) Would the dynamic list run until everyone currently on the property was gone?(or should it run only as long as NW has more retirements?...hmmm...might have a problem with that) Or would it run until we both had say, 500 or 200 or 1000 retirements from the top half of our lists? Rumor has it that this list (with everyone currently on the property) was "run" in previous negotiations and resulted in the NW pilots being "swamped" by DL retirements after 2020, and thus rejected.What about the risk of the DC-9? and 747-200? Would your group be willing to take responsibility for the risks your group brings to the merger, in the form of those outmoded and uneconomical aircraft? say, for 3-5 yrs? (yes, we would take responsibility for ours) Would you be willing to accept a fence, or some mechanism, to contain that risk?

No wiggy, I'm not confusing anything. You guys tickle me with your premise that DOH is the most far fetched concept on the planet. Most mergers have either gone straight DOH or have some DOH component in it.

There is an inherent fairness in giving each employee credit for every day that employee has worked for their pre-merger company. You must cross a very high bar to overcome that. In the previous distress mergers with DAL, you easily overcame that because there was no arbitration. America West was able to overcome it by showing USAir as an all but dead airline. I don't think you guys successfully showed that with NWA - although your team sure tried.

Each merger is different and there are many ways to overcome any unfairness involved with DOH. But DOH as a methodology is time tested, with a very long history. Does it get chosen as the method of construction in our case?...anybody's guess.

Carl









Look at the "heart" of ALPA merger policy:1. maintain or improve premerger pilot status.2. minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.The others are self-evident and uncontroversial, these two are more interesting and are very subtly crafted, on further examination:For (1.) let's stick with "maintain" rather than "improve" for the time being. So we're left with "maintain", but maintain what?..-premerger pilot status. Why didn't they just say "maintain pilot status"? Why "premerger" pilot status? Could it be they're acknowledging that each pilot group, taken separately, enjoys a "status" uniquely, relatively their own? If they had merely said "maintain pilot status", -a more general statement, wouldn't that imply there is some general, universal, absolute standard of "pilot status", that would apply (such as DOH or longevity)? But the language does not say that, and ALPA therefore does not mean to imply that. Futhermore, the word "improve" as applied to a universal, absolute standard of "pilot status" would make no sense. How can you "improve" an absolute? How can you "improve" a date of hire, or a longevity? Clearly the word "status" in the language "premerger pilot status" is not meant to imply there is some arbitrary, absolute "philosophical" standard, -but just the opposite. Status implies tangible assets---positions, categories, payrates, "jobs", held uniquely within and relative to that ("premerger") pilot group only. ALPA merger policy goal is to match and merge those respective tangibles as closely as possible to maintain and reflect, in the combined group, the very same unique, relative premerger positions, categories, "status" belonging to each group.For (2.) notice it is written: "minimize detrimental changes to..." rather than "maximize beneficial changes to...." or "eliminate detrimental changes to..." or "maintain or improve career expectations". This seems to imply that detrimental changes are a "given" or, at least, highly likely, or, just likely. In any event, detrimental changes are anticipated, and this ambiguous language is used to address an ambiguous idea...the future, notoriously unpredictable, futilely (for our purposes) acted upon in the present, thus having the lowest chance of success, or the lowest chance of having any affect at all,... but embraced in principle by all of us....tough thing to do without stepping on some toes...."at the expense of the other"

Yes, be careful what you wish for with ALK. That might be a reality sooner, rather than later.

[quote=Xray678;495736]

You could use the same argument in regards to a straight ratio. Should a pilot at ASA sitting 25% on the list end up at 25% after you merge with them.

Wouldn't fences be needed to protect you from that AK 737 pilot taking your international widebody whether it's ratio or DOH?

Nope. Delta's proposal looks at the value of the job brought, hence a category based ratio. That's why there were 400 NWA pilots at the bottom of the DAL list, because they brought the 400 lowest value jobs to the merger (based on pre-merger contracts). That's why the 744 and 742 weren't viewed as "super premium" adjective flying; they brought lower total pre-merger compensation than the DAL 777/764.

Should DAL merge with a regional feeder, under a category ratio system the RJ pilots would be merged in with the value of the job they brought. Same with ALA, their 737's would integrate with DAL 737's-757's, because they have 737-900's and prior to this merger slightly higher total compensation.

It's a watercooler discussion anyway. Unless there is some change in the opinions of the leadership this week, the wiseguys will get to make the list, and we'll get to live with it.

btw, Carl's inelegant solution out there in the dynamic list can be shot right back at him. Carl just wants to take one argument that benefits him the most and make that dynamic. He doesn't want the rest of the baggage. If you make all factors dynamic, I'm sure the group could accept it, although each time the list shuffled there would be a reminder of the merger and fodder for grievances.

Nope. Delta's proposal looks at the value of the job brought, hence a category based ratio. That's why there were 400 NWA pilots at the bottom of the DAL list, because they brought the 400 lowest value jobs to the merger (based on pre-merger contracts). That's why the 744 and 742 weren't viewed as "super premium" adjective flying; they brought lower total pre-merger compensation than the DAL 777/764.

And there's the problem with DALs idea. You can't just stick the last 400 NWA guys on the bottom of the list because many of those guys AREN'T ON THE DC9!!!! Therefore, they do not ALL bring the lowest paying jobs. Doesn't work.

No they do not fly the lowest paying jobs, their seniority in the stove pipe flies those jobs.
Just like at DAL the ER newbies are not slotted in with other ER guys they are near the bottom where they would be in a stove pipe.

[quote=Xray678;495736]

You could use the same argument in regards to a straight ratio. Should a pilot at ASA sitting 25% on the list end up at 25% after you merge with them.

We know that DOH doesn't work, we know that straight ratios don't work. What does work is ratios based on comparable jobs brought to the merger. Does ASA bring 777s, no, 767s no, 737s, no, MD88s, no.

Wouldn't fences be needed to protect you from that AK 737 pilot taking your international widebody whether it's ratio or DOH?

I think under any SLI there will be a need for at least some modest fences to act as a shock absorber. If you were to apply Nicolau's ratios and count how many wide bodied captain and first officer positions are in international categories then start the ratios from there you would be fairly close to a fair and equitable list. Add in no bump and no flush along with some modest fences to protect AK pilots QOL and upgrades into their own categories and I think you would minimize any detriment to career expectations, as well as provide additional upside career possibilities in wide bodied international categories to AK pilots down the road.

[quote=Xray678;495736]

You would understand if we were to merge with Virgin America for example. Somehow I don't think ratio would be in your vocabulary at all. Why - because ratioing a two year old airline in with Delta would be a HUGE windfall for VA. It would/should go DOH with fences to protect VA guys from being bumped from the equipment they brought. See how well that works?. It even works for an extreme example like Virgin America.

Carl

Actually, ratios with modest fences would work if it were done like Nicolau did it. We need to recognize what jobs those pilots bring to the merger. If they are bringing narrow bodied captain positions, then that needs to be considered and weighed as an equivalent position to another narrow bodied captain position. OTOH, they bring no large gauge or international wide bodied captain/first officer positions, so just like Nicolau, those positions, which account for over 50% of the list, would go on top before ratios began with the narrow bodied positions.

And there's the problem with DALs idea. You can't just stick the last 400 NWA guys on the bottom of the list because many of those guys AREN'T ON THE DC9!!!! Therefore, they do not ALL bring the lowest paying jobs. Doesn't work.

It's not about integrating names, because names are people and people make choices to bid different equipment, it's about integrating positions and bidding horse power.

Carl, upon further review I might be able, just barely, and with much trepidation, hesitation, and in need of further clarifications, to accept, on a highly contingent and conditional basis, with possible need of further modifications, your proposal.;)

By staight ratio I assume you mean 7/5 or 1.4/1? (1:1 ratio would, of course, result in 2000 DL on the bottom......where have I heard that before?:confused:)

Definitely not 1:1. A straight ratio that keeps everyone at the exact same pre-merger position on the list right down to the .0001%.

Would the dynamic list run until everyone currently on the property was gone?(or should it run only as long as NW has more retirements?...hmmm...might have a problem with that) Or would it run until we both had say, 500 or 200 or 1000 retirements from the top half of our lists?

I think until BOTH sides have their big purges. That seems only fair.

What about the risk of the DC-9? and 747-200? Would your group be willing to take responsibility for the risks your group brings to the merger, in the form of those outmoded and uneconomical aircraft?

These aircraft are not so uneconomical anymore. You can go hog wild with the number of things to consider dynamic. Mostly people use their latest incarnation as a means to scuttle the proposal. Everything in a future outlook model is pure speculation except ACTUAL ATTRITION. Thus actual attrition should be the only thing that is dynamic.

Carl

btw, Carl's inelegant solution out there in the dynamic list can be shot right back at him. Carl just wants to take one argument that benefits him the most and make that dynamic.

Not at all. I'd be for adding other things to the dynamic equation if it could be PROVEN. The only proveable category is ACTUAL attrition.

He doesn't want the rest of the baggage. If you make all factors dynamic, I'm sure the group could accept it, although each time the list shuffled there would be a reminder of the merger and fodder for grievances.

Typical example of exactly what I'm talking about. On the one hand you say: "I'm sure the group could accept it." On the other hand you say: "each time the list shuffled there would be a reminder of the merger and fodder for grievances."

Translation: "I don't like this idea because it does not involve NWA pilots surrendering. So I'll just keep adding poison pills to this very fair compromise."

Carl

[quote=Carl Spackler;495868]

Actually, ratios with modest fences would work if it were done like Nicolau did it. We need to recognize what jobs those pilots bring to the merger. If they are bringing narrow bodied captain positions, then that needs to be considered and weighed as an equivalent position to another narrow bodied captain position. OTOH, they bring no large gauge or international wide bodied captain/first officer positions, so just like Nicolau, those positions, which account for over 50% of the list, would go on top before ratios began with the narrow bodied positions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'll bet that the average 757 Captain at DAL with a 1995 (or so) hire date would have a real problem being ratioed in with a Virgin America Captain hired in 2007. Call me crazy, but I don't think that would sit too well.

Carl

[quote=Reroute;496272]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'll bet that the average 757 Captain at DAL with a 1995 (or so) hire date would have a real problem being ratioed in with a Virgin America Captain hired in 2007. Call me crazy, but I don't think that would sit too well.

CarlCarl,

Minor point but I don't think there are many '95 hires (at all) or '96 hires who are 757/767 Capts. I am an '88 hire, middle of the pack 767 Capt. Also, I don't see the relevance of your example. You are comparing DAL with 7500 pilots and a list of pilots with up to 30 yrs. service with an airline with a few hundred pilots on the property for a yr. or two. A completely different animal and a SLI totally different than ours. Finally, your point about actual attrition being the only real quantifyable thing to be considered in a dynamic list is not valid. There are relative probabilities
of many things happening that need to be taken into consideration. Certainly low probability things (like ALL the -9's going away in a yr or two) can be discounted but high prob things like the 6 777LR's that are paid for and coming in early 2009 and the many 737-700's in the same "category" need to be considered as "almost certain" To not consider these in a dynamic list is unfair and totally unreasonable. You lose all credibility by doing this. Clearly the devil is in the details but a strict relative seniority using TODAY's list might be defendable and palatable for both groups. Your nearterm retirements and our nearterm orders and midterm retirements may offset each other.http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mark

I was recently challenged by a DAL guy to make a proposal that moved off of DOH. So I did. Some DAL guys see some good things in it, while others (like Cog here) see it totally unacceptable and illustrative of my many shortcomings.

I also recently made a challenge to any DAL guy out there to make a proposal that moved off of ratios. Guess what...not ONE taker. If this is any illustration of how our negotiations are going, then we will definitely see an arbitrated list.

Compromise means both sides moving off of their original positions. The DAL guys on this board feel that compromise means NWA pilots giving up DOH, while DAL pilots keep ratios.

Arbitrated list - here we come.

Carl

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

I was recently challenged by a DAL guy to make a proposal that moved off of DOH. So I did. Some DAL guys see some good things in it, while others (like Cog here) see it totally unacceptable and illustrative of my many shortcomings.

I also recently made a challenge to any DAL guy out there to make a proposal that moved off of ratios. Guess what...not ONE taker. If this is any illustration of how our negotiations are going, then we will definitely see an arbitrated list.

Compromise means both sides moving off of their original positions. The DAL guys on this board feel that compromise means NWA pilots giving up DOH, while DAL pilots keep ratios.

Arbitrated list - here we come.

