How do you learn from NWA-Republic merger?
04-18-2008 | 09:36 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
From: 767ER capt
04-18-2008 | 09:38 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
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
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
04-18-2008 | 09:48 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
From: 767ER capt
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.
04-18-2008 | 03:13 PM
#34
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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.
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.
And to think you said something earlier that I wholeheartedly agreed with.
Hmmmm maybe there's still hope.
Carl
04-18-2008 | 03:17 PM
#35
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
04-18-2008 | 03:27 PM
#36
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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.
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.
That's just ignorance of history on your part. And the way you spliced that half sentence out of my post gives new meaning to lack of context, but that's OK. Not too many people understood why all the strikes happened at NWA. It was because of something called the Mutual Aid Pact. It meant that if an air carrier suffered a strike, other airline managements would come to the financial aid of the carrier that was struck and actually give them cash. NWA managment realized that money could be made, so they routinely walked out of negotiations with all labor groups KNOWING that the law allowed them only one option - which was to strike. After about the fifth time this happened, other airlines got wise and lobbied congress for an end to the Mutual Aid Pact. Congress quickly agreed.
By not caving in to our management's draconian salary cuts back then, we held the line on not having a bad pattern affect the rest of our ALPA brothers. We lost a lot of income because of that, but we felt that the line had to be held.
Carl
04-18-2008 | 04:13 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
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.
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.
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.
Is it possible that DAL has the great contract that you have because of the many strikes NWA and others went on in the past?
Let's not forget that Delta pilots attitude of "cooperation" back in the 90's was not highly viewed by ANY of the other airline pilot groups. Why?
1. You negotiated a 2% pay cut right before DAL made record proffits.
2. You had no jumpseat privilges for the rest of the industry.
Maye you were a little too cooperative then, ya think?
A few years ago you guys went crazy preparing for a strike for the concessionary contract and for the potential U.S. Air merger, and I was proud of you. Both times you were very effective. But, that wasn't too cooperative, was it?
So, if you want me to be the judge, I would say that your cooperative approach did not work too well in the 90's. I hope it works out for you now. But I would ask that you not judge others who choose not to be cooperative. Different situations require different methods.
Respectfully,
New K Now
Last edited by newKnow; 04-18-2008 at 04:24 PM.
04-18-2008 | 04:37 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
Ask them. If they tell the truth, you'll retract your statement above.
04-18-2008 | 04:45 PM
#39
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
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...
04-18-2008 | 04:50 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
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...
Absolutely no need to apologize. Just had to make a point to CVG. You guys kicked but the past few years. We are all on the same side.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
