dckozak

Before you throw stones.

I'm suggesting this as a way to save the negotiated improvements already agreed to by DAL and NWA for a merger that, by all appearances, this merger will happen. Hence my suggestion for a way to get the fairest integrated list.

Lots of possibilities for the how to. The bottom line would have each MEC present a list to a neutral, with strict rules limiting what he/she can and can't do. In the end the only real thing an arbitrator(s) would due is choose one or the other.

Like the mother having one child divide the pie while letting the other choose which piece it wants, both MEC's would be forced, by fear of the other being considered fairer, to provide a list that it would not be a windfall for its pilot group.

Keep things simple, make it fast, oblige each side to present its case for its list, adjourn for lunch than the other do the same. Neither hears nor sees the other's list and the arbitrator(s) would have 24 hours to chose a list and write a reason for its choice.

Keep each side separated by hotel, limit the arbitrator and MEC's to the same "rules of engagement". Make the process as transparent as possible, when the deals done so no one could be accused of favoritism. I would suggest three arbitrators, one chosen by each side and the third by the two chosen.

I want you guys to get the promised raises and work rule improvements. Looks like this will happen with or without you. Maybe this would break the logjam

iahflyr

Sounds like a great idea.

This merger is going to happen (and needs to happen) with or without pilot union consent. I only hope that Delta and Northwest pilots are able to agree on a list before management takes the 30% raises off the table and decides to proceed without pilot support.

I think the above mentioned method is great.

nwaf16dude

According to our MEC, one of the reasons we walked away from the talks was that Delta was already backpedaling on the contract improvements that had been agreed upon; so I'd be very surprised to see the "30%" number that you mentioned.

sailingfun

I am curious where you got that information. Just talked with a MEC rep and he said there was never any change in the contract portion. It was agreed upon by NWA management, Delta management and both negotiating committees. The sole issue left was the seniority. I did not know that NWA backed out of the talks. The Delta MEC terminated the talks. They briefly resumed on two occasions at the request of the NWA MEC. The NWA MEC has now proposed arbitration. The Delta MEC rejected the latest proposel from NWA. If they have walked away why do they keep coming back?

nwaf16dude

The only info I have was the letter sent by the NWA MEC chairman and subsequent rumors from our web boards. Maybe "walked away" wasn't the correct term so much as "lost interest" in the deal as presented. Our MEC chairman's letter implied that there was word from DAL management that indicated that the contract improvements that had been discussed might not materialize due to rising fuel cost. Here's the quote...

"In short, do we base a seniority list which will affect NWA pilots for the next 30 years on an aggressive business plan and aircraft options over the next few years which may never be implemented? At the same time these questions were being considered, we started hearing that the other management would seek to renegotiate the economic package and no furlough provisions previously agreed to due to the changing economic picture.

Certainly, I try to read all such communications while considering the circumstances that led to writing it. Of course it's going to be slanted to support the author's point of view. However I don't believe the NWA MEC chairman would invent a rumor out of whole cloth and attempt to sell it to us as the truth. I've been around the airline business long enough to know that pay raises and contract improvements can dissappear quickly, no matter how many entities agreed to them.

As far as "they keep coming back," realize this time it's NWA, not NWAALPA "coming back." The NWA pilot group has nothing to do with this latest attempt.