CarlCarl,

Compromises aren't all or nothing. Delta guys can compromise yet still retain the ratio as the basis of an agreement. You seem to want to paint us as intrasigent if we don't come off the basic premise of current ratio. What about my post? You characterize my response as "totally unnacceptable and illustrative of my many shortcomings". What does that mean? I was merely suggesting a modification of straight ratio, +attrition that you proposed. You overreacted and tried to characterize my proposal as unreasonable. Agree that a negotiated list is unlikely

Cog

[quote=Reroute;496272]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'll bet that the average 757 Captain at DAL with a 1995 (or so) hire date would have a real problem being ratioed in with a Virgin America Captain hired in 2007. Call me crazy, but I don't think that would sit too well.

Carl

Carl, maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think that Virgin America has a large gauge narrow bodied category similar to a 757 so that wouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, VA doesn't have any wide bodied international category. If the companies are relatively the same contractually, with no major wind fall and you apply Nicolau's award, with both captains and first officers from the international wide bodied categories on top, and then all the 767/757 domestic captains and first officers, you would run through over half the list before the first VA captain got integrated. Not many 767 captains over 50% down the list. With no bump and no flush as well as some conditions ad restrictions for a modest period of time to protect the pre-merger upgrade to the A320 for VA first officers, you'd have a list that protected pre merger expectations and status. I think it's important to realize what each side brings, whether it took the VA captain 2 years or 10 years to bring that A320 Captain job to the merger, at the end of the day he brought it.

[quote=Carl Spackler;496687]

Carl, maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think that Virgin America has a large gauge narrow bodied category similar to a 757 so that wouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, VA doesn't have any wide bodied international category. If the companies are relatively the same contractually, with no major wind fall and you apply Nicolau's award, with both captains and first officers from the international wide bodied categories on top, and then all the 767/757 domestic captains and first officers, you would run through over half the list before the first VA captain got integrated. Not many 767 captains over 50% down the list. With no bump and no flush as well as some conditions ad restrictions for a modest period of time to protect the pre-merger upgrade to the A320 for VA first officers, you'd have a list that protected pre merger expectations and status. I think it's important to realize what each side brings, whether it took the VA captain 2 years or 10 years to bring that A320 Captain job to the merger, at the end of the day he brought it.

So, if you guys were merging with World, or Omni, or ATA before they went under, you would still be pushing for your slotted ratio seniority list? :rolleyes:

Humm, that would be great for that 2001 hire at World who is now a DC-10 Captain. :D

[quote=Reroute;496771]

So, if you guys were merging with World, or Omni, or ATA before they went under, you would still be pushing for your slotted ratio seniority list? :rolleyes:

Humm, that would be great for that 2001 hire at World who is now a DC-10 Captain. :D

I think you miss that "other" component of the slotted ratio system. That's job value. I don't care if your airplane is the biggest one in the system if it pays like poop, especially if you're going to use the argument that it can poop bigger than a smaller but equivalently paying aircraft. The slotted ratio system takes into account the value of what you bring to the table.

Oh, and remember, that's exactly how DAL did Pan Am and WAL, so there's a history. (Here's where you shout "it's not the same...)

Size matters, especially in compensation!:D Just ask your spouse!

Size matters, especially in compensation!:D Just ask your spouse!

Just to add another piece of meaningless info to this whole "my dad's bigger, my dad's richer" discussion..............the day prior to BOTH of us going into bankruptcy court, we made more than you guys did, YCLIU.:eek:

What I'm trying to say is, we all are trying to get back to something. Once again, thanks for supporting pay parity. I'll be gone by then, but REALLY good luck in section 6.

Ferd

[quote=Reroute;496771]

So, if you guys were merging with World, or Omni, or ATA before they went under, you would still be pushing for your slotted ratio seniority list? :rolleyes:

Humm, that would be great for that 2001 hire at World who is now a DC-10 Captain. :D

I thought I mentioned if the two carriers were somewhat contractually similar. If they aren't, then you have to determine the value of that DC-10/MD-11 position.

How does DOH work if we eventually merge with CMR? DOH doesn't take into account job value, it doesn't balance equities, it's the same as assuming that a peso and a euro have the same value if they were minted on the same day. What matters is what a peso and a euro can buy you, similarly, what matters at NWA, DAL, CMR, Omni etc., is what your seniority number can buy you, not when your seniority number was minted.

How does DOH work if we eventually merge with CMR? DOH doesn't take into account job value, it doesn't balance equities, it's the same as assuming that a peso and a euro have the same value if they were minted on the same day. What matters is what a peso and a euro can buy you, similarly, what matters at NWA, DAL, CMR, Omni etc., is what your seniority number can buy you, not when your seniority number was minted.

I think this has always been the argument against a national seniority list. I agree there are different "tiers" in this profession. Like I said in another post, the difference between you, me and an RJ guy (or even an Omni guy) is we donated our interview suits to goodwill years ago.

Reroute, I am a major, international, legacy (how many adjectives can I come up with, oh yeah premium) airline pilot.......just like you.

I think this has always been the argument against a national seniority list. I agree there are different "tiers" in this profession. Like I said in another post, the difference between you, me and an RJ guy (or even an Omni guy) is we donated our interview suits to goodwill years ago.

Reroute, I am a major, international, legacy (how many adjectives can I come up with, oh yeah premium) airline pilot.......just like you.

Aw come on, don't sell yourself short. You're a tremendous slouch er...uh... I'm mean Super Premium!:D

Aw come on, don't sell yourself short. You're a tremendous slouch er...uh... I'm mean Super Premium!:D

Psssssst.........Deez, my wife and girlfriend agree on ONE thing, there is nothing premium about me:eek:

Carl,

What about my post? You characterize my response as "totally unnacceptable and illustrative of my many shortcomings". What does that mean? I was merely suggesting a modification of straight ratio, +attrition that you proposed. You overreacted and tried to characterize my proposal as unreasonable.

Cog

What on Earth are you talking about? You're the one who characterized me in the poor light...Remember?

Carl,

Finally, your point about actual attrition being the only real quantifyable thing to be considered in a dynamic list is not valid. There are relative probabilities of many things happening that need to be taken into consideration. Certainly low probability things (like ALL the -9's going away in a yr or two) can be discounted but high prob things like the 6 777LR's that are paid for and coming in early 2009 and the many 737-700's in the same "category" need to be considered as "almost certain" To not consider these in a dynamic list is unfair and totally unreasonable. You lose all credibility by doing this.

Mark

Ring a bell?

It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you don't even pay attention.

Carl

What on Earth are you talking about? You're the one who characterized me in the poor light...Remember?



Ring a bell?

It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you don't even pay attention.

Carl
Again Carl, any thoughts on the salient points of my post? As for me characterizing you in a poor light, I thought thats what you were doing to me! After rereading it, I see where I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. My apology... but again, back to my post. Any retort to the meat of my post?

Cog

Again Carl, any thoughts on the salient points of my post? As for me characterizing you in a poor light, I thought thats what you were doing to me! After rereading it, I see where I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. My apology... but again, back to my post. Any retort to the meat of my post?

Cog

The meat of your post is just more unproveable reasons why you want everything but the kitchen sink considered in a dynamic list scenario. I don't believe these are real concerns. I believe it is just an attempt to scuttle the concept by making it too complex.

The only thing that should be in a dynamic seniority formula is actual attrition. Everything else is BS in my opinion - especially now that we are past the DCC.

Carl

The only thing that should be in a dynamic seniority formula is actual attrition. Everything else is BS in my opinion - especially now that we are past the DCC.

Carl

Of course that's your opinion, it benefits the NWA pilots the most!

The 787 is a great airplane and right on time...
The DC9 will live forever (taking the last A320 crew home from the desert)....
The 742 freight operation is a money maker, especially with the fancy engines like the 743...

Everything else is BS, imo!:p

The only thing that should be in a dynamic seniority formula is actual attrition. Everything else is BS in my opinion - especially now that we are past the DCC.

hmm attrition of just pilots, or aircraft also? Let me guess, the one that favors you the most?

I wouldn't expect you two to understand. You're probably the most extreme of all the DAL guys since Spaceman got banished.

The reason none of the aircraft stuff that you cite should matter is that we are now one. The DCC has past. Any aircraft decisions are now Delta decisions. You guys were all predicting that the "aircraft problems" at NWA would be happening "any minute now." And look...many months later, and they never happened. NWA didn't retire any additional DC-9's, NWA didn't retire the 747-200, NWA didn't furlough, etc...etc.

If Delta decided to do any of those things tomorrow, that is DELTA's doing, not NWA - thus all Delta pilots should share in the pain. Same as if Delta decided to bring all the DC-9's out of retirement. NWA pilots shouldn't get the gain because NWA didn't do it - Delta would have made the decision thus all Delta pilots should share in the gain.

Again, this doesn't involve surrender so I know you'll be unhappy.

Carl

I wouldn't expect you two to understand. You're probably the most extreme of all the DAL guys since Spaceman got banished.

The reason none of the aircraft stuff that you cite should matter is that we are now one. The DCC has past. Any aircraft decisions are now Delta decisions. You guys were all predicting that the "aircraft problems" at NWA would be happening "any minute now." And look...many months later, and they never happened. NWA didn't retire any additional DC-9's, NWA didn't retire the 747-200, NWA didn't furlough, etc...etc.

If Delta decided to do any of those things tomorrow, that is DELTA's doing, not NWA - thus all Delta pilots should share in the pain. Same as if Delta decided to bring all the DC-9's out of retirement. NWA pilots shouldn't get the gain because NWA didn't do it - Delta would have made the decision thus all Delta pilots should share in the gain.

Again, this doesn't involve surrender so I know you'll be unhappy.

Carl

Sounds good.... except that we are not one yet. NWA is a subsidiary of DAL. No cross pollination until SOC. THEN, you might have a valid argument, but until then.....

Yes, be careful what you wish for with ALK. That might be a reality sooner, rather than later.

Yup, here we go. I've been told (ok, by my barber's daughter) 2 years max till we get to do all this again.........think SEA "gateway" defense if AA comes calling, or worse SWA.

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 8:23 AM PST


Alaska Airlines, Delta announce alliance on Monday


Portland Business Journal


Print (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/11/10/daily46.html?t=printable)
Email (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/11/10/daily46.html?t=email_story)
Reprints (http://www.bizjournals.com/scoop/reprints.html?market=portland)
RSS Feeds (http://www.bizjournals.com/rss_promo/)
Add to Del.icio.us (javascript:void(0))
Digg This (javascript:void(0))
Comments (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/11/10/daily46.html#comment)

Other Matching Articles for
" delta airlines "


Costs of Delta, Northwest merger total $199M (http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/11/17/newscolumn2.html?q= delta airlines) [11/14/2008]
Alaska Airlines, Delta announce alliance on Monday (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/11/10/daily46.html?q= delta airlines) [11/14/2008]
Report: Delta may keep more jobs in MN (http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/11/10/daily112.html?q= delta airlines) [11/14/2008]
Report: Delta may keep more jobs in MN (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2008/11/10/daily38.html?q= delta airlines) [11/13/2008]
Alaska Airlines, Delta announce alliance on Monday (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/11/10/daily32.html?q= delta airlines) [11/13/2008]
> More Search Results (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntt= delta airlines &Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial)
Alaska Airlines passengers may gain more direct flights to more international destinations, in what the airline is calling “a major marketing alliance,” to be announced Monday.
The new agreement is with Delta Airlines (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/gen/Delta_Airlines_7F7F42E4C1D94521945D68F6B74656D5.ht ml), which merged with rival Northwest Airlines after getting antitrust approval Oct. 29. Both Delta and Northwest already had code sharing agreements with Seattle-based Alaska Airlines, which meant flights could be booked for either of the carriers on Alaska.
One benefit for Alaska is that Delta is now moving some aircraft from redundant routes within the U.S., into less-served and more lucrative international routes, said Steve Danishek, president of TMA Inc., a Seattle-based industry consultant and agent.
These will include Valencia, Spain; Monrovia, Liberia; Cape Town, South Africa, and direct flights to Tokyo from Atlanta, New York and Salt Lake, he said.
“What it means for Alaska is good news on the feed side, because they can now feed to many more destinations,” Danishek said. “It’s just more options for Alaska, for the mileage holders here.”
Danishek said he doesn’t expect a huge investment into marketing the revamped code share.
“This is just jumping on the notoriety of the merger and saying we’re part of that too,” he said of the Monday press conference. “It’s a low-cost way for Alaska Airlines saying there’s more stuff coming for Alaska Airlines passengers.”
When asked, Alaska Airlines spokeswoman Caroline Boren said Monday’s announcement is definitely not a merger and will not include any exchange of stock or interest in either of the companies.
Alaska Airlines, a unit of Seattle-based Alaska Air Group Inc. (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/gen/Alaska_Air%20Group%20Inc_AE6AC698222140029A55A6A16 35C788B.html) (NYSE: ALK), is the third largest commercial-passenger airline at Portland International Airport, according to the Portland Business Journal’s 2008 Book of Lists.

