Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 367673)

I think that is a big part of the problem here. Delta pilot's recent experience with mergers were with parts of airline's that were about to be liquidated.
Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 367673)

I think that is a big part of the problem here. Delta pilot's recent experience with mergers were with parts of airline's that were about to be liquidated. If the Western and Pan Am pilots felt that a specially formulated ratio was unfair, who cares. They had no leverage and it would have been easy for Delta to just say "take it or leave it." The mergers with NWA have all been arbitrated even though Republic Airlines in 1986 was an airline in dire financial straits. At the time of the merger's announcement, Republic stock price had dropped to $4 per share. The financial distress notwithstanding, NWA felt that Republic brought a terrific hub in Detroit and Memphis along with a large fleet of 100 to 125 seat aircraft which NWA did not have. Thus the merger was not done on the pretext of buying a competitor that was on death's door.

I think a lot of NWA folks think that Delta still thinks the merger should be done with the same ratio strategy used for airlines that were about to be liquidated. That perception is insulting, and it shows by the reaction of the NWA MEC after negotiating with DAL.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 367679)

Mike,

... during our many strikes at NWA over the years.
Carl

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 367696)

Your recollection of the facts is wrong in the case of Western. That airline was a growing, thriving airline at the time of the merger. Your attitude of "who cares" says a lot.



NWA's perception that they bring have some kind of "premium" over Delta pilots is insulting, and it is shown in their lack of ability to negotiate a deal (any deal).
NWA wants to count "shells" parked in the desert, rather than active jobs brought to the table.
NWA wants to count jobs created by the Delta staffing formula as something they brought to the table.
NWA wants to count A330 payrates as premium over 767 rates, even though they didn't bring those (or higher rates for the 744 and 742) to the table. It's that "premium" thing again.
NWA wants to capture all "their" attrition off the top, but doesn't want to be held to the same standard off the bottom when the DC-9's and 742's are parked.
NWA thinks that their pilots are entitled to Delta growth, but Delta pilots aren't entitled to NWA positions with 24.E.10.
NWA thinks that the greenbook seniority list inversion due to the Roberts award isn't a problem. That's because they'd all fill in the unfenced Delta 777 while the Whale was protected.

Oops, that's not perception. That's the reality the Delta MEC negotiated with. That's insulting. NWA wanted to address all their concerns. They didn't care about Delta concerns. And when it came to deal deadline time, the NWA MEC administration didn't negotiate. They went on vacation.

Originally Posted by Deez340 (Post 367719)

It's a non-issue over here because we never got lazy and let a bureaucrat handle our issues for us. I'd prefer we not start now.

Originally Posted by CVG767A (Post 367729)

I think that is a big part of the problem here. There are two ways to reach an agreement between two groups having divergent goals: the traditional, adversarial way, where the stronger entity wins, and the cooperative way, where both sides seek an agreement that addresses their respective needs.

NWALPA typically resorts to the former method; DALPA typically uses the latter.

Which is more effective? I'll leave that for you to decide. One way to judge the effectiveness of each method is to compare our contracts over the years. You be the judge.

Originally Posted by CVG767A (Post 367729)

I think that is a big part of the problem here. There are two ways to reach an agreement between two groups having divergent goals: the traditional, adversarial way, where the stronger entity wins, and the cooperative way, where both sides seek an agreement that addresses their respective needs.

NWALPA typically resorts to the former method; DALPA typically uses the latter.

Which is more effective? I'll leave that for you to decide. One way to judge the effectiveness of each method is to compare our contracts over the years. You be the judge.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 368011)

You are making every bit of that up Slow. That's a rant that I will bet cannot be backed up by a single piece of evidence.

Carl

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 368060)

CVG,

I'm not so sure I'm ready to take a lecture about being adversarial from a pilot group that didn't even have reciprocal jumpseats until the mid to late 90's.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 368099)

Just FYI.. we couldn't even use our OWN jumpseat without management's permission until then. We hated it, and knew that other airline pilots looked down on us about that, but we also didn't feel like it was worth what little negotiating capital we had at that time to even get it for OURSELVES, much less other airlines... Sorry about that, but unfortunately that was the way it was then...