Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Dedicated DAL/ALK Discussion Anyone? >

Dedicated DAL/ALK Discussion Anyone?

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Dedicated DAL/ALK Discussion Anyone?

Old 01-08-2010, 11:43 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default Dedicated DAL/ALK Discussion Anyone?

There is a new discussion emerging between some ALK pilots and DAL pilots regarding rumors of a merger. Unfortunately, it's occuring in a Delta thread, where we're discussing other issues as well. I think an ALK pilot visiting that thread, and trying to discuss this particular rumor, lands in the middle of what looks like a high-five contest. To be sure, there are some things at DAL that look positive, most which have not materialized. But I think an intelligent discussion between DAL and ALK pilots (those that are interested) needs its' own venue, and none of the clutter of our meandering "Latest and Greatest" thread.

When the merger with NWA appeared likely, not just on pilot forums, but in the press, several of us on both sides engaged on a lengthy discussion on one of the Aviation boards. My approach always was to try to fully establish and understand the other side's position. I think it's way too early to come to any definitive conclusions about what the ALK pilots are, or what they want, but if some of us want to talk about it, here are a couple of discussion points. I'm basing them on my experience with a) the discussions with NW pilots, and b) the merger itself.


1) It's a lengthy process, and it's not about what you (or me) want.
For now, there is little pressure. No press reports to get our blood pressure up. No executives twisting our arms, no deadlines. Our jobs aren't on the table, nobody (well nobody new) has their hand in our wallet. It's all speculation, and it's (almost) fun.

But it will get slightly uncomfortable, then it will become annoying, then infuriating, before it's all said and done. The line between hypothetical, broad principles on pilot integration, and seeing your name on a list drawn by the opposite side will be crossed. Someone else will tell you that they deserve your seat more than you do. Someone will tell you your flying is nothing, but theirs is great.

If a merger were to develop, these things will happen.

The good news? In our case, we were smart enough to involve ourselves early in the process, and we were paid for our "agreement" to something we would have had a difficult time to stop. We did build some credibility on that score with the hostile attempt by LCC, but on that one we team with management, agaisnt Parker. What if management had agreed with LCC?

More good news: we made our merger work. It wasn't exactly pretty, and it eventually required arbitration, but we made it work. The method and timing of arbitration were agreed upon, and both sides honored the results. In some folds of the seniority list there were injuries, but by and large everyone licked their wounds, and moved on. That's probably as good as scenario as one can expect.

But I'm here to tell that, along the way, we had to come to many a painful realization.

The first was that, at the end of the day, the result is determined not by what you want, but by what you bring to the table. When I say "you", I mean whatever subgroup you happen to fit in when the Arbitrator slices-and-dices. However that little group is weighed, and your ranking in that group, determines your final spot. Your hopes for a Captain's seat, for a certain domicile, for an independent carrier: they mean virtually nothing. If the Boards want to merge, they merge. You're left to deal with the effects, and the only worthwhile efforts are to make sure a) you get paid, and b) you can live with the results and not want to strangle the guy you're going to work with.

And you can forget all about "winning". This is about losing less in the integration, and hoping it works, i.e. hoping you end up with more new opportunities than excess airframes and pilots.

The sooner you accept your airline won't be the same (this is true for both NW and DAL), the better off you are, and the faster you can grieve the life you wanted, or imagined. Because it's gone. There is a mental process there, and it takes time. It takes lots of time if you're being thick, and less time time if you focus.

It took us a very long time on the DAL side to accept that NW even had the nerve to present some of their arguments during the SLI hearings, and, conversely, they were outraged at some of our suggestions. We can discuss some in detail later, but the bottom line is that we had (imagine that!) completely different perspectives. We each were heard by the arbitrators, and each side cheered as their lawyer stuck it to the other side.

Except they really didn't. Because then the arbitrators got down to the meat of the thing, and it had little to do with anyone winning. Arbitrators want to continue arbitrating, and companies want to fly. Arbitrations are designed to produce something that works well enough, doesn't anger the most important constituent, even if it's not at the table, and is essentially a compromise that has no resemblance to, or no interest in, what you or I wanted in the first place.

At the end of the day, we received something very similar to what LCC got, and for good cause: it's pretty much what's... "fair". More important: it works. They took fleet ratios, and created some offsets along the way to make the list look like what they wanted, i.e. a list the parties could implement with minimum fuss. In our case, they gave NW pilots value for over two hundred retirements to occur soon, and moved everyone up on their side as if those pilots were gone. Then it was done.

2) There is no money in stupid behavior.

I don't remember all the details, but essentially, we took two attempts at this: a truly consensual process where the company would pay for an early agreement, and a somewhat less consensual process when the company threatened to do this without us, after we proved we couldn't figure it out completely on our own. We folded, and agreed to a SLI process, if not an actual list, so as to get paid anyway. But not as much.

Honestly, I don't think we could have pulled a truly consensual SLI on our own. It takes some pressure to do that. Only backs planted firmly along the wall have the power to sharpen the mind, it seems. But that's no problem. What is a problem is to persist in trying to win, or to prevail, and losing all financial incentives, but getting merged anyway. When you can't come to grips with the idea that your dreams for a stand-alone company are not material to the process, and you can't come to terms with the fact that the other group is getting merged with yours, you make costly mistakes. Luckily, we didn't end up there, but LCC did. If you think about it, the only difference between their process and ours was a failure to appreciate the reality of the situation, and trying to get what they wanted, rather than what they could negotiate.