The meat of your post is just more unproveable reasons why you want everything but the kitchen sink considered in a dynamic list scenario. I don't believe these are real concerns. I believe it is just an attempt to scuttle the concept by making it too complex.

The only thing that should be in a dynamic seniority formula is actual attrition. Everything else is BS in my opinion - especially now that we are past the DCC.

Carl

Is a dynamic list part of NALPA's proposal? If not, I very much doubt it will be considered by the arbitration panel, so there is little use in debating what should or should not be considered dynamic.

It mentions NO form of methodology. It only says "fair and equitable."

Carl

So if JetBlue bought someone like Alaska, I'm sure the JB pilots would be happy with DOH. NOT!

Carl why are you even concerned with the outcome of this? You will be flying the 747-400 until retirement. Most likely even in the left seat :) You will be commuting/dead heading to do this though as we all know where the airplanes are going.

But my question is sincere without malice: why do you create so much wake turbulence over something that really wont affect you or change your standard of living whatsoever (you're commuting to ATL unless you want to change airplanes, which I find doubtful)?

Basically impossible. ;)

Yep, considering we'll "Fly Till We Die." That's why I'm trying to drink my retirement savings now.

Is a dynamic list part of NALPA's proposal? If not, I very much doubt it will be considered by the arbitration panel, so there is little use in debating what should or should not be considered dynamic.

It was discussed during the mediated sessions with Chairman Bloch and formally presented on Saturday for the record. So yes, it will now be considered by the arbitration panel.

Is a dynamic list part of NALPA's proposal? If not, I very much doubt it will be considered by the arbitration panel, so there is little use in debating what should or should not be considered dynamic.

The latest transcripts are out. NWA has done a 180. Officially, their position is they still want date of hire but they aren't going to talk about it any more. They have now moved to a dynamic list proposal. Dynamic list has about as much credibility as date of hire. Its a political fig leaf.
Delta has won. At least as far as integration method. Even the NWA witness, Mr. Averill, has started arguing about what changes would have to be made to Delta's proposal to make it "more fair".
The only remaining issue is how to structure the status and category list.
Hopefully, the 2 teams and the arbs will arrive at a fair solution.

The latest transcripts are out. NWA has done a 180. Officially, their position is they still want date of hire but they aren't going to talk about it any more. They have now moved to a dynamic list proposal. Dynamic list has about as much credibility as date of hire. Its a political fig leaf.
Delta has won. At least as far as integration method. Even the NWA witness, Mr. Averill, has started arguing about what changes would have to be made to Delta's proposal to make it "more fair".
The only remaining issue is how to structure the status and category list.
Hopefully, the 2 teams and the arbs will arrive at a fair solution.

So, exactly how many chickens have you gotten up to in your count? :rolleyes:

So, exactly how many chickens have you gotten up to in your count? :rolleyes:

I don't see how you can disagree. NWA has dropped their entire DOH case and moved to a 15 year "dynamic" staus and category list.
The arbitrators won't go for "dynamic". That's nothing but a guaranteed 15 years of more arbitration. Two pilot groups fighting. Red/green. North/south. Roberts redux.

Status and category doesn't favor either group. The arbitrators will slot each pilot in a fair manner and we will move forward as one group.

I shouldn't have said "won". Poor choice of words. Delta has persuaded the panel that status and category offers a more versatile and robust methodology for combining two lists. Nobody "won".

The latest transcripts are out. NWA has done a 180. Officially, their position is they still want date of hire but they aren't going to talk about it any more. They have now moved to a dynamic list proposal. Dynamic list has about as much credibility as date of hire. Its a political fig leaf.
Delta has won. At least as far as integration method. Even the NWA witness, Mr. Averill, has started arguing about what changes would have to be made to Delta's proposal to make it "more fair".
The only remaining issue is how to structure the status and category list.
Hopefully, the 2 teams and the arbs will arrive at a fair solution.

Don't know about that. I'm only a few pages in so far, but the Dynamic list is described as "interesting" by Chairman Bloch and it was presented at his request. If we thought Chairman Bloch thought it was bogas (or a fig leaf) I doubt we would have wasted our time.

Back to reading...........I agree with NewK.........I'd hold off counting them chickens and put the bubbley back on ice;) for a few more weeks.

Not much longer to the 8th boys, quit shak'en them gift boxes!

Wow. I just realized that I could be watching this overtime game between the Eagles and Bengals. But instead, I am reading transcripts.

New K Now = Nerd.

I'll just chalk it up to me not wanting to watch because my real team got spanked today and I don't want to see the score in the ticker. :D


P.S. The game ended in a tie anyway. I did myself a favor.

Was reading and watching the CVG vs PHL games as well. Not sure which was more boring.:D

It does look like the two litigators are getting "punchy". I was waiting for the cat fight to break out - now that would be entertaining:eek:

It was interesting reading about the dynamic list but was more interested in the comparison of the A-330 to the 7ER.

Was reading and watching the CVG vs PHL games as well. Not sure which was more boring.:D

It does look like the two litigators are getting "punchy". I was waiting for the cat fight to break out - now that would be entertaining:eek:

It was interesting reading about the dynamic list but was more interested in the comparison of the A-330 to the 7ER.

I had the game on while I was reading the transcripts and nothing in the game kept my attention for more than a minuet.

I don't know if that means the transcript was that good or the game was that bad.

Ok. Yes I do. The game was bad. :D

Hey essential,

I wouldn't be so cocky just yet! Have you read the 2200 pages of testimony? Dal pilots whole premise for super seniority (seniority that date of hire would not hold) was that you were a superior group bringing much more to the table. Bloch stated that this was a merger of equals. He has also told both groups that they are not getting what they want. We have offered 32 proposals to Dal's one. The reason they are offering a dynamic list is to give the arbitrators more room to work with. Dal has been warned to move off of their position by the arbitraitors and they have not. Dal unwillingness to move off of their position has made them look bad and if you had any reprentives at the hearings you would have been notified of how nervous and uncomfortable your team looked.

I know we are viewed as the dumpster divers and according to you guys we are bring very little to the party, a strinking airline with an aging fleet and useless NRT hub. Yes, this was your brainthrust's exact arguement. However, that argument was refuted and even in the USA today this week had a big article on how Delta is now the number one carrier in Asia and all the planned expansion that will ensue.

So, no, I don't think you've won. In fact, your argument was laced with an air of supremacy and while you say we bring nothing to the party you are against fences and you have no problem enjoying are forthcoming attrition. But what do I know? I'm just a dumpsterdiver!

So if JetBlue bought someone like Alaska, I'm sure the JB pilots would be happy with DOH. NOT!

Carl why are you even concerned with the outcome of this? You will be flying the 747-400 until retirement. Most likely even in the left seat :) You will be commuting/dead heading to do this though as we all know where the airplanes are going.

But my question is sincere without malice: why do you create so much wake turbulence over something that really wont affect you or change your standard of living whatsoever (you're commuting to ATL unless you want to change airplanes, which I find doubtful)?

Because I want to see us succeed. People that say childish things like: "Delta has won" and "...it will never happen" are only setting themselves up for extreme disappointment if the SLI goes against what they predicted. It is this extreme disappointment due to certainty about an uncertain process that can cause people to want to burn the house down. I don't want to see that.

That's why I care.

Carl

To obtain maximum acceptance from the membership, a negotiated list should be announced at the moment of peak uncertainty and fear about an arbitrated result. I think we're almost there.

I think what Opus is saying is:

1. Coming up with an 180 degree alternative is not necessarily a loss &

2. Not coming up with an alternative might become a loss. (Ecpecially when the arbitrators ask you to come up with an alternative.)

It applies to aviation and lawyering...

Always have a plan B. Does anyone know what DALPA's plan B was?

I think what Opus is saying is:

1. Coming up with an 180 degree alternative is not necessarily a loss &

2. Not coming up with an alternative might become a loss. (Ecpecially when the arbitrators ask you to come up with an alternative.)

It applies to aviation and lawyering...

Always have a plan B. Does anyone know what DALPA's plan B was?

newK,

Yup, this is the alternative as described on pages 2415 and 2416. I have a feeling this is what was being discussed behind the scenes all along.

The difference is DALPA doesn't seem to have a backup plan except a straight ratio vs the stovepipe.

This is getting interesting. I agree with Tom Goodman, you are going to see someone cut a deal here......maybe by the end of the week, after all the presentations are done?

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. I should not have used the word "won".
All I'm saying is, in my opinion, its a good thing for all of us that DOH appears to have been eliminated. Status and category is much more flexible and allows the committees and the arbitrators to fashion a list that will actually be a seniority list. No need for 10 year fences or 15 years of "dynamics".

Nobody will win. The categories will be put together in a way that is fair to both sides.

newK,

Yup, this is the alternative as described on pages 2415 and 2416. I have a feeling this is what was being discussed behind the scenes all along.

The difference is DALPA doesn't seem to have a backup plan except a straight ratio vs the stovepipe.

This is getting interesting. I agree with Tom Goodman, you are going to see someone cut a deal here......maybe by the end of the week, after all the presentations are done?


Ferd,

I saw that part and thought it was very telling. But, isn't that our plan B? (Us admiting that if the arbitrators won't take DOH that the dynamic list is ok with us)

Is DALPA supposed to be presenting their plan B today?

The difference is DALPA doesn't seem to have a backup plan except a straight ratio vs the stovepipe.

Why would DALPA need a backup plan. The nice thing about a ratio list is you can change the ratios. The method does not need to be changed. There is zero flexibility with a DOH list. DOH is kind of an all or nothing proposal.

Add to that, I don't really think either side needs a plan B. It's not like the arbitrators are going to pick one sides entire proposal. My gut is the arbitrators knew pretty much where they were going with this list on day one of the hearings. All the talk has moved them very, very little. Asking for plan b, or backups or whatever is directed more toward getting the two sides to a negotiated list than how they may rule if need be.

Because I want to see us succeed. People that say childish things like: "Delta has won" and "...it will never happen" are only setting themselves up for extreme disappointment if the SLI goes against what they predicted. It is this extreme disappointment due to certainty about an uncertain process that can cause people to want to burn the house down. I don't want to see that.

That's why I care.

Carl

Damn, no objection to your response: sincere, well thought out.

Maybe I'm just too recently released from divorce court but I don't have much faith in the legal process, lawyers, judges, UNIONS, etc, etc, etc.

Good luck to us all because that's what it has come to IMHO.

Regards and cheers!

PS - Who was that singing the opening of SNF?

Ferd,

I saw that part and thought it was very telling. But, isn't that our plan B? (Us admiting that if the arbitrators won't take DOH that the dynamic list is ok with us)

Is DALPA supposed to be presenting their plan B today?

Sorry, yeah I was typing fast. Yeah our plan B with a different set of categories. Had a fancy latin legal word that I take it translates to alternate.

The nice thing about a ratio list is you can change the ratios. The method does not need to be changed. There is zero flexibility with a DOH list. DOH is kind of an all or nothing proposal.

Well, not really.........

Be careful what you ask for. Anything less than 1.4ish and you run out of NWA guys towards the bottom of the list. Not a real popular position with your young guys.

But, your right about DOH....you are where you are:D Oh wait, that's what the arguments about, never mind.

Ferd

There has been no shift in positions by either side. The arbitrators wanted to see ALL the ideas thus the reason for presenting the dynamic list now. Hopefully after they see all of the ideas it will help them figure out the best outcome for everyone. We'll see.

Sorry, yeah I was typing fast. Yeah our plan B with a different set of categories. Had a fancy latin legal word that I take it translates to alternate.

Was it Arguendo?

Was it Arguendo?

Looks right, but I'm the product of a public school education:D

Why would DALPA need a backup plan.

DALPA had better have a backup plan. All indications are that the arbitrators have asked for one from both sides. This doesn't surprise me given the fact that they've dropped hints that neither proposal is going to fly. Once they've said that, it's quite common for the judges to offer both sides a last minute chance to come off their original proposal. The side who is stupid enough not to give the judges what they've asked for is in real danger of having no say in the final judgement at all.

Don't salivate NWA guys...I know DALPA is not that dumb. You can count on them having a plan B.

Carl

Looks right, but I'm the product of a public school education:D

I think it's Latin for: "For the sake of the argument."

