My take and this is me only...

Now is the time that we will see name calling from official parties. Fine, that is to be expected. What we need to realize is a few things.
First, we did not play well together, so DALPA was approached by the board and asked if they would relax section one scope issues to let this deal go through. Why? Because management realized that there was no way that this deal could get done before 43 left office. This way they can get the ball rolling and let us sling mud for the next two to three years. History is shown that we will still show up to work, do our jobs, but just ***** while doing it.

Two, now that we (DAL) have a LOA it exerts pressure on the NWA MEC to get back to the table. This process can now take the course outlined by ALPA and MOST of the money is still there. (2% loss off the initial offer).

The danger here is apparent for both the DAL and NWA pilots. We at DAL need to make sure that we play fair with you guys. Why? well if you go out on strike I do not think that this new entity could survive.
Along these lines. There is a time line here to get an SLI, but the fact is that if I were a NWA guy I would feel boxed in the corner. Honestly I do not think that was the intention, but it is the result none the less.
We now get to do the SLI dance once again and yes, it will probably end up in Binding Arbitration. But the money will be there, and jobs will probably be secure.
To answer the question, "Does DALPA want binding Arbitration Now?"
No, but from their summation, I think that they feel it is inevitable with the NWA MEC. This allows time and circumstance to come in to play.

Some thoughts here:
I personally think that NWA will be right sized after the deal is consummated by the DOJ. I think that this will change the SLI negotiation.
Do I like it, not really. I wish that we could have gotten this done.
I firmly believe that we (DALPA negotiation committee) tried their hardest. I know them and they are top notch individuals. I would not question their integrity at all.
The next six to twelve months will be telling. Best of luck to all of us.

 

nwa should be upset because delta is saying we can work together as long as it is what we want. they had a joint contract agreed upon and they have now said screw nwa if they don't go with our SLI then you don't get the pay as well. delta pilots are saying that it is ok to work with a b-scale and opened themselve up to an internal whipsawing. what incentive does delta have to raise up the nwa side of things now? if nwa plays nice then they get cost savings from having a lowered payed pilot group and they most likely would drag it out for as long as possible. if nwa pilots get ****ed they could easily disrupt things trying to force the companies hand and now they come off as the bad guys for not helping the new airline. it's kind of a lose lose for nwa.

if people dont see how doh or relative seniority can be an advantage to either side than they are just blindly looking at it.

 

Negative ghostrider. Your claim of "we had all these upcoming retirements" only holds true with your CURRENT separate standalone NWA and crappy contract. Ask yourself if you really think guys at 60 would truly have retired with:

1. Significant equity $$
2. Huge (for NWA) pay raises to not only equal DAL's rates, but then join us for pay raises on top of that.
3. 14% DC contributions. For a widebody captain you are talking $30,000 a year (or more) into a B fund; add the time value of money and Age 65 and I would be surprised if anyone retired at 60.
4. Workrules that demand more pilots. For example, for all flying >12 hrs we require 2 captains and 2 FOs. Can you say "possible 747-400 captain bid?"

What we at DAL saw was a seniority grab wherein the NWA merger committee and MEC leadership (not your negotiating committee) wanted everything: DAL's pay, DAL's DC plan and equity $$, NWA's retirement plan (which you deserve) and super-seniority while the DAL guys would get thrown to the bottom of the seniority list.

That may have worked in 1986 with DC-9-centric Republic. It won't work with us.

That said, what should we have done? NOT pursued contractual improvements with our management? I certainly wouldn't be offended if you did the same. Also, remember that this is NOT the "joint combined contract." We all want one contract (and one more valuable than the TA LOA 19) one fair seniority list, and one great combined operation.

 

so what was relaxed?

would it hurt the delta 88 pilots or nwa 9 pilots more? meaning could delta now replace the 9 easier with this new relaxed scope?

why would the delta pilot group even think about loosening the scope language any more?

 

That was probably the most difficult integration imaginable, and of course we see the results. My personal opinion? The USAir MEC was unreasonable with their strict DOH position. That said, I truly believe they got the raw end of the arbitration decision. Something between Nic and strict DOH that would have resulted in 17-year furloughees going to the left seat and displacing current AWA captains might have been more reasonable.

But they have only themselves to blame. That is why we at DAL are so opposed to arbitration. Pawning the tough decisions to an arbitrator is an abrogation of the leadership duties you are appointed to fulfill, and you can never know just how he or she will rule.

 

Nobody pushed them to the lifeboats. They chose to stay on a ship taking water rather than get in the lifeboats. We made the decision to choose a lifeboat rather than be left behind on a ship that would flounder. Now, the ship has sunk so the question is does their MEC want to be rescued or not? Watch Leo Dicapprio in the Titanic. It's time they blow the whistles. From the sound of many NWA guys on this forum they realize that and have an honest realization of where we all are. If we come together and get a joint contract with a fair SLI the gains are enormous.

 

Eric,

This has been beaten to DEATH. Scope was relaxed because NWA's international flying would have exceeded our scope limits. They would have had to stop flying nearly all of their international flights to comply. Therefore, we relaxed our scope language to ensure the 747s and A330s would still operate. That, after all is the main reason for this merger. There is NO scope giveaways with RJs. I say again NO scope giveaway for RJs.

Got that? No scope give away for RJs. Now click your heels three times and say "there's no place like home".

 

I would think that from what happened here arbitration would work in delta's favor. the arbitrator didn't take into effect the age of the usair pilot group and now junior usair guys who were expecting to move up due to their retirements aren't getting it. they were put behind 2000 hires from what I've read and heard.

to me it seems a little hypocritical to think that usair got the short end and then tell nwa that they shouldn't get anything for their retirements. with relative seniority delta wasn't offering any consideration for those retirements. should nwa get everyone of those retirements? absolutely not but they also should get some and relative seniority doesn't offer that.

 

We don't want arbitration even if the entire DAL pilot group personally believed that we are well-positioned for it. It is too much of a wild card and is an abrogation of leadership--it is pawning off the tough decisions to a neutral third-party whom everyone can blame if things don't turn out the way we wish. That said, my understanding is that with our ratio proposal, if NWA pilots feel they weren't getting proper credit for retirements, then they should just wait, as DALs next round of retirements would ensue a few years later.

Also, as I posted previously, the whole "NWA has lots of upcoming retirements, thus we need seniority credit for them" may be a red herring anyway, as the lure of equity $$, possible significant pay raises and DC contributions may be a strong enough draw to keep many pilots on the property to Age 65.

Of course absent a crystal ball it is hard to entirely be sure.

 

by not agreeing to your SLI is staying on the boat? come on...if they had been fighting the contract as well then I would agree with you. that's like saying because you didn't agree to their demand in SLI then you stayed on the boat as well. that really just doesn't float...