DOHHH!!!

Carl

Well it does look like NWA bought us with our own money ;)

Look at the majority of the management team.

Now that is the sad facts, isn't it.

At least now I understand what you base your statement on. I thought that you were suggesting the S side "won" in the sense that it got more than was fair, or that the N side "lost" because it failed to be given a fair outcome.

In my mind, the fact that the arbitrators chose not to go with a DOH ruling was not a victory, but simply an affirmation that such a ruling could not possibly be right, or fair. If two people hired on the same day have different careers, and different progressions, it is the result of their individual path, and their particular, for lack of a better term, destiny. There is nothing in our way of life that says two people who ended up in vastly different positions at two different companies need to have their actual progression reset, and artifically equalized based on date of hire and their expectations. If any two companies merge, they place VP's next to VP's, not VP's next to managers that expected to be VP's, based on hire dates. Nobody on the S side is responsible for the career progression of anyone on the N side being slower.

So everyone did OK, and everyone got some of their arguments considered. While the arbitrator didn't chose either of your two proposed methodologies, they used your snapshot date, and gave you unprecedented credit for future advancement. Good for you.

On this side, we do not feel that we won anything. We see that we will be placed next to someone who enjoyed a tremendous raise (my contemporaries got a jump of several years in longevity, plus our payrates), and can now compete with someone who is ahead several categories in terms of aircraft/pay. Nobody begrudges that, because, in theory, over time, our career progression would be slightly better in terms of % with the merger than without. The fact that there is now a lower % of desireable aircraft blurrs the equation a little, but overall, we all hope our lives will be a little better with the merger, than without.

If any victory occurs, it won't be one side prevailing over another, but the airline prevailing over others. Let's hope for that.

Gotta give RA credit though, talking to a buddy that him on a flight today out of a DALN hub, he came up to say hi, he wore jeans and he sat in coach.

I think it'd be funny to start a conversation with your seat neighbor only to find out he was the CEO. I once told a guy at a BBQ restaurant in Auburn (land of hot coeds) that this place was not as good as another BBQ place down the street, he of course turned out to be the owner.

Well, you sure got a point there.

Carl

Ok. I'm going to say that the NWA/DAL merger is complete. A south guy has told a north guy he loved him. Father/son brother/brother combinations at Us airways haven't done that since their merger. :D.

Land Of Hot Coeds..That should be on the Welcome to Auburn sign!!!!

for some laughs, go check out FML: Your everyday life stories

You are correct. In a legal proceeding, there is always a winner and a loser. The DAL-S proposal was chosen in large part. Nothing in the DAL-N proposal was chosen.

While I understand that it could not possibly be right in your mind, that is exactly what was done with our previous merger. NWA purchased Republic Airlines for $880 million in cash. The 2 airlines had a totally different fleet - one mostly large, and one mostly small. The arbitrator chose straight Date of Hire.

The credit for future advancement (pull and plug) is the only thing that was given to the DAL-N side. Many on this board said that it would take forever for those 270+ guys to actually retire because of age 65, and the fact that nobody in their right minds would want to retire from the new Delta. One PRIP later (plus the normal retirements we've had), and all 270 are gone. Before SOC. And as such, the only advantage given to the DAL-N pilots is now gone.

I understand that. It is human nature. The DAL-N side lost the legal battle in arbitration...period. You'd have to be suckin the crack pipe 24-7 to think we won the legal battle. All I'm saying is that it's tough to listen to the side that beat you in court, complain about the one bread crumb that was thrown to the losing side. It's kind of like having the ball spiked in your face in the end zone.

Hope that makes sense.

Carl