As in, the NWA guys were not conceding their deisre to implement DOH, but to keep moving along, if the arbitrators don't buy DOH, they will explain the dynamic concept. Great stuff. :D

Product of public school as well. Dictionary.com is great!!

DALPA had better have a backup plan. All indications are that the arbitrators have asked for one from both sides. This doesn't surprise me given the fact that they've dropped hints that neither proposal is going to fly. Once they've said that, it's quite common for the judges to offer both sides a last minute chance to come off their original proposal. The side who is stupid enough not to give the judges what they've asked for is in real danger of having no say in the final judgement at all.

Don't salivate NWA guys...I know DALPA is not that dumb. You can count on them having a plan B.

Carl

Yeah, I know they do. I just wonder what it is. Mainly because I found it odd that their side seemed totally at a loss and unprepared to cross-examine our side on the merits of the dynamic list. Which makes me think that they MUST have a plan B that is significantly different than their plan A.

I guess I have to wait until the transcripts come out tomorrow. Monday Night Football had better be good. :)

I think it's Latin for: "For the sake of the argument."

As in, the NWA guys were not conceding their deisre to implement DOH, but to keep moving along, if the arbitrators don't buy DOH, they will explain the dynamic concept. Great stuff. :D

Product of public school as well. Dictionary.com is great!!

Yeah, that was the context of the discussion between Greg and the arbritrator. I have liked our presentation from the start, but after reading yesterdays transcript I'm really upbeat.

As I said several times, one side or the other is going to take a look at where they think they are at the end of the presentations and cut the best deal they can. I would think maybe late this week or early next week. There has to be professional karma readers on retainer by both law firms reading the judges.

Ferd

Wow. I just realized that I could be watching this overtime game between the Eagles and Bengals. But instead, I am reading transcripts.

New K Now = Nerd.

I'll just chalk it up to me not wanting to watch because my real team got spanked today and I don't want to see the score in the ticker. :D


P.S. The game ended in a tie anyway. I did myself a favor.

Two words... TENNESSEE TITANS!!

Two words... TENNESSEE TITANS!!

My second favorite team. But, I'm still jealous. They play REAL football. Like my team USED to play. :eek::rolleyes::D

DALPA had better have a backup plan. All indications are that the arbitrators have asked for one from both sides. This doesn't surprise me given the fact that they've dropped hints that neither proposal is going to fly. Once they've said that, it's quite common for the judges to offer both sides a last minute chance to come off their original proposal. The side who is stupid enough not to give the judges what they've asked for is in real danger of having no say in the final judgement at all.

Don't salivate NWA guys...I know DALPA is not that dumb. You can count on them having a plan B.

Heyas Carl,

Interesting thing about what you said...

The Deltoids have long accused the NWA side about it's overreaching proposal and how we're going down the same track that the USAir guys did.

Ironically, it was the USAir guys who would not move off their initial proposal or give any alternatives, which seems to be where the DAL guys are seized up. Like the USAir guys, they have now been warned by the arbitrators that it might be poor ground to make a stand.

One of our guys was told by a DAL LEC rep that the DAL side is committed to their proposal as it stands, and anything else would represent a political disaster for their MEC. You pays your dollar and you takes your choice.

Personally, I'm still betting on a negotiated solution.

Nu

Heyas Carl,

Interesting thing about what you said...

The Deltoids have long accused the NWA side about it's overreaching proposal and how we're going down the same track that the USAir guys did.

Ironically, it was the USAir guys who would not move off their initial proposal or give any alternatives, which seems to be where the DAL guys are seized up. Like the USAir guys, they have now been warned by the arbitrators that it might be poor ground to make a stand.

One of our guys was told by a DAL LEC rep that the DAL side is committed to their proposal as it stands, and anything else would represent a political disaster for their MEC. You pays your dollar and you takes your choice.

Personally, I'm still betting on a negotiated solution.

Nu

That is pretty ironic...isn't it.

The DAL lawyers are smart cookies. Even if it is true that DALPA feels they can't move off of their proposal, a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion.

Carl

Two words... TENNESSEE TITANS!!

Sorry for the thread creap...........what happened to Vince Young? Haven't heard a word since his "call for help" ala T.O. Collins does seem to be the missing piece to the puzzle. Kick the Giants butts in the SB!

Sorry for the thread creap...........what happened to Vince Young? Haven't heard a word since his "call for help" ala T.O. Collins does seem to be the missing piece to the puzzle. Kick the Giants butts in the SB!

I think it's more a function of Jeff Fisher. Young went out... Collins won... Jeff said it was his jon to lose. So far, he's having an MVP season IMO.

IF they get to the SB, I hope they aren't 2 yards short of a win this time :D

Like the USAir guys, they have now been warned by the arbitrators that it might be poor ground to make a stand.

Nu

What's your source for this piece of info? Or Mis-info?

a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion.



NWA's attorney Dan Katz was also the lead attorney for USAirways East....

How's that religion working out?:confused:

NWA's attorney Dan Katz was also the lead attorney for USAirways East....

How's that religion working out?:confused:
Well Dan Katz got date of hire for Republic against Northwest in that merger which had the greatest disparity in equipment, career path, and nature and character of hired airline in the history of airline mergers. That goes for before or since I might add. Remember that Northwest had the longest average stage length under the American flag at that time and the second highest average gross weight(behind Flying Tigers). Republic had 8 727's and 6 757's (3 flying and something like 3 ordered) and the world's largest fleet of DC-9's.. AND they got date of hire....The differences between the current Delta and Northwest are miniscule by comparison so let's see what Dec. 8 has to offer.....

NWA's attorney Dan Katz was also the lead attorney for USAirways East....

How's that religion working out?:confused:

I one thing I know is that I HATE it when my "team/(s)" next game is against another team who just lost.

I don't know if it is the law of averages, or if my teams just suck, but the outcome is usually bad.

In this case, I hope my team doesn't suck. :rolleyes:

Well Dan Katz got date of hire for Republic against Northwest in that merger which had the greatest disparity in equipment, career path, and nature and character of hired airline in the history of airline mergers

plus some HUGE fences...

plus some HUGE fences...

That neither side asked for..............were in no man's land here boys. Put that bubbly away for a few more days.

NWA's attorney Dan Katz was also the lead attorney for USAirways East....

How's that religion working out?:confused:

Let me see if I follow your logic. Dan Katz is our attorney. He got DOH for Republic pilots, but not for USAirways East. Under Katz's direction, NWALPA gave a Plan B SLI as requested by the arbitrators. So far, DALPA has not. Therefore DALPA is wiser for not getting religion thus far? If that's what you think, you'd better hope your reps are wiser than you.

You have an interesting "thought" process there Slow - but I knew that already. ;) And by the way, that religion is working out just fine. I'd be very concerned if we had done anything else but give the arbitrators what they've asked for.

Carl

Dalpa has not given a plan B because they were not asked to provide one. The arbitrators have given feedback to both sides in the mediation process. The result is the NWA plan B. There was a nice quote in the process when NWA stated that there proposal was still DOH. One of the arbitrators asked what they just spent 4 hours listening to then!

Sailingfun,

Oh yes they have asked Dal for a plan B. Dal response was that they were not moving off their position. This is why Bloch broke off talks between dalpa et nalpa.

Your leadership is basically saying, 'hey, we don't want to go back to our membership, after selling them that they would get the seniority windfall, and tell them that we have compromised/caved and have 7000 plus pilots cursing their names for the next twenty years. Let them be mad at the arbitraitors, not us.'

We offered 32 proposals to your one! I know you guys have already started celebrating assuming it's a done deal but, well, whatever.

Your leadership is basically saying, 'hey, we don't want to go back to our membership, after selling them that they would get the seniority windfall, and tell them that we have compromised/caved and have 7000 plus pilots cursing their names for the next twenty years. Let them be mad at the arbitraitors, not us.'.


That's funny. DALPA has never promised anyone a windfall. In fact just the opposite. Any rep I have talked to personally has told me to keep my expectations realistic, and that we are not going to get what we want.

I challenge you to back up your statement and provide any proof that the DALPA folks have said anything other than they want to get a fair list.

Let me see if I follow your logic.
Carl

You obviously don't.

I quoted you. You said "a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion."

I asked if USAirways got religion. You inferred from that question.

Dan Katz was USAirways attorney.

You figure it out....

(hint: it ain't about the pilots, it's about the "good lawyer"):)

You obviously don't.

I quoted you. You said "a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion."

I asked if USAirways got religion. You inferred from that question.

Dan Katz was USAirways attorney.

You figure it out....

(hint: it ain't about the pilots, it's about the "good lawyer"):)

I still don't know what you're trying to say. I guess I'm just not as smart as you. But then again...who is. ;)

Carl

xray,

Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.

What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.

xray,

Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.

What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.

How are you getting the shaft? If you are a mid-level A330 FO now...you will be after the merger. You claim we will benefit from your retirements, but how about all of ours that kick in a few years later? Oh yeah, your proposed fence ends right about then...hmmm...

Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."

I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.

Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?

Dalpa has not given a plan B because they were not asked to provide one. The arbitrators have given feedback to both sides in the mediation process. The result is the NWA plan B. There was a nice quote in the process when NWA stated that there proposal was still DOH. One of the arbitrators asked what they just spent 4 hours listening to then!

Sailing,

Where in the transcripts is that located? I'm not trying to jab you (I just signed off on a group hug in another thread). I just really want to know.

Respectfully,

New K Now

How are you getting the shaft? If you are a mid-level A330 FO now...you will be after the merger. You claim we will benefit from your retirements, but how about all of ours that kick in a few years later? Oh yeah, your proposed fence ends right about then...hmmm...

Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."

I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.

Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?

Well said....

How are we getting the shaft? Simple, for most of us we will lose upto 1900 numbers in seniority with doh being the reference point. It will take close to nine years to get back to that reference point. Example, if a pilot on the nwa side would be 7100 on the combined list per doh but 8900 on the ratio by category list it would take until 2018 until that pilot is back to 7100.

That same pilot would be 3400 on the nwa list, assuming no merger, would be at 2500 (50%) in four years. On the nwa list that pilot would retire in the top 200 depending on age but on the dal proposed list that pilot would never crack the top 1800. The average age of a nwa pilot is now 53, ergo, complete stagnation or displacement for the rest of their careers.

The concept, that we offered and so far has been reject by dalpa of the dynamic list would work both ways. When a nwa retires we move up. When a dal guy retires you would move up until all 12400 of us no longer are on the property. As for going backwards we also offered up a dynamic lists for that so that it would effect our junior guys and the dal guys would be safe. However, as you remember we have a no furlough clause (stop laughing) and a displacement protection clause for the next 36 months. So, in the short term that doesn't seem to be an issue, at least on paper.

So, the truth is, and please be honest about this, is that you want your date of hire to be deemed more valuable than ours. You want to be placed in a seniority list that favors you and also enjoy all of the nwa attrition.

We have offered up 32 proposals to your one. Finally, we presented to the arbitraitors that, hey, if dal gets relative seniority than at least acknowledge our attrition to give at least a little dignity and respect.

I have posted twice the idea of splitting the diference between doh/rs and not one dal guy responded in favor of that. So, be honest guys. You want your cake and eat it too. We should glad we have job right! Where have heard that before.

How are you getting the shaft? If you are a mid-level A330 FO now...you will be after the merger. You claim we will benefit from your retirements, but how about all of ours that kick in a few years later? Oh yeah, your proposed fence ends right about then...hmmm...

Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."

I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.

Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?

I don't think anyone doubts your goal, and on the surface it looks great. We have the same goals, a win win. We've said that from the start. The problem is how to get there. The proposal you guys don't seem to want to move from is great on day one. By year 5, not so good for us and by year 10 most of the positions in the upper 1/3 are all premerger Delta guys. It all goes back to demographics, we are older than you guys.

We have argued how to get to what we both want since April. Please don't make it sound like it's easy and all we need to do is "listen to you" or "trust us".

Ferd

I don't think anyone doubts your goal, and on the surface it looks great. We have the same goals, a win win. We've said that from the start. The problem is how to get there.

Well on that we can agree!

The proposal you guys don't seem to want to move from is great on day one. By year 5, not so good for us and by year 10 most of the positions in the upper 1/3 are all premerger Delta guys. It all goes back to demographics, we are older than you guys.

This is true, and you would have a great point, IF this SLI only lasted ten years. What about between years 10-20? The vast majority of the retirees will be current DAL guys. We all get to move up again.

We have argued how to get to what we both want since April. Please don't make it sound like it's easy and all we need to do is "listen to you" or "trust us".

I'm not saying that. There have no doubt been unrealistic proposals on both sides. I don't think that strict DOH is fair. The fact is that even with the whale and A330 (a great airplane, and you will enjoy where it is going to fly) we bring a lot more widebody aircraft to the mix. (I also don't think that stapling the bottom 400 NWA guys is fair either, but I digress).

