Yes, Alaska actually brings good stuff to the table relative to its size. The problem for an Alaska merger is that it comes after the NWA merger, fleet rationalization and displacements which are proving painful.

Not that you have to be understanding, but do understand that the pain of the NWA merger is just starting to be felt and some are going to spout off at you because they feel they got screwed two years ago. Make any sense? No, not really. But that is how it is.

FF - I can only speak for myself, but at least as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Each person's situation is different. Believe it or not, I loved the regional I was at before I came to Delta. I was making good money (more than I'm making now, in fact), I was in the top 30% of the seniority list, I was flying all over North America (I haven't yet made it West of the Mississippi at Delta), and I had a lot of friends there. For many years, I considered staying there - in fact, MANY of my coworkers turned down a flow-through to a WB Intl Major and stayed at my previous regional. I decided that it was my long held dream to fly WB International, so I left and came to Delta.

I grew up on the East Coast, and I plan to stay on the East Coast. I have never had any desire to commute to work. I have no doubt that Alaska is a wonderful company and a great place to work - I've heard terrific things about it. But I didn't apply there, nor would I ever have applied to Alaska, simply because they didn't offer what I was looking for - a NYC base and WB Intl flying. I'm not speaking for everyone - but my situation is not "hooey."


I'm sorry if my post - or any of my fellow coworkers' posts - have made you feel like we would view any Alaska pilot as a redheaded stepchild. That is certainly not my feeling or intent. I agree with you that we would be working as one team - and I would be happy and welcoming of the opportunity. But just as many of us would like to fence some of our WB Intl flying for a time, Delta has a lot of West Coast based pilots that I'm sure would be MORE than happy to jump on Alaska's LAX and SEA bases as well as those Maui overnights at the first opportunity. :) All I'm simply saying, is that there ought to be some fences protecting each pilot group - NOT lifetime fences, or even 20 year fences like NWA had - just 5 to 10 years like what DAL/NWA did with the 777 and 747, but perhaps extended to the 7ER, 765, etc. I would also fight for an Alaska fence, to protect that flying from us as well. I can't imagine that the junior Alaska pilots would enjoy being displaced to the Maddog out of NYC. Heck, most of our own pilots don't even want it! :D

E1Out,

How many Dal south guys were bumped out of a WB seat by Dal north pilots on your last bid? Was the migration to ATL as bad as some projected? I'm just curious how things turned out.

Can we call him "Tight" or "Tonka" for short? If you know Des, either one of those might be even better that the original!

Eye of....

Lost my "vente" WB seat for a "grande". It had more to do with moving half my category to NY, but the N guys that slid in may have made the difference in hanging on as the plug.

It makes no sense at all, and those "entitlement" mentality guys need to get over themselves, imo.

"Pain of the NWA merger"....right.:rolleyes:

Imagine where you would have been without $2 billion in Amex cash, $700 million in synergies (half of which was duplicate management elimination), route and currency diversification, and an increased revenue premium to the industry (though still not where it should be vis a vis our competitors). You think you would have survived without "pain" as a new hire at a standalone Delta or NWA with a 45% drop in revenue during the summer of 2009? How about with oil at $140 the year before. H1N1? Japan Open Skies? Not likely.

I personally am tired of the whining. I'm tired of the entitlement mentality. I'm tired of the ignorance and revision of history. Not that you have to be understanding of my fatigue, but I challenge some here to look in the mirror and see if they see a reflection of reality. "I got screwed..."
Yeah, right...:mad: Your butt got saved, and that's both premerger groups.

If you're looking at pure north/south moves (meaning base AND equipment, not SLC M88 to MSP M88 or MSP 320 to SLC 320), then there were 228 South pilots that moved to North bases and equipment and 227 North pilots that moved to South bases and equipment. There will be a slight change to these numbers when the bid error for frozen categories is finally corrected (approximately 20 guys, with about 60 trickle downs), but it shouldn't change the ratio substantially.

The seniority list worked as a seniority list should.

Slo,
I believe we went from a 30 Billion dollar company to 24 billion during 2009..... that about a 20% drop in revenue (not 45%). The Amex deal is to provide 2 Billion over the course of the contract. We got a check for 1 Billion at the start of 2009. We should have another 500 million this year and 500 million next year. Although we might have experienced a "short term" 45% downturn, the worst financial numbers I have read about show a 25% drop over the summer quarter and we are ending the year off just about 20% for 2009. I am not picking on you, just want to make sure facts and figures don't start becoming urban legends.

Just remember, that there are maybe 15 or 20 guys on this board out of 12000+ Delta pilots. They are in no way representative of the entire group. I have no idea whether we will merge or not, but if we do you will be treated fairly and welcomed into the company. While every merger involves drama, Delta has a history of less than normal drama. Alaska is a great company and Delta would be stronger if we merged. I do think this merger talk is WAY WAY premature.

I think the main point is that no one knows what would have happened at a standalone Delta in the last year. We may have grown, we may have shrunk, we may have stayed the same. Most analysts think we would have shrunk and probably more than what happened with the merger. It is just a fantasy for someone to say, "but for the merger, my career would have been.....". All you can really say for sure is the pay rates would have been lower, the retirement worse, and I wouldn't have $50,000 worth of stock in my 401K. (I know, I know, it only has value when you sell it)