Well, while I can't argue with the last point, I think y'all got screwed on the 100 seater issue.

Nu

MOTO here:
 

There is only 8 mandatory in 2011.

Question: Is AK a more senior, junior or average pilot group?

What the h#*l is wrong with DLNet now?!:mad:

Doesn't matter. An AK merger SLI that mimiced the DAL/NWA merger would be catestrophic for every 737/320/MD88/DC9 captain and ALL FOs at the new DAL.

Except those who are VERY senior narrobody captains, it would virtually lock out the rest of the pilot group from ever flying as widebody captain, except the very, very young.

A category ratio in this case would be devastating for everyone not presently on a stovepiped widebody aircraft list (meaning a list of people who COULD hold it, versus those who are holding it).

In this case, they can't build fences tall enough. If this ever happens, it will be VERY interesting to see if the new DAL merger committee resurrects the old NWA arguments about "premium widebody flying" and the fence methodology used for NWA/REP.

My guess is "you betcha".

Nu

I think actually the folks on this forum, over time, came to rationalize the 100 seater issue with DC-9s. So we can scratch that as an initial sales offer, in fact, if anything, we were more worried about a fleet that "they" wanted to park. That added some fear of furloughs for those of us at the bottom as we have to remember the economy was slowing, hadn't crashed, just slowing. Back then 4-5% unemployment was the worst economy since the great depression, right?

Had it been presented this way: we don't have 100 seaters, we haven't found one we want (E19#, magical Cseries paper plane, etc) so... here is the good news, we'll be getting a butt load of DC9s in the merger. That fills that void and those planes equal jobs. We need to keep those from being parked until replacements are not just ordered but sitting at the gates.

Nu, (just my humble opinion backed on historical recollection)

We were told specifically that it was not happening. At the time we were profitable and our then President was implementing plans for international growth. Our go it alone plan intended for us to win customers from our competitors and grow organically.

Then the Board of Directors decided the merger was on to try to pump and dump DAL stock. Whitehurst was unceremoniously shown the door and Anderson (who I like BTW) arrived with a mission. Hiring stopped.

Folks like me who posted DOT statistics indicating NWA was flying lower load factors on declining ASM's were shouted down by the ALPA regulars who saw the writing on the wall and decided to get on board. It wasn't that NWA was a bad airline, it was simply demographic shifts that resulted in there being more business where the weather is better. NWA had the equipment Delta needed and Delta's smaller equipment fit better with NWA's passenger flows. (hence 767's in SEA, 737's in DTW & MSP, 747's & 330's in ATL) The wild card was using some of NWA and Delta's freed up capacity as well as combined flows to redirect DCI flying back into smaller mainline equipment.

Working from a script, that could have been written by Dick Cheney, threats were used to scare folks into thinking Delta needed the merger. "Without a merger we'd be furloughing" ... (despite the fact we hired right up and until the merger got serious). ALPA saw the return of DCI flying to mainline and was quick to point out that good news too. IMHO ALPA did an excellent job making us relevant at the table, securing contractual gains and keeping the merger peaceful (even if I felt a boot on my neck every now & then). The drastic changes called for by fuel price spikes and the following downturn were ameliorated by a management team preoccupied with a merger and ALPA's trip wires ... .

Bottom line ... the merger was driven by our BOD. We had no choice in the matter. Economically the merger made sense:

• Delta needed growth airplanes it could not afford
• NWA had jets and excess capacity
• The DAL and NWA networks had been carefully coordinated to facilitate a merger (doing the same with Alaska, IMO)

The merger failed to achieve its goals of $17 to $18 share prices and harmed the Delta pilots who were enjoying the results of organic growth (junior 767 flying) and through scope liberalization (transfer of 737 flying to Alaska). However, that harm may be balanced by increased attrition related advancement opportunities.

My concern with Alaska is Delta's historical pattern with mergers ... acquire ... shut down ... shrink. The Western US is a highly competitive market. Two carriers (or more) need to exit. Virgin operates in economic never never land, Repulblic (and its subsidiaries) need to do something with all the capacity they have coming on line and United should improve once they get the Harvard Delta Sigmi Pi children out of the executive break room.

Alaska isn't that large. I'd take the merger to plug the hole in our scope.

boooooo.

Well, lets look at it. There is 1,453 pilots and 93 of those are on furlough. Anyone know their projected retirements?

btw- it would hurt me but I'd like to start setting a precedent that furloughed pilots are counted as employed during an SLI.

When merged, the reserve pilots will lose a 79 hour guarantee for reserve sc and 75 for lc. Now, if you knock that down to 70 hours wouldn't it require more pilots?

Or what if AMR and DAL split Alaska into a North and South, AMR can have LAX and we'll take SEA/AL. Then we grow LAX.

Heyas Bar,

Something is up. We do have attrition, and staffing is fairly tight. People medical out and quit all the time, so the mandatory retirement number is not a good one to use. 178 have dropped off the list since Jan 2010.

I don't see the MD-90s materializing as fast as some predicted.

The long rumored 747-400s, -800s, 330s, C series, 195s, etc, etc are not happening.

We can increase utilization some, and sure, airplanes are supposedly coming out of the desert, BUT, we have 400 fewer pilots now than we had at the closing of the merger BEFORE those airplanes were parked.

I don't beleive in derivatives. It lets management (and ALPA) weave a fog cloud over the pilots who don't take the time to decode the numbers.

I believe in simple numbers that tell the story. More pilots = good, fewer pilots = bad. We have fewer pilots, so that is bad. I don't see us even breaking even on the pilot count despite 300 new hires and record profits. I see only RJs where there was only mainline metal 12 months ago.

And we're supposedly not hiring in 2011.

Pretty simple math.

Nu

Nu;
Why else would we not hire?

You cannot compare a NWA/DAL SLI to a SLI with a domestic carrier like AS. Apples and Oranges.

A 2001 hire is a very senior FO over at AS.

It would not be the methodology used for our SLI, it could not be. Now a merger etc with HI would be similar as they fly ULH, LH and domestic short Haul.

I suspect that whatever happens if and when it happens it will be as fair as it can be. Career expectations will come in to ply. Our 757 being paid at a WB rate will help tremendously.