Oh hell, I give up. We've all read this a million times and our opinions mean little. All I know is that DAL has merged with or acquired C&S in the 50s/60s, Northeast in the 70s, Western in the 80s, and some of Pan Am in the 90s. Not ONCE did the SLI go to an arbitrator, and I do believe that all the pilots in the prior airlines all did rather well in their career. That is what I and most other DAL guys want for all of us--NWA guys included!

Good luck to us all. Hopefully a year from now this will all be a dull memory clouded by one too many beers.

This is true, and you would have a great point, IF this SLI only lasted ten years. What about between years 10-20? The vast majority of the retirees will be current DAL guys. We all get to move up again.

About the same, from what I've seen. But, who cares I'll be a greeter at WalMar by then:D


Oh hell, I give up. We've all read this a million times and our opinions mean little. All I know is that DAL has merged with or acquired C&S in the 50s/60s, Northeast in the 70s, Western in the 80s, and some of Pan Am in the 90s. Not ONCE did the SLI go to an arbitrator, and I do believe that all the pilots in the prior airlines all did rather well in their career. That is what I and most other DAL guys want for all of us--NWA guys included!

Agree, the only thing I can think of is our size. Those guys weren't 70% Delta's size.

Good luck to us all. Hopefully a year from now this will all be a dull memory clouded by one too many beers.

Dead on my friend..........beers are on the old guy!:D

Ferd

Ok. I'm finishing up the transcripts from yesterday. I understand our dynamic list proposal, but what did you guys (DAL) propose? Some kind of pull out of or most senior pilots? 100, 173?

We did not propose that. It was done at the Arbitrators request.

Ok. I'm finishing up the transcripts from yesterday. I understand our dynamic list proposal, but what did you guys (DAL) propose? Some kind of pull out of or most senior pilots? 100, 173?

The pull out is a method of accounting for expected attrition in a static list. It is a tool for manipulating the list and was requested by the arbitrators/mediators. (hint, hint)
The DAL guys did not propose this method. All they did was supply the software and computer model to the arbitrators.
Both sides are still officially sticking with their original proposals but you can see from the transcripts that in the mediated (non-binding) sessions they had been working on a static status and category list with these "pull outs" being used to account for attrition.
The devil is in the details regarding how many people get pulled out and reinserted. DAL obviously wants a low number and NWA wants a high number.
Considering who the "mediators" are, I think we can see the outline of our list taking shape.
The fight is going to be over which airplanes belong in which category (the whole 76ER vs A330 fight) and how many "pull-outs" are the proper number to account for the NWA attrition.

According to the testimony no SLI has ever used attrition as an equity when ordering a list. If the NWA pilots pull that off, it is history in the making.

As Check Essential writes, Bloch seems proud of the idea and he takes credit for the tool (which was created by Delta's analysts at his request).

It is most unusual for an "impartial" Arbitrator to take such an activist position during a hearing. Bloch acts like this is a Mediation proceeding. It is most unusual to say the least.

Ya know. Those transcripts make me dizzy. After reading all of them, I find it safe to say I think both sides should feel motivated to come up with a negotiated list. Chairman Bloch and the committee are the mediators, so I think they did a good job in indicating where they wanted movement from the two sides. I think it would be a good idea for everyone to read the transcripts, especially the ones from 11/17. Fascinating stuff. Good luck to us all. May we all be equally upset. :o

Ya know. Those transcripts make me dizzy. After reading all of them, I find it safe to say I think both sides should feel motivated to come up with a negotiated list. Chairman Bloch and the committee are the mediators, so I think they did a good job in indicating where they wanted movement from the two sides. I think it would be a good idea for everyone to read the transcripts, especially the ones from 11/17. Fascinating stuff. Good luck to us all. May we all be equally upset. :o

One's perspective surely makes for an interesting dialogue doesn't it?

May we all be equally upset. :o

A "fair" list could well produce that result. The arguments will not end, but shift to the issue of who has the better reasons for being upset. :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone doubts your goal, and on the surface it looks great. We have the same goals, a win win. We've said that from the start. The problem is how to get there. The proposal you guys don't seem to want to move from is great on day one. By year 5, not so good for us and by year 10 most of the positions in the upper 1/3 are all premerger Delta guys. It all goes back to demographics, we are older than you guys.

We have argued how to get to what we both want since April. Please don't make it sound like it's easy and all we need to do is "listen to you" or "trust us".

FerdFerd,

Although the demographics do certainly impact the list negatively for pre NWA guys, not everything can or should be accounted for in an SLI. I know this sounds selfishly slanted towards us, but when you got hired at your airline and how OLD you were when hired are some of those "career determiners" that one can't control. Where you sit on your list percentage wise is the most important factor, imo, to figuring out an SLI. You would essentially be punishing pre Delta guys for being younger than "same % pre NWA guys who happen to be older. Now I know the ramifications can be HUGE for pre NWA guys but how do you justify this "age discrimination" of younger pre Delta guys. Clearly the major hurdle in any static, ratio list, which they seem to be leaning towards.

Cog

This just proves that everyone perceives things the way they want. What about when our attorney pointed that relative seniority from ten years from now would be a major windfall for the real delta guys and Bloch stated "we would not be interested in a result like that."

As much as you guys keep saying you want a fair list, the only thing I've heard from any dal guy suggest is that relative seniority by category with a static list is the only fair way to go. Not one of you has offered up a compromise or even suggested that you're willing to move off of that.

I will have so much more respect for you if you just come out and be honest and say, "Hey, we know that this would be a major windfall for us dal guys and yes we do want gains at your expense but you know what, in ten years the real delta pilots will outnumber the nwa guys by 6 to 1. So, deal with it."

So, the presentations are over and it does not look like there will be any further discussions between the two groups yielding to the likelyhood that this list will be decided by a third party. Becareful what you wish for! You may get ........

This just proves that everyone perceives things the way they want. What about when our attorney pointed that relative seniority from ten years from now would be a major windfall for the real delta guys and Bloch stated "we would not be interested in a result like that."

As much as you guys keep saying you want a fair list, the only thing I've heard from any dal guy suggest is that relative seniority by category with a static list is the only fair way to go. Not one of you has offered up a compromise or even suggested that you're willing to move off of that.

I will have so much more respect for you if you just come out and be honest and say, "Hey, we know that this would be a major windfall for us dal guys and yes we do want gains at your expense but you know what, in ten years the real delta pilots will outnumber the nwa guys by 6 to 1. So, deal with it."

So, the presentations are over and it does not look like there will be any further discussions between the two groups yielding to the likelyhood that this list will be decided by a third party. Becareful what you wish for! You may get ........

Well said.

I will have so much more respect for you if you just come out and be honest and say, "Hey, we know that this would be a major windfall for us dal guys and yes we do want gains at your expense but you know what, in ten years the real delta pilots will outnumber the nwa guys by 6 to 1. So, deal with it."



Believe it or not we don't want what you have, we want to keep as much as possible what we enjoy now. Most here see the best case outcome as neutral at best while we move backward on our larger equipment, down the list bid after bid in our bases, see our upgrades move farther away, and see DC-9s, DTW and MSP in our future. No one here is chomping at the bit to rook you out of a few earlier retirements, despite what you may think. It is pretty obvious our versions of what is fair is completely different which is why we're where we are.

Hawaii,

Your sentiments maybe well felt by many, however, your Dal mec position is different. By not moving off of relative seniority by category with a static list it will be a total windfall for dal guys. You, and many like you, may feel differently from your mec but that is your mec position. If your proposal is what is awarded you need not worry about seeing any dc-9 or dtw/msp but rather when do you want to bid the 330 or the 400.

So, will you be the first to express what you think would be a fair middle ground? Fences/dynamics, what type of ratio etc.

Hey, let me go on record and say on a public forum I'm a 96 hire at nwa who would have finished in the top 100 on the nwa list, however, for the sake of cohesion/unity I don't want date of hire and I'm willing to meet in the middle. Under the Dal proposal I would end around 1800 so, why not create a list that splits the difference. Are there any Dal guys willing to split the difference. If so please speak up. If not, then please just admit you want the windfall and be honest about it.

Hawaii,

Your sentiments maybe well felt by many, however, your Dal mec position is different. By not moving off of relative seniority by category with a static list it will be a total windfall for dal guys. You, and many like you, may feel differently from your mec but that is your mec position. If your proposal is what is awarded you need not worry about seeing any dc-9 or dtw/msp but rather when do you want to bid the 330 or the 400.

So, will you be the first to express what you think would be a fair middle ground? Fences/dynamics, what type of ratio etc.

Hey, let me go on record and say on a public forum I'm a 96 hire at nwa who would have finished in the top 100 on the nwa list, however, for the sake of cohesion/unity I don't want date of hire and I'm willing to meet in the middle. Under the Dal proposal I would end around 1800 so, why not create a list that splits the difference. Are there any Dal guys willing to split the difference. If so please speak up. If not, then please just admit you want the windfall and be honest about it.

They may not publicly have moved but there were weeks of negotiations throughout the process. By most accounts we were close to a static ratio agreement in the Spring and I believe that's what we'll end up with. Hopefully one that ends up taking everyone's issues into account.

Look at what we both have to bargain with. You have a greater number of retirements in the near term, some 787 orders, and an older fleet of generally lower paying equipment that we'll be exposed to. We have a larger higher paying fleet overall, 777, 737 orders, a larger number of retirements overall in the next 20 years, better pay rates, and not so arguably, better base choices. I think they put all of that in the blender and decide it comes out to a slight variation of the ratios discussed in the Spring with some 3-5 year fences.

All I can go on is what has been published, which is zero movement. But you maybe right that there has been movement behind the scenes. As for the next twenty years, well, heck all of the nwa guys will be gone. Not including the 130 new hires we only had 25 pilots under the age of forty as Jan 1st of 2008.

Everybody keeps talking about the 9 going away and let's be honest, it should go away. However, even though they wanted to phase it out when I was a new hire the problem is that the airplane is paid for, and there is a need for 100 seat jet, and now that fuel is lower they are considering pulling 30 out of the desert. So, if an old junker(sorry 9 guys) is still seemed profitable and viable even when oil was above a 100/barrel then why would Dal not find a replacement for it. Ergo, if the 9 does go away would it not be replaced?

Cooler bases/cooler airline/more airplanes that paymore etc. Okay, I'll accept that but however from the nwa side you get access to expansion in Asia that would never be available to Dal otherwise (and I know a lot of you have no idea how unbelievable are Nrt hub. Just go out there some day and see for yourself.) A lot of attrition/access to the 787 or if changed by RA a great deal to 777/worldwide investors/and the strongest partnerships in aviation right now.
And most importantly 5000 pilots that someday may liberate you from hats!

All I can go on is what has been published, which is zero movement. But you maybe right that there has been movement behind the scenes. As for the next twenty years, well, heck all of the nwa guys will be gone. Not including the 130 new hires we only had 25 pilots under the age of forty as Jan 1st of 2008.

Everybody keeps talking about the 9 going away and let's be honest, it should go away. However, even though they wanted to phase it out when I was a new hire the problem is that the airplane is paid for, and there is a need for 100 seat jet, and now that fuel is lower they are considering pulling 30 out of the desert. So, if an old junker(sorry 9 guys) is still seemed profitable and viable even when oil was above a 100/barrel then why would Dal not find a replacement for it. Ergo, if the 9 does go away would it not be replaced?

Cooler bases/cooler airline/more airplanes that paymore etc. Okay, I'll accept that but however from the nwa side you get access to expansion in Asia that would never be available to Dal otherwise (and I know a lot of you have no idea how unbelievable are Nrt hub. Just go out there some day and see for yourself.) A lot of attrition/access to the 787 or if changed by RA a great deal to 777/worldwide investors/and the strongest partnerships in aviation right now.
And most importantly 5000 pilots that someday may liberate you from hats!

I know Narita brings a lot of value to the combined company. The route structure of the combined company will be hard to beat. I'm flying the -ER now and love the European trips but honestly my goal is just to fly 757/767 Capt domestically. No desire to fly the ultra-long 777 legs we have to BFE. 3 25 hour 4 leg 4 days and call it a month.

The SLI is fun to debate and obviously stressful for most involved but it's out of our hands. Hopefully they come up with something we can all live with. Take care.

