Yep. That was one of the excuses from my reps as well. Of course, they also defended what he said. :eek:

^^^^^^^SHACK!!!!^^^^^^
Why don't our reps get this? Seems the NC is just jonesing and needs a fix. Just say NO! and step away.

Agreed. Something makes me think this will be dirty. Very dirty.

Is the fence still up for this AE ?

TSquare,

As with all history, the reality was very nuanced. Most of what Lee Moak did served us well. Overall, our profession is in much better shape than when he first took office.

Lee Moak has a tremendously effective political machine; smart, loyal, they are disciplined. I do not know where the decision making core is, but once the decision is made execution is done so quickly and quietly that by the time we here pick up on it, "the deal is all done but the shoutin'. " I respect the machine and nearly to a person, they are good folks. They know how to work together.

Reformists can not take the machine head on and survive, politically. We are too fragmented, too independent, we lack the homogeneity of the Moak machine. The current reality is that a reform minded person must get themselves elected then try to remain relevant so as to influence the end result. A few Reps blow up on occasion, but do they win the issues? I can't think of a time the "blaze of glory" approach worked.

As for the DPA, it was never about fixing ALPA. Decertification campaigns are designed to replace the union, not fix it. Worse, the DPA had no real interest in fact, or historical accuracy; they just wanted mud to throw at ALPA. Since the mud wasn't real, it did not stick. Emotions waned in a season.

My point though is that if the company needs this, then we should get something out of it. And not just the 747 guys. It is not worth anything to you and me to not have them displaced. No. Why? Because the guys they are gonna offer this to are probably 63+. So they can leave at any time they want with more retirement than any of the rest of us will see. But yet they somehow need to be incentivized. Why? Time marches on. By the time they are actually looking at going out the door, I'll betcha the vast majority will be 64 anyway. What if they get displaced and have to go to training? So what. They will be gone in a year or two anyway. It costs the company money to displace and train them. The company needs this, you and I do not. But if the company/MEC is going to sweeten the pot for them, they damned well better sweeten it for me and you.

I should not touch this subject for fear of being incorrectly labelled a N/S advocate/hater/whatever .... but ...

Wouldn't this yet again be compensation targeting one pre merger group and not the other?

As a very junior guy all of this is happening in the clouds over Mount Olympus from my view ... but you are right about the 777 driver (or even 737 driver, damn that thing is senior for no obvious reason).

Is there anything in the PWA that prevents targeted early-retirement programs?

You summed it up nicely. If, as Sailing said, we have to be a part of this because the company can't unilaterally offer incentives to a specific group then it should be seen as a "give" from us and we should get something back. But I have no faith anyone involved in these discussions would look at it in that light. If money is leaving the Delta coffers to get this to happen it's viewed as going toward the entire pilot group when in fact only a minuscule number are benefiting. That money may not have been earmarked for the entire pilot group, but after all is said and done it will be considered to have gone toward pilot costs and those who are sitting in some good senior spots will have done even better with the parting gift. I'm all for doing as well as you can and do not begrudge the super senior for what they get and where they are. But I do take issue with their benefitting at the rest of the group's expense, especially when (as you pointed out) it won't make any difference to those who are still here by the time they depart.

While NW was the launch customer for the 747-400, the ones being parked immediately are not the oldest. They are not the ones with the worst MX histories, they are being parked due to lease negotiations. 6311,6312 and 6316, two are mid aged, maybe 20 years old. 6316 was delivered in the 2003 time frame. The sole "old plane" 6301, is being used as a spare until the end of the year.

As a bit of 744 trivia, 6301 was the first 747 produced, but was not delivered to NWA for several years. it was leased back by Boeing for testing. 6302 was delivered in 1988.

I too suspected they were playing hardball with the leasors. the bankruptcy saw amazing rate reductions. Some of those leases are up for renegotiations. I think that the lessor called our bluff... negotiations are only as strong as your willingness to walk away from a deal.