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"

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

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.

I do not know if fences would be awarded. 1500 pilots over 12200 pilots, maybe, maybe not.

additionally, Alaska has guys on furlough while Delta does not.

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?

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?

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.

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.

...it could be, couldn't it?

That argument hasn't had much success lately. The only large integration where it was used with fairly different airlines that I can think of is NW/Republic. Some of my "North" colleagues are sensitive when I call that arbitration a failure, but let's simply say it took over 20 arbitraion heraings over the years to try to actually use that award.

Great job security.

For arbitrators.

I think Delta and virgin america should get together.

Might be hard to argue fences for 1400 guys when they pay is marginally better on the widebody jets.

I can't think of any other pilot group that thinks that DOH is a valid method. They're wasting their time and money on their current quest for a mulligan. I'm glad Delta didn't merge with those guys; I'd hate to be going through what the America West guys are going through now.

I think discussing DAL/ ALK merger integration is counterproductive. Rather than fostering a mutual understanding of the issues, it highlights the differences in expectations. It also proves a voice for the more extreme positions, trying to justify what is frequently little more than self-interest.

The more extreme positions seem to be noticed most by the other side, and the result is greater polarization. Meanwhile, the most moderate 90% remain silent. The end result is little more than ill will toward the other side.

Meanwhile, the decision will go to an arbitrator, who will combine the lists by a ratio within each class of aircraft.

I bowed out of the DAL/ NWA discussion, and I'll pass on this one, too.

I mostly agree. I would describe a lot of the topics as premature. I didn't bow out of the NW/DAL stuff: I jumped in with both feet. In this case, I don't really feel a strong interest in arguing any particular point. Instead, I'm simply interested in having a clean, structured discussion if and when anything of interest unfolds.

To the extent the discussion is already occuring in several threads, I think it's smart to have a better venue than the "Latest and Greatest". That doesn't mean this topic can't be idle for a while. Sometimes, things are just quiet, and it's OK. If anything interesting comes along, it was my suggestion it be discussed in a common thread, not a Delta thread.

You think? I love paying dues to USAPA(either that or get fired in an agency shop) and then ponying up my own money to sue them. In essence I am sueing myself but it had to be done. Lot of us in that boat.

They remain silent, vote YES, then complain.

This web board is pretty good at revealing issues and IMHO actually creates unity as we consider opposing viewpoints and moderate our own positions.

I think Alaska brings a lot to the table and if nothing else, mergers help close scope loopholes.

What is the "Senior" Narrow Body base in the Delta System?

At Alaska, it's obviously Seattle where the Dates of Hire range between ~1977 (32 years of service) and 1998 (12 years of service). These figures are approximate.

Narrowbody is relative. We have very senior ppl in SLC, ATL, LAX, CVG, MEM, DTW and MSP on narrowbody jets.

Is 1998 the most junior pilot in base on either the CA or FO list or the most junior CA?

With JAL presumably rejecting investment offers from DAL and AMR, that means the warchests each airline created are now looking for a purpose. Will that be to (wisely) repay debt, or some other move? Looks like AMR would potentially need to fly to Asia itself (without JAL). Does that change the picture WRT ALK?

Delete: Posted in wrong thread.

The most junior CA anywhere is SEA, April 1998.

Additional Junior details:

CA LAX: April 1998
CA ANC: January 1998

Most senior:

CA SEA Feb '79
CA LAX June '83
CA ANC: Mar '81

Think some of those in power from states being served by Alaska would just let another carrier waltz in and buy up Alaska Airlines? Think again. After watching nearly every carriers' past track record of buying west coast airlines and within a few years totally withdrawing from the west coast, after redeploying assets from the bought carrier to the east coast, I think many legislators from Alaska's backyard will pull every string they can pull to prevent such a merger/buyout.

I'm not sure they'll oppose just because they didn't like previous mergers: they'll usually oppose until they get the price/guarantees they require. Look at how Oberstar "opposed" the Delta merger. Deals were made. Jobs stayed. The Widget is being sprayed on tails and buildings.

I'm not saying a deal with DAL, or AMR, or LUV would automatically prevail, I'm saying you have to realize opposition by politicians is usually nothing but leverage.

There are exceptions which prove your point: UsAirways' attempted hostile takeover of DAL. In that case, however, you had a clear attempt to butcher jobs on DAL's side. The respective Congressmen were having none of it, and Parker enjoyed zero credibility on the matter. You also had employees and management united against a deal. That works better.

If a deal with DAL were to be put on the table, and there was a clear consensus that neither ALK employees or management wanted it, then by all means, let's not have it.

One word of warning, however, on that last point: it's good to be clear about what you want. If, after something was put on the table, and you have a look, you still wanted to oppose it outright, please, please, please do it right. Oppose it, kill it, and go on to the next suitor, if any.

It works OK for both groups to have a unified stand, one way or another. But it doesn't work well when one group is playing hard to get, but making public noise about beeing for a merger. That kind of thing creates an opportunity to whipsaw, and make us all poorer. When some on the NW MEC didn't like the SLI discussion, but liked the merger a lot, and started negotiating in the press, it weakened everyone's hand. Ultimately, we figured it out for the greater good, but it cost us a little.

I don't really know what ALK pilots will ultimately want (and it's too early to have any definitive answers anyway, since I'm not aware of any merger talks). If the need arises, we should all figure it out, in a smart, pargamatic manner that allows us to do the hard work privately, and negotiate from a common position, for a price. There is a lot more to dealing with a merger than jockeying for a SLI arbitration.

Sink r8,

Good points, but the main point I was trying to make is that Alaska is basically the only carrier serving much of the intra-Alaska markets today. In past mergers there were other carriers serving those markets with big equipment. Yes, there's Era, Frontier, etc, but IMHO I think there would likely be tremendous opposition to anyone buying Alaska from most, if not all Alaskans. The reason being the airline purchasing/merging with Alaska would most likely eliminate most, if not all intra-Alaska flying within a very short time and history proves this. Most of that flying is so specialized that the big boys would not want to make the investment to keep those markets considering their return on investment. As a result I could see most of those markets without much of the current service they currently enjoy. Anyone replacing such service would most likely do it with 1900's and Dash 8's and I would personally think much lobbying would be done in order to prevent loss of service to much if not all of intra-Alaska.

I think your last sentence summarizes your point well. I can imagine a lot of lobbying would be done to get guarantees that certain service wouldn't be lost. You can codify that in terms of routes, aircraft size, and minimum times, plus a certain number of jobs. You can reach agreements on those terms.

Second, I'm not 100% sure about the ROI argument. If ALK does it profitably, I imagine that there are rewards commensurate to the risks.

So, while I don't disagree that there is a certain magic to ALK, and that it fits a specialized niche, you have to break down the part that represents aircraft, routes, and frequencies, form the nostalgic aspect. You can vertainly get too down-to-earth. Look at PSA: UsAirways butchered it. But for all the love of PSA, it was operating in a very competitive environment, where there were lots of alternatives. And UsAirways... is UsAirways.

A merger with a ALK would require a carfeul approach WRT to the intra-Alaska flying, but I'm not certain it couldn't be done with a slow integration, and guarantees on service levels.

I realize I'm talking about your backyard, and discussing how to re-plant trees, and expand the house ets., but my point all along this thread is that the people that own the backyard and the house may make a deal, you and I are tenants in our respective houses, and cannot control whether or not a deal is contemplated. We can only figure out how to a) oppose it outright with the clear intent of killing it (not always with success), or b) endorse it with negotiated conditions that reward our participation (not always with success either).