Ferd,

Although the demographics do certainly impact the list negatively for pre NWA guys, not everything can or should be accounted for in an SLI. I know this sounds selfishly slanted towards us, but when you got hired at your airline and how OLD you were when hired are some of those "career determiners" that one can't control. Where you sit on your list percentage wise is the most important factor, imo, to figuring out an SLI. You would essentially be punishing pre Delta guys for being younger than "same % pre NWA guys who happen to be older. Now I know the ramifications can be HUGE for pre NWA guys but how do you justify this "age discrimination" of younger pre Delta guys. Clearly the major hurdle in any static, ratio list, which they seem to be leaning towards.

Cog

Cog,
I understand what your saying, and I agree with the majority of what your saying. If you look at some of my earlier posts, I've always thought the ratio thing was the way to go, but what to do with the retirements. I've moved a little in that it should average 1.4ISH over the list but you know what I mean.

I've never claimed what you guys wanted to do was age discrimination. In fact, it struck me back in the fall that if we just could have done this prior to all your guys leaving that a) maybe they wouldn't have left :D (bad for you guys) and b) the list would have been easier from a demographics standpoint. But, if frogs could fly eh?

I agree with Check and New........the way I read the last day of transcripts, I think mediation was just a trick by Bloch to see what we REALLY were talking about. Then, when he got the chance "suggested" certain things he wanted discussed in open session so the board could play with them later.

Get your popcorn:eek:............

Ferd
PS Check your PM

Hawaii,

By not moving off of relative seniority by category with a static list it will be a total windfall for dal guys.

ALPA National's guidance on mergers recommends what? Maybe Im mistaken, I've been under the impression ALPA recommended Relative seniority. I had one of our DAL MEC guys on the jumpseat last week and that was his statement. In other words because of what ALPA National's guidance is, we can justify out list to the arbitrators, because we are following that guidance. His statement was something along the lines of DOH is not consistent with ALPA policy.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just wondering if I've been mis-informed.

Ferd,

I totally agree with your last paragraph, I do think that Bloch wanted to get certain thing put on the record for consideration under arbitration. And you're right......lets get the popcorn!!!!!!:D

Opus,

I think the Delta merger committee is arguing that some of the retirement attrition at NW is offset by the "balance of equities," such as access to larger, higher paying fleet of aircraft to name a couple. (There were others, I just don't feel like going thru the transcripts to I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's the justification.

As far as the Narita hub goes, I don't see anyone (other than in the arbitration hearings) trying to discount it. You are right, it does provide for growth opportunities. But you also have to realize there are plenty of growth opportunities coming from the Delta side also. Just look at the recent announcement of all the new international destinations to Africa, Europe, and, yes, Asia.

I truly believe that, in this case, 2+2=5 and that we will both be working for a stronger, more profitable company that can weather the storm of the economy better than we could seperately.

Hopefully this will all work out. And then, in the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along!" :D:D

Denny

Hey, let me go on record and say on a public forum I'm a 96 hire at nwa who would have finished in the top 100 on the nwa list, however, for the sake of cohesion/unity I don't want date of hire and I'm willing to meet in the middle. Under the Dal proposal I would end around 1800

I have really refrained from commenting on the continual chorus of " I will lose XX numbers" in this merger, but I would like to make a statement, and then ask a general question.

IF, we were merging more like the NWA/Republic merger where NWA brought ALL of the widebody flying, I think that your whole argument has merit. But.... many of the NWA guys like to say we are a merger of equals. IF that is a true statement, (which BTW I think is not entirely true since we have all that non super premium widebody flying that ya'll seem to poo poo AND that you do not have...) then why isn't relative seniority a just methodology? The thing is, since you will have (and I am making this number up) DOUBLE (I believe it to be way more) what you yourselves recognize as premium widebody flying, the relative seniority is probably more of an exponential factor when considering what your ability to hold and QOL will be when you would theoretically reach that "100" equivalent at the merged sompany. IOW, you will have access to more widebody flying for a longer period of time than you would at a stand alone NWA (or DAL). Orrrrrr.... is it that ya'll feel that the 747 is such a sexy airplane, and your whole life focuses on that single point in your life that is a million years away that you can't see the forest? Personally, I would look pretty good in a 747.. even throwing gear for awhile, but I am a 767ER captain, and unless this mess causes me to lose my seat, I am on my retirement airplane. (I am 48 years old... you can do the math) I have absolutely no intention of ever going to training of any type EVER again... so I'm not in your way. Want me to put it in writing? As soon as all the supposed pre-65 NWA retirees do... ya got it. :D SO I guess part of my point is that numbers don't necessarily matter when you look at the really big picture.

Fire away ya'll

[quote=Opus;501789]I will have so much more respect for you if you just come out and be honest and say, "Hey, we know that this would be a major windfall for us dal guys and yes we do want gains at your expense but you know what, in ten years the real delta pilots will outnumber the nwa guys by 6 to 1. So, deal with it."[quote]

Probably about the same as we sould feel if NWA would admit that creating slots with long term sick/disabled pilots is a windfall for you in your dynamic scheme. Nope.. no windfall there... :rolleyes: Will you admit that that is a seniority grab? I thought not.... So here we are.

Probably about the same as we sould feel if NWA would admit that creating slots with long term sick/disabled pilots is a windfall for you in your dynamic scheme. Nope.. no windfall there... :rolleyes: Will you admit that that is a seniority grab? I thought not.... So here we are.

Heyas TS,

I hate to throw water on your conspiracy theory there, but NWA and ALPA have ALWAYS maintained the seniority list with medically retired, long term sick, and other long term leave (personal, military, etc) pilots left exactly where they would be. As long as a pilot has a right to return (yes, even medically retired pilots have a right to return on the NWA PWA, if their condition is resolved), then they show up on the list.

I have known several pilots, who were medically retired, return to the line after their conditions improved after being told by doctors that they were done. In every case, I was glad to have them back.

I know that DAL shuffles them off to a separate DRP list or cuts them loose as soon as the opportunity permits them. Sucky way to do business, but don't take out on us.

Nu

When the lists are rationalized for seniority integration each side agrees to a method so that both lists are the same. NWA maintened the pilots as you mentioned on their list. There were however supposed to be removed for SLI purposes. It appears that many were not. They also produced data showing retirement rates for NWA pilots. It turns out many of the pilots they showed as retired are still working. When asked to produce their retirement data NWA used to construct their case they delayed producing the data despite multiple requests until the last possible moment. How or if this will be a factor with the arbitrators remains to be seen. Their goal should be a fair list so it should not have a bearing however one never knows.

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

NWA maintained the pilots as you mentioned on their list. There were however supposed to be removed for SLI purposes. It appears that many were not. They also produced data showing retirement rates for NWA pilots. It turns out many of the pilots they showed as retired are still working. When asked to produce their retirement data NWA used to construct their case they delayed producing the data despite multiple requests until the last possible moment.

In addition to all that, Dave Stevens "did not recall" when asked about being given a letter from NWA management indicating furloughs were likely. On the last day of the hearing, the DAL side produced the letter! Can anyone actually believe he "forgot" about receiving that letter? How do you guys elect people like this?

PG

okay all,

1) relative seniority by category is not alpa merger policy. (If you had bought jet blue in 2005 would still have advocated for relative seniority in mixing with them?)

2) How is it a seniority grab when I am willing to lose 900 seniority numbers?

3) The question I posed was what compromises are the dal guys willing to make. So far all I've read is justifications for your stand and arguments against our case. I am still throwing it out there. What compromises are you willing to make? If none just say it. No compromising. I'd respect that statement.

Pineapple,

This summer when oil went to 150 bl nwa, as it always has, looked at ways of reducing potential loses. Part of that was furlough. In lieu of that we agreed to fly less, offered partial leaves, and offered partial perps. (even though 114 pilots applied for early retirement they only extended the perp to 51 pilots.)

So, as a pilot group we adapted to the high price of oil and avoided having our junior guys furloughed. Our staffing is now controlled in ATL. So, I take it by your statements that once again you are going along with your mec premise that we are shrinking airline not bringing much to the table. If so, please.....

Opus,

I've been watching and I don't think you will ever get anyone to take you up on your offer. I think that's just how they roll.... :rolleyes:

I can't EVER remember seeing one Delta guy say, "let's just spilt the difference" or "let's take into account your retirements." Whatever their negotiator/MEC/lawyer's position seems to be their position. Period.

I agree with Ts's post, in that in the real world we are a lot alike. But, for some reason, on here we seem to be a little different. :confused:

New K Now

Hopefully this will all work out. And then, in the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along!" :D:D
Denny

Yeah we'll be fine! Even the reds and greens are nice to each other. They only talk smack about each other behind the other's backs. Just kidding, like TS says we're alike. Besides, if the Alaska rumors are true we'll have a common enemy to unite us in no time:D

Has any one heard, are the merger committees going to meet between now and the 8th like Bloch suggested?

I can't help but think one side is feeling better about how the winds are blowing with the committee and will want to talk...........and no, I don't know who.

Is it the 8th yet?

Ferd

new,

That's exactly it. I just want to hear someone say hey, this where we would compromise or just come out and admit that they want a windfall.

All I'm looking for is to stay on my equipment, at my base, with relative seniority to where I am now. I have a nice life and get my weekends off.

I don't want to fly 747s and I don't want to move. For 99.9% of the guys I fly with, that's their sentiment as well. No better, no worse would be fine with me.

All I'm looking for is to stay on my equipment, at my base, with relative seniority to where I am now. I have a nice life and get my weekends off.

I don't want to fly 747s and I don't want to move. For 99.9% of the guys I fly with, that's their sentiment as well. No better, no worse would be fine with me.
The I don't want to fly 747's and Idon't want to (you fill in the blanks here) is EXACTLY what the Republic pilots said prior to the final arbitration but what really happened? Every time an opening came on a 747 or anything else I might add a Republic guy filled it asap.... That statement carries no weight to the NWA pilots,"fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me." We definitely want to keep our large widebodies and feel a need to insure that through seniority.

----------------------

Ferd,

My gut feeling is neither side is going to call the other and we are in the waiting mode now until a decision is made.

As far as one side calling the other because they think it's leaning the other way, I think it's a big game of "chicken" right now and, unless the arbitrators call and say "hey the list is going to come out tomorrow at noon," both sides will continue down the current path. Neither side wants to be seen as "caving."

I, for one, am looking forward to the "Siapan tour" with an experienced guide!!:D

Denny

new,

That's exactly it. I just want to hear someone say hey, this where we would compromise or just come out and admit that they want a windfall.
Well, that's hard to do. First, attrition has never been used as an equity in an SLI integration. The NWA pilots want it, I understand why they deserve it and Chairman Bloch seems to want to give it to them. If so, Bloch wants to do something that has never been done before.

Most agree a Dynamic list is an impossibility and the attorneys suggest Delta Inc. would reject a dynamic list and send us right back to arbitration

So it is likely a static list will have to pre-load some advantage to the NWA side to compensate them.

But, that is giving NWA something better than status quo NOW to make up for attrition lost in the FUTURE.

We all know how well promises made by airline management hold up in the future.

Bloch proposes to break this thorny deadlock by pulling out a number of NWA pilots, pulling the other NWA pilots up into these slots, merging the lists by ratios, then adding the pulled out pilots back in where they would have been if not removed. The effect is to raise the entire NWA list as if the attrition had already happened.

Seems workable, but no one has ever done this, or has any experience with this, and nobody knows where Bloch might draw the line. The numbers he asked Delta to prepare were between 90 and 173. Understand 170 pull outs equals 340 pilots & everyone underneath them because we are talking about a slot held by two NWA pilots.

You'd have NWA DC9 drivers next to Delta 767ER guys. Is that a reasonable compromise? I'll admit that I do not know.

I, for one, am looking forward to the "Siapan tour" with an experienced guide!!:D

Denny

Denny,

Your on for Saipan! Look for either me or Big Mike. I give both the tour and the TOUR;). Sun screen, bring sun screen! Believe it or not (I didn't) but Guam/Saipan are actually south of Hawaii.

Ferd

The big deal about this is - - I'm almost convinced NWA got FUTURE retirements in play as a equity now.

On average the NWA pilots hired in younger and are younger than the Delta pilots. The Delta pilots will retire before the NWA pilots senior to them. At least in the classes of 2007 and 2008, it will be almost all Red pilots at the top 24 years from now.

Who'd have thought a merger of equals was just as difficult as any other merger?

Molon,

It's the first time I've heard someone comparing Delta to Republic as far as this merger goes!!!! I think you better take another look at what fleets we each bring to the table!!!

I'm sure that no NW pilot will want to fly any of the DL aircraft out of any of the DL bases because it's just kinda beneath'em!!!!:rolleyes::D

Denny

So, I take it by your statements that once again you are going along with your mec premise that we are shrinking airline not bringing much to the table. If so, please.....