To be fair to LCC, there was a somewhat greater disparity between the groups than NW and DAL, but not as much a disparity as between DAL and ALK. Which brings me to the next point.

3) The more different the groups, the more intelligent we must be.

In the case of a hypothetical DAL-ALK, there are greater differences in networks and equipment than between either of the two other mergers I discussed. Furthermore, for equal aircraft, ALK payrates are (I believe) higher. I don't know about the DOH distributions, and, honestly, I don't care (yet). I mean to say that we will have to discuss them, but I also mean that they are but one of many equities that arbitrators will consider.

I expect arguments to potentially change according to demographics and particulars. Fences, years of service, retirements, etc., are but pieces of the puzzle. Most of the things we each hold sacred will be discarded anyway, and the result will probably only give them passing credit and acknowledgement. But the problem, of course, is that the istance between the end result and what we (each) value will be that much greater.

What will matter, since we are more different, is our ability to look at this problem even more pragmatically, intelligently, and consensually yet.

Even though I don't believe we can stop a merger that our managements would really want, we can make one smoother. The more we work together, the better we are collectively, the faster we can clean up misconceptions to get to a point were aggressively (but pragmatically) deal with any potential merger issue, the better off we would be. To that end, I suggest a respectful and constructive discussion, i.e. something that involves both writing and reading.

"Sink r8"

Last edited by Sink r8; 01-08-2010 at 11:59 AM. Reason: Font Issues / Clarity
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:42 PM
  #2  
New Hire
 
Derek Smalls's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 6
Default

Good Post.

I don't agree with everything that you suggest (surprise) but you are right about the pilots, or any employees for that matter, driving the bus on this. What will be, will be and if it comes to pass, we will all have to deal with it as best we can.

I also agree that calm, reasonable discussions between professionals are useful not only on forums like these, but also in the SLI process.

Smalls
Derek Smalls is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 01:49 PM
  #3  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Default

A couple things:

1. No one will know if there's going to be a merger until the day it hits the papers. So all this conversation is completely speculative.

2. Given the recent history of SLI mergers, I'd expect the merger committees to deadlock. And the arbitrator will come up with some kind of widebody fence and ratioed seniority list. DoH hasn't been a factor in list integrations since ALPA dropped it from the Merger/Frag policy years ago. Since both groups are ALPA, the Merger/Frag policy will be the ground rules by law.
Fishfreighter is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 02:56 PM
  #4  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

I do not know if fences would be awarded. 1500 pilots over 12200 pilots, maybe, maybe not.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:02 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Right Window
Posts: 138
Default

additionally, Alaska has guys on furlough while Delta does not.
FlyAK is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:06 PM
  #6  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

So I guess we're not going to use the Delta and Alaska thread in the Mergers and Acquisitions section? We just need to pick one or the other.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:39 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
So I guess we're not going to use the Delta and Alaska thread in the Mergers and Acquisitions section? We just need to pick one or the other.
Sorry, I didn't actually realize it existed. I always go to "Majors" to start. My hope is that we could move this discussion out of the "Latest and Greatest". Since the M&A section doesn't seem to take care of it, maybe having both threads coexist next to each other, in the Major section, is a better alternative?
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:40 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
captfred's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Retired for now
Posts: 233
Default

Gee whiz USAPA has been saying for 2 years now that DOH is the "gold standard" for seniority integration. Could it be that the U S Airways (east) pilots are wrong?
captfred is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:46 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Fishfreighter View Post
A couple things:

1. No one will know if there's going to be a merger until the day it hits the papers. So all this conversation is completely speculative.

2. Given the recent history of SLI mergers, I'd expect the merger committees to deadlock. And the arbitrator will come up with some kind of widebody fence and ratioed seniority list. DoH hasn't been a factor in list integrations since ALPA dropped it from the Merger/Frag policy years ago. Since both groups are ALPA, the Merger/Frag policy will be the ground rules by law.
Makes sense on both counts, except that I wouldn't count on fences being the key feature of a list. Philosphically, I think fences represent a failure to actually arbitrate, i.e. "...the list doesn't actually work... but if you keep the pilots apart, it feels like it does..."

Anytime you have a fence, you have some that's excluded, and someone who's "in".

They do, however, serve the prupose of helping those who wish a merger wasn't actually happening. I don't mean a merger is coming to our two airline. But if one was, I think fences would serve to give us the impression that we can, somehow, not actually do the hard work of merging, and everything would be OK, as it was before. It's a lovely concept. If nothing ever changed in the respective fleets, noone ever retired, noone ever was hired, no aircraft was parked, and none ordered, fences would work. Everyone would stay on their turf, happy as a clam.

Too bad there is no way for this work: at some point, merged pilot groups mean merged bids, and merged opportunities. Fleets disappear. Others come in. You actually have to make decisions as to how gets the first pick.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:46 PM
  #10  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8 View Post
Sorry, I didn't actually realize it existed. I always go to "Majors" to start. My hope is that we could move this discussion out of the "Latest and Greatest". Since the M&A section doesn't seem to take care of it, maybe having both threads coexist next to each other, in the Major section, is a better alternative?
I agree, its a lot easier to have them side by side. We can see if guys will move to this one. We should grab and paste pertinent stuff out of the other.
forgot to bid is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rollndadice
Cargo
0
07-14-2009 05:56 AM
Mox Nix
Military
41
11-08-2008 02:02 PM
MobiusOne
Hangar Talk
2
10-25-2008 07:26 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices