This has nothing to do with the merger but might just bring a smile to someones face this morning.

Had Bruce Hornsby in first class on my last trip. Apparantly the reading light was very dim and Bruce was complaining to the flight attendant and he said something like "Thats pretty lame." Without missing a beat the flight attendant says "Bruce, thats just the way it is."

Scoop

 

There are many factors in a merger and what happens with each group. Both NWA and Delta have worries. The problem is that on a forum is when you post your concerns people on the other side take it as bashing their airline which in most cases is not the case. If you want reasons why most Delta pilots don't support the merger I will list some. I am not bashing NWA only putting down what the Delta concerns are. Some of those concerns are subjective and some are facts. Subjective is just that. Each sides will have a different opinion. Here is a short list of major concerns.

1. Seniority, In general the airline that has enjoy greater advancement can only lose in a merger.
2. Pilot Demographics, When you look at where the pilots on the combined lists actually reside it is obvious that there would be a seniority shift at bases. The shift in general would not go well for the Delta group.
3. DC-9's, They are not going to be here long term or even short term. NWA is retiring them at a rapid rate and the merger might accelerate that. There is the potential for a large job loss in particular if the replacement flying is at the connection carriers which I am sure is management first choice. (Note, the TA on the contract may have addressed this issue and could mitigate it)
4. Costs. NWA 10Q reports show their seat mile cost is above Deltas with the current pay rates for all employees at NWA. Bringing them up to Delta pay will increase that cost and lead to a large jump in the combined operations overall seat mile costs. Will it be a competitive airline?
5. Future advancement. Delta is bringing a large number of 777's to the property. They are staffed at more then 30 pilots per aircraft. There will be a lot of movement the next 3 years. A merged list would change the demographics of that movement.
6. Contract, Delta current contract has 21 months left to go. Openers will be exchanged soon. Some pilots feel we would do better to wait and go the traditional section 6 route at that point rather then agree to the 4 year deal offered in the merger. (Note, I disagree with this. I believe we would be better to take the deal now with the current economic situation and wait 4 years for the next contract.)
7. Internal strife at NWA between Redbook and Greenbook pilots. Most Delta guys were unaware of how much animosity there is between the groups at NWA. The contract and SLI negotiations surprised the Delta side. There were almost stunned by the level of hatred they saw and the issues it brought up. The observers or politico's as they were called hammered this home. It could make having a unified pilot group for future contracts difficult.

There are other points but I think these are the main issues. Again I am not bashing NWA. I am sure that NWA pilots have as many or more concerns on their side also. The real point is that given those concerns on both sides perhaps the proper course of action is for both MEC's to come out in opposition to this merger now. Contrary to some posts we do have a lot of clout and can impact if this merger occurrs or not. I think the Delta scope provisions alone could be a deal killer. One last point. Both airlines also bring a lot of positives to a merger. The question was asked why Delta pilots opposed the merger and I answered. I could post a large number of reasons why the merger might be good that NWA brings to the table. At the moment however the overall balance leads me and most Delta pilots to favor the go it alone strategy.

 

Not bashing either, I'm just wondering where you got the information for this point. Do you have access to pilot base/home address info for both companies? Or is this just word of mouth and what you've observed over the years (ie people commuting to work on your flights, etc)? I myself have seen quite a few guys commuting from southern homes to northern bases, just curious.

We are sending 9's to the desert but they can always be brought back online (we still own them), and as far as advancement goes, we have 787s coming (at some point anyway) and also a higher percentage of older pilots who will be retiring sooner. Delta's aircraft arrivals and our attrition and aircraft orders may even the playing field in respect to advancement expectations. We don't yet know the long term plans for the DC9, but I believe it's still cheaper to operate them than lease new aircraft.

 

I don't personally have access to where each pilot lives. The MEC's do however have that information. I was told that less then 20 Delta pilots live in the Detroit/ Minni area. There were over 500 NWA pilots living in the SE and several hundred in SoCal. If NWA goes it alone the 787's are coming however if we merge the plan was to cancel the 787-8's and replace them with 777's. The 787-9 is the aircraft that the combined operation wants but it is slipping to as late as 2012 some now say. The question is would those be additional 777's or the aircraft currently coming.

 

Our MEC guys told us that NWA had 5 bases, with about 55% of the total pilot force commuting. The listed approximate numbers of NWA pilots living in a base state for the NWA bases (first) vs DAL bases. They didn't list the number of DAL pilots in their respective bases, but for an example during our 1113 process we had 2200 living within 75 miles of Atlanta.

AK 100 (9 DAL)
MI 480 (28 DAL)
MN 1100 (41 DAL)
TN 250 (102 DAL)
WA 345 (139 DAL)

AZ/CA 330
FL/GA 550
OH/KY 125
NY/NJ/PA 175

As you can see, the concentrations of NWA pilots around DAL bases far exceed that of DAL pilots around NWA bases. While it's not a complete predictor of pilot basing desires, there is an obvious disparity.

 

In regards to the DC9s, your ceo is the one who stated he likes the DC9 and that more would stay if the merger happened. He evidently wants the dc9s to replace alot of the Regional flying. FWIW I guess we shall see
Oh and the dc9s are being retired but not completely. They are keeping some -30s, -40s and 50% of the remaining dc9s are the -50s which are pretty much the same size as the md80s as far as seats.

 

In a two class the -50 seats normally around 125. The MD-88 seats 142. The MD-90 156. The MD-88 has about a 1000 mile longer range and a 30,000 lb higher gross weight. There are a lot of issues with older aircraft. The Delta CEO's stated some of the nines would stay for a while. NWA is getting rid of almost 1/3 of their remaining DC-9 fleet this year however. I don't know how or when the remaining aircraft would leave the fleet but its a safe bet that they would be the first aircraft in the combined fleets to be retired other then odd aircraft up for lease renewel where a decent lease agreement could not be reached.

 

maybe maybe not. The DC9 is the 100 seater that the majors are looking for except its PAID FOR. Sure it burns more fuel but without having any lease payment allows for the extra fuel cost. There isnt a 100 seat aircraft available right now that can do what the DC9 can. Short runways, carries lots of payload. The majors are trying to reduce the regional jets and one way to do that is replace them with larger aircraft. If the planes werent full i could see maybe parking them but they are full and neither company is just going to park them all and give up market share. imho

 

I agree, they would not Park them and give up Market share. They will however replace them. The big question is who flies the replacement aircraft. A DC-9 flying 4 legs a day could easily use 5000 gallons of fuel a day on short legs. Longer legs even more. Thats 150,000 gallons a month or about $500,000 in fuel a month plus the higher maintenance costs of a old aircraft. A EMB-195 burns almost half the fuel and can be leased for about 70,000 a month. Pretty easy to do the math. Delta parked 54 737-200's that were built in the mid eighties because they were not profitable at 1.75 a gallon jet fuel. The question is not if the DC-9's are leaving but who would fly the replacement aircraft. The required inspections for aircraft that old are also very expensive. Delta parked the last of their DC-9's because of those inspections.

 

I won't try to argue the pluses and minuses of DC-9's, but I hope we can all agree that no affiliate carrier should be flying 100 seat replacement airplanes. No more backtracking on scope!