Opus,

No, I'm not saying that at all. All I was doing was adding another point onto a previous post by stating your Master Chairman "did not recall" things that seem to me to be pretty hard to forget. It has nothing to do with who's shrinking and who's growing. It was about an apparent lack of ........ memory.

PG

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

Molon,

It's the first time I've heard someone comparing Delta to Republic as far as this merger goes!!!! I think you better take another look at what fleets we each bring to the table!!!

I'm sure that no NW pilot will want to fly any of the DL aircraft out of any of the DL bases because it's just kinda beneath'em!!!!:rolleyes::D

Denny
Denny I will try to forget that when I see you bid the 747-400, that "My 767-757 equals your 747" stuff will be most entertaining.

[QUOTE=Bucking Bar;502081]At least in the classes of 2007 and 2008, it will be almost all Red pilots at the top 24 years from now.QUOTE]

Actually, they will be blue pilots...red will be gone shortly...but more to your point....24 years from now? Get a life dude. delta may not exist 24 years from now! My career expectations? 2 paychecks a month........:cool:

new,

That's exactly it. I just want to hear someone say hey, this where we would compromise or just come out and admit that they want a windfall.

Opus,

What's scary is that if they think their list is fair for us what would they think would be unfair. Come on guys. On your proposed list, every NWA pilot has a Delta pilot being senior to him that was hired after him. Every one.

No that he is happy about it, but Bar is the only one who is admitting the possibility that the arbitrators may not accept the initial DALPA proposal. So, I would say he has come the closest in your search for a concession.

Maybe he can explain to me the methodology that they were forced to come up with for the.... Oh wait. He did. 173 here 100 back in there. It just makes me dizzy. :D

New Seniority List Now (Just kidding. I can wait.)

Opus,

Finally thought of a group of Delta pilots that agree completely with NWA's SLI position.

Delta has a handful of pilots who were transfers in from other Departments and Subsidiaries who began flying for Delta in 2007. They have hire dates anywhere from 1984 to 2005. I am sure they would be overjoyed with DOH integration.

If DOH were to happen, I'm sure someone would object to a junior 88FO going to the left seat of the Airbus. The law of unintended consequences always applies somewhere.

Maybe he can explain to me the methodology that they were forced to come up with for the.... Oh wait. He did. 173 here 100 back in there. It just makes me dizzy. :D

New Seniority List Now (Just kidding. I can wait.)Yeah the way I think it works is you order the NWA list. You pick a variable, say age >60 and that gives you 150 pilots. You pull them out of the NWA list as if they retired, but leave a little marker in that position. You allow the NWA guys to flow up into those vacant spots.

Then you merge with Delta using Delta's ratios, 7 to 5, whatever.

After the list is complete you put the 150 age 60 guys back in where their little markers are.

This tool is very powerful because really 300 positions are in play and everyone below them. It is more fair than just bumping all NWA up 300 numbers because the age 60+ crowd is not all at the top of the list. Some are in the middle and so only those pilots in the middle down benefit from their retirement.

With this tool the Arbitrator can pre-load retirement outcomes into a static list. Balance it with a fence to keep the NWA pilots from using their super seniority until the real retirements take effect.

It gives the NWA pilots super seniority from day one and lets Bloch look forward and see "purple" instead of big groupings of RED or BLUE in his charts.

Bloch seemed to really like this idea. He seemed to like using it on a static list created with Delta's ratios. But who knows his real intentions. It could be a red herring just to scare both sides into working it out so he does not have to.

Molon,

So we are comparable to Republic who had no widebodies and all we want is what you have.......give me a break.......you don't think NW guys are going to bid DL equipment and bases........gimme some of what you are smokin'!!! There are going to be people from both sides who crossover to equipment for a better QOL or for whatever reason they deem appropriate. But for you to basically say that Delta is just like the Republic and all we are after is your widebodies is shear paranoia!!! You have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

There has never been any comparison by any Delta guy or even our merger committee that the 747 and 767/757 are comparable capability wise.

As far as my personal situation, I'm a commuter and have commuted across country in the past way too much to even think about doing it again. I'm VERY happy with my current postion and will not even think of bidding off it for at least the next 5 years. The only way I will change will be if my equipment is re-based and then I will stay on the same equipment and just go to a different base.

Per your comment, I will expect you to never bid any of the Delta equipment or bases throughout your career because we don't bring anything to the merger that you might want to bid. I "know" now that the 747 is the be all and end all!!!! :rolleyes: Well you certainly do not have anything to worry about from me!!! I've got other priorities.

Have a good day.

Denny

If your intention was to get me wound around the axle.....you succeeded!!!:D

Denny I will try to forget that when I see you bid the 747-400, that "My 767-757 equals your 747" stuff will be most entertaining.

I'm sure you'll be equally magnanimous when the 742's get parked and Anchorage gets closed. Those 76ER's really aren't widebody flying, and those Delta bases suck....

and none of those DC9 drivers would dare bid that POS Boeing either! :D

It'll be entertaining and aggravating for all of us.

I'm sure you'll be equally magnanimous when the 742's get parked and Anchorage gets closed. Those 76ER's really aren't widebody flying, and those Delta bases suck....

and none of those DC9 drivers would dare bid that POS Boeing either! :D

It'll be entertaining and aggravating for all of us.

This DC-9 driver can't wait to bid a Boeing. I've been waiting my whole carreer to get to the left seat of the 757. :D

Oh, wait. I guess that means I have been bidding it all along. And the 747-200, and the 747-400, and the 787 (whatever hundred).... :rolleyes:

All I'm looking for is to stay on my equipment, at my base, with relative seniority to where I am now. I have a nice life and get my weekends off.

I don't want to fly 747s and I don't want to move. For 99.9% of the guys I fly with, that's their sentiment as well. No better, no worse would be fine with me.

I have been through two mergers and I can tell you that this is not true. Just at the NWA pilots keep telling us that the 550 NWA Pilots living in the SE don't want to fly out of Atlanta any Delta pilot saying he would not want to fly the 747 is also pulling someones leg. If they post a 747 bid for Atlanta it will go very senior. When NWA pilots can bid into ATL they will come in droves if there are openings. The same thing will happen in LA and SLC. It will happen in reverse in SEA with Delta pilots moving into that base in big numbers if spots open up.

Opus,

Finally thought of a group of Delta pilots that agree completely with NWA's SLI position.

Delta has a handful of pilots who were transfers in from other Departments and Subsidiaries who began flying for Delta in 2007. They have hire dates anywhere from 1984 to 2005. I am sure they would be overjoyed with DOH integration.

If DOH were to happen, I'm sure someone would object to a junior 88FO going to the left seat of the Airbus. The law of unintended consequences always applies somewhere.

This is not how a seniority list is merged even under a DOH system. There is never leap frogging allowed by pilots on their own lists. The first step in a integration is to rationalize each list with the same methods. This is where we account for how NWA and Delta deal with pilots on sick, disibility and leaves. You agree on a common method and apply that method to both lists. Then you go through the lists and give a constructive DOH to pilots who either via previous mergers or prior company service have DOH's that don't match their actual seniority. If the arbitrators award DOH it is the constructive DOH that would be used. Relative postion among pilots on your list does not change.

Sailingfun,

I can only speak for myself and I can say from purely a pilot career standpoint with no extenuating circumstances, flying the 747 would be at the apex of a career. But nobody lives in a vacuum and there are extenuating circumstances that will lead to alot of Delta pilots bypassing the opportunity to fly the 747 if it arises. (My self included here)

Now, if a SEA base opens on the 76er, all bets are off!!!!:D:D I think VERY senior guys will come out of the woodwork for that!!!

Denny

Denny, Sailing,

Thank you for being honest. You now have my respect!

This is not how a seniority list is merged even under a DOH system. There is never leap frogging allowed by pilots on their own lists. The first step in a integration is to rationalize each list with the same methods. This is where we account for how NWA and Delta deal with pilots on sick, disibility and leaves. My post was intended as a joke. But since you point it out, at final rebuttal there was no agreement at all on "accounting for how NWA and Delta deal with pilots on sick, disibility and leaves." Either NWA was dishonest, or ill prepared. Either way, it concerns me that Bloch and the Panel might be going into the preparation of the list with bad data.

That casts a cloud of illegitimacy on the whole process. Their work can only be as good as the data provided and it requires the upmost good faith from both sides.

I'd almost prefer management do the SLI. You know the outcome would be status quo simply because they don't want to incur the expense of training pilots.

.








quote]

Sailingfun,

I can only speak for myself and I can say from purely a pilot career standpoint with no extenuating circumstances, flying the 747 would be at the apex of a career. But nobody lives in a vacuum and there are extenuating circumstances that will lead to alot of Delta pilots bypassing the opportunity to fly the 747 if it arises. (My self included here)

Now, if a SEA base opens on the 76er, all bets are off!!!!:D:D I think VERY senior guys will come out of the woodwork for that!!!

Denny

Denny, the apex of a career humm! anyway yes I did work at getting you wrapped around the axel, I have watched Carl Spakler and decided I couldn't let him have all the fun! This was better than chasing a cat with a vacume cleaner! I will see what other buttons I can push later LOL!
By the way I may someday have to go slumming and bid the ER if they put it in SEA. Always fun to hear from you... Molon Labe!

Molon,

I should have added 777 along with the 747 for the apex comment. But, like I said, there are many factors that determine what one bids.

If we do get an ER base in SEA, and I can hold it (big question!!!!), maybe I'll see you there because I'll be the one wearing a big sign on my back that says CHUMP!!!:D:D

Denny

It's nice to see a guy with a sense of humor Denny, the first 2 rounds are on me. Molon Labe!

the thing is it won't necessarily be Nwa pilots just switching to dal bases for the bases themselves, it will be Nwa pilots switching to dal bases because that's where the Nwa planes will be moving to and vice versa. Cheers guys

I'd almost prefer management do the SLI. You know the outcome would be status quo simply because they don't want to incur the expense of training pilots.

As a new Delta pilot, fitted and looking forward to my Delta uniform, I'm just curious where can you get the Kool Aid that you drink? Is there a special rate and if so is it automaticly deducted from your paycheck?:D

the thing is it won't necessarily be Nwa pilots just switching to dal bases for the bases themselves, it will be Nwa pilots switching to dal bases because that's where the Nwa planes will be moving to and vice versa. Cheers guys

Your statement is correct however you neglect the demographics of the combined pilot group. Over time ATL, LAX, SLC, SEA will grow more senior and DET and MSP will get more junior. The pilots who will lose the most will be LAX and ATL pilots. There are large numbers of NWA pilots living in those areas. The difference is on the order of 20 to 1 verses Delta pilots living near MSP and DET. SEA will see a influx of Delta pilots since there used to be a base there and a lot of Delta pilots still live there. The Base however is so small that no large shift can occur unless they expand it. 5 to 10 years from now there will be 3 very junior bases at the new Delta. They will be DET, MSP and NYC. On a comparative basis ATL and LAX will be considerably more senior then today and SLC will be somewhat more senior. SEA will always be senior unless a huge amount of flying is posted there.

As a new Delta pilot, fitted and looking forward to my Delta uniform, I'm just curious where can you get the Kool Aid that you drink? Is there a special rate and if so is it automaticly deducted from your paycheck?:D

When the time is right, you will be issued your management mandated allotment of kool-aid. And don't worry, they will collect payment soon enough.

SEA will always be senior unless a huge amount of flying is posted there.

Lets just buy Alaska Air and solve our Seattle problem. That way there is enough Seattle for everyone. Plus we wont lose Anchorage.

Your statement is correct however you neglect the demographics of the combined pilot group. Over time ATL, LAX, SLC, SEA will grow more senior and DET and MSP will get more junior. The pilots who will lose the most will be LAX and ATL pilots. There are large numbers of NWA pilots living in those areas. The difference is on the order of 20 to 1 verses Delta pilots living near MSP and DET. SEA will see a influx of Delta pilots since there used to be a base there and a lot of Delta pilots still live there. The Base however is so small that no large shift can occur unless they expand it. 5 to 10 years from now there will be 3 very junior bases at the new Delta. They will be DET, MSP and NYC. On a comparative basis ATL and LAX will be considerably more senior then today and SLC will be somewhat more senior. SEA will always be senior unless a huge amount of flying is posted there.

Would care to post the survey you taken? You know, since you seem to know where everyone lives, where they'll move to, and which base everyone wants. :rolleyes:

When the time is right, you will be issued your management mandated allotment of kool-aid. And don't worry, they will collect payment soon enough.

Actually, Kool-Aid is no longer distributed as a liquid due to economic considerations. Currently DAL issues said allotment of Kool-Aid via "distance learning," i.e., a DVD that you'll find in your v-file at the CPO.

Be assured that you will be charged for the distribution of said DVD in advance of its release, and the charge will be deducted directly from your paycheck.

Welcome aboard boys!

I know where they live because the MEC has all that information. Ask your reps. There are 550 NWA pilots living in the SE. There are less then 50 Delta pilots living in the MSP/DTW area. Having been through two mergers pilots will fly out of the base thats most advantagous to them. If a NWA Airbus320 CA living in FL and flying out of DTW can bid to Atlanta as a senior international Captain on the 767 (He can if the merger goes DOH) and make more money working fewer days I can assure you the vast majority will due so.

I know where they live because the MEC has all that information. Ask your reps. There are 550 NWA pilots living in the SE. There are less then 50 Delta pilots living in the MSP/DTW area. Having been through two mergers pilots will fly out of the base thats most advantagous to them. If a NWA Airbus320 CA living in FL and flying out of DTW can bid to Atlanta as a senior international Captain on the 767 (He can if the merger goes DOH) and make more money working fewer days I can assure you the vast majority will due so.

What's the NWA population look like in the CA, AZ, NV area?

What's the NWA population look like in the CA, AZ, NV area?

Ugly and fat.. just like the rest of us... They'll fit right in.

Ugly and fat.. just like the rest of us... They'll fit right in.

Nice. I agree. What was I thinking?

What's the NWA population look like in the CA, AZ, NV area?

About 250 in So Cal.

There are 550 NWA pilots living in the SE. There are less then 50 Delta pilots living in the MSP/DTW area.That's the best news I've had all week. Stay away from MSP, waaaaaay too cold, QOL sucks, schools suck, nobody in their right mind would live there.:D

I'm one of those 550 in the SE. I could drive to Atlanta if I had to (about 5 hours), but if I ended up based in Atlanta I would normally fly to get there. With that being the case I'm pretty sure I'll stay with my job in DTW, because I think my seniority (whatever it ends up being) will mean more there. If you have to get on a flight to get to your base, you might as well go where your seniority gets you the best bidding power.

test123456

I like this idea, maybe a drinking competition. Remember Raiders of the Lost Arc where Miriam went shot for shot with that Huge Nepalese guy. Thats is how we'll organize the SLI. Last man standing is Captain of the 747, first guy down is FO 767 NYC.

Oh, I like it. How sweet it will be for me to be a SEA based 777 Captain.

here's an idea. It's not mine, I heard it a few years back.

Line up all the pilots at a starting line. Put several aircraft of each type several hundred yards away in decending size order: 747, 777, 330 etc. On the word "Go," start running. Everyone who makes it to a seat on the left side of a plane is a captain, you get a seat on the right, FO. Anyone running for a building will be shot by snipers because they'll be considered managment wannabes.

test123456

How dare you say that.

That's the best news I've had all week. Stay away from MSP, waaaaaay too cold, QOL sucks, schools suck, nobody in their right mind would live there.:D

I think you'll be the big beneficiary of this whole thing. MSP, while a nice town, is not most people's cup of tea. It'll most likely go very junior as the commuters find places closer to home.

here's an idea. It's not mine, I heard it a few years back.

Line up all the pilots at a starting line. Put several aircraft of each type several hundred yards away in decending size order: 747, 777, 330 etc. On the word "Go," start running. Everyone who makes it to a seat on the left side of a plane is a captain, you get a seat on the right, FO. Anyone running for a building will be shot by snipers because they'll be considered managment wannabes.

How bout the group of us who stop in the galley for coffee, slap the flight attendant on the ass and make crude jokes? CHIEF PILOT?

How bout the group of us who stop in the galley for coffee, slap the flight attendant on the ass and make crude jokes? CHIEF PILOT?


Probably not but I would drink with you

How bout the group of us who stop in the galley for coffee, slap the flight attendant on the ass and make crude jokes? CHIEF PILOT?

I'm just impressed you found a flight attendent that you wanted to slap on the ass. It was a female ......right?

I'm just impressed you found a flight attendent that you wanted to slap on the ass. It was a female ......right?

It was a large and easy target... :rolleyes:

/ducks

How bout the group of us who stop in the galley for coffee, slap the flight attendant on the ass and make crude jokes? CHIEF PILOT?

How about during the flight attendant briefings, asking them what kind of signal they would prefer to prepare the cabin for landing:

Two short dings...or one long dong?

Carl

I know where they live because the MEC has all that information. Ask your reps. There are 550 NWA pilots living in the SE. There are less then 50 Delta pilots living in the MSP/DTW area. Having been through two mergers pilots will fly out of the base thats most advantagous to them. If a NWA Airbus320 CA living in FL and flying out of DTW can bid to Atlanta as a senior international Captain on the 767 (He can if the merger goes DOH) and make more money working fewer days I can assure you the vast majority will due so.
I am one of those guys living in the southeast. I have to disagree that all of us will come flocking to ATL. I go where my airplane goes. I followed it to DTW form JFK. If the 400 is based in ATL, I will be in ATL. Besides ATL being probably your biggest base if all 550 NWA guys went there, It probably woulddn't have that big effect anyway. If you had the seniority of all those guys, it would probably be across the board from junior to senior. So most guys will stay with their airplane truth be known. Sure, over time there will be guys bidding into ATL but not everyone at once that is impossible. The sky is falling according to you guys. I'd be willing to bet a few beers that things will be status quo for a while and none of us have any control over what airplane goes where, what airplane shows up on the property, what base is closed, what base is expanded or contracted, and what airplane is parked. It is not the fault of any pilot group what happens from here on out. If I could have had it my way, ther would have been no merger for me but I have no say in the matter. I was hired by Delta in Sep 85 and would have a number in the high 200s had I come there. But because I had been a NWA for 4 days their policy was not to hire from another major. That's life just like the merger is life and the SLI will be life. So you can let it eat at you from now on or just get on with it. Simply put THAT"S LIFE!!! My cup is half full and hope to fill it up to the brim. I hope everyone else fills to the brim as well. Good luck to us all.

keenster

I am one of those guys living in the southeast. I have to disagree that all of us will come flocking to ATL. I go where my airplane goes. I followed it to DTW form JFK. If the 400 is based in ATL, I will be in ATL. Besides ATL being probably your biggest base if all 550 NWA guys went there, It probably woulddn't have that big effect anyway. If you had the seniority of all those guys, it would probably be across the board from junior to senior. So most guys will stay with their airplane truth be known. Sure, over time there will be guys bidding into ATL but not everyone at once that is impossible. The sky is falling according to you guys. I'd be willing to bet a few beers that things will be status quo for a while and none of us have any control over what airplane goes where, what airplane shows up on the property, what base is closed, what base is expanded or contracted, and what airplane is parked. It is not the fault of any pilot group what happens from here on out. If I could have had it my way, ther would have been no merger for me but I have no say in the matter. I was hired by Delta in Sep 85 and would have a number in the high 200s had I come there. But because I had been a NWA for 4 days their policy was not to hire from another major. That's life just like the merger is life and the SLI will be life. So you can let it eat at you from now on or just get on with it. Simply put THAT"S LIFE!!! My cup is half full and hope to fill it up to the brim. I hope everyone else fills to the brim as well. Good luck to us all.

keenster

Good post but upgrade already will ya. :)

Good post but upgrade already will ya. :)
Was hopeing to upgrade to widebody captian soon because I was getting close. Who knows where I will be after the list comes out. Been waiting 23 years to get there and now I am looking at 1800 DAL guys that may be going in front of me that were hired after me and for the most part are younger than me. Depending on the outcome these guys will be in front of me for the rest of my career and may be able to bid the slots coming open in front of me due to NWA retirements. Since this thing started about 250 NWA guys have left but I don't even know if I will benefit from those retirements, I sure hope so. I guess that's life, but we don't know yet do we. Don't care to fly 757, I am happy flying international.

Keenster

Was hopeing to upgrade to widebody captian soon because I was getting close. Who knows where I will be after the list comes out. Been waiting 23 years to get there and now I am looking at 1800 DAL guys that may be going in front of me that were hired after me and for the most part are younger than me. Depending on the outcome these guys will be in front of me for the rest of my career and may be able to bid the slots coming open in front of me due to NWA retirements. Since this thing started about 250 NWA guys have left but I don't even know if I will benefit from those retirements, I sure hope so. I guess that's life, but we don't know yet do we. Don't care to fly 757, I am happy flying international.

Keenster

That's the great part about this job, there's something for everyone. I'm personally hoping for some medium fences to keep staus quo for a while and allow guys that were close to upgrading on a particular piece of equipment and base (me too) to do it reasonably close to when they had planned. I'd really hate to see the company have the freedom to move planes and bases at will while our heads are still spinning from combining the lists. Best of luck to you.

Best of luck to you we are along for the ride!!!

keenster

Best of luck Keenster! Sooner or later some of the waterfoul will retire and make room for us on the airplanes we brought to the last merger!

Spoken so well Molon.

Best of luck Keenster! Sooner or later some of the waterfoul will retire and make room for us on the airplanes we brought to the last merger!

I thought Innerbichler got hired after the Republic merger?:D

Yeah, where has he been? I have not seen him on FI for some time.

and now I am looking at 1800 DAL guys that may be going in front of me that were hired after me and for the most part are younger than me.

Give it a rest. Weren't you the one that JUST posted... get on with it? Nice flamebait Keenster.... and I couldn't resist. sheeesh

Easy Tsquare, his post very very positive.

I thought Innerbichler got hired after the Republic merger?:D
Well the aforementioned is definitely foul but he isn't in the way of Keenster or yours truly to any airplanes that we flew before the last merger.....By the way I wonder if it is true that he has worn a Delta uni before.

Did not mean it in a flamebait way. Just expalining why I have not upgraded and may not be able to in the future. I don't call stating the facts of your proposed list flameaiting nor would I call you a flamebaiter by stating the facts of our proposal. Obviously I have hit a nerve here possibly. Reverse the position, you probably would be having a fit if nwa guys with a junoir date of hire were going in front of you, but that is not a possiblilty for you is it. Anyway no offense meant by my post, it is just a statement of exactly what Me -all myself, and I am facing.

buy you a beer somewhere

keenster

767er Capt

Guess you already have your widebody capt seat. Glad for you. My appologies if I have offended you. Oh yes I agree get on with it.

keenster

Did not mean it in a flamebait way. Just expalining why I have not upgraded and may not be able to in the future. I don't call stating the facts of your proposed list flameaiting nor would I call you a flamebaiter by stating the facts of our proposal. Obviously I have hit a nerve here possibly. Reverse the position, you probably would be having a fit if nwa guys with a junoir date of hire were going in front of you, but that is not a possiblilty for you is it. Anyway no offense meant by my post, it is just a statement of exactly what Me -all myself, and I am facing.

buy you a beer somewhere

keenster

I'm not gonna get dragged into this... and I'll accept the beer.

767er Capt

Guess you already have your widebody capt seat. Glad for you. My appologies if I have offended you. Oh yes I agree get on with it.

keenster

Naaaaah, it's just a 767ER. :rolleyes: And I am sure that regardless of how this turns out, you will be able to hold it too. I just hope you can't bump me out.. IF you can stoop to flying non-premium widebody airplanes...

Well, I sure don't want to bump you out. That would not be right. Hopefully no one bumps anyone in this deal. Anyone hoping to bump someone is looking for personal gain at the expense of someone else. All I want out of this deal is the same chance that I had after waiting 23 years to get my shot at a 330 capt seat before the merger occurred. That basically means getting to move up into those seats as a NWA guys retires. Not really looking or expecting to get a widebody seat out of the Delta side of the equation. However, it would be nice to share the growth(above and beyond what flying both sides bought ot the table) in all widebody seats that results from this merger on a 1 for 1 basis. But that growth will probably turn into a big argument. So, I don't think that trying to keep the forward movement that I had before when a NWA guy leaves( and about 250 have gone since this started) is asking a whole lot. We will see. As for what is fair on the new SLI, that will all ways remain a tough deal. No side will see that the other side got a bad or a good deal, this is my guess. I could be wrong. I would like to see them go right down the middle of the 2 proposals. I think that way it would be well, I lost but not as bad as it could have been.

Tomorrow will tell and good luck to all of us. We have bigger fish to fry in the future.

Keenster

Tomorrow will tell and good luck to all of us. We have bigger fish to fry in the future.

Keenster

You are a good man, I don't care what Carl says about you :). Hopefully we can really get down to the task of restoring this profession to where it once was.. regardless of who is in the White House... or at the head of ALPA...