Search

Notices
Mergers and Acquisitions Facts, rumors, and conjecture

Hearing Transcripts

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-08-2008 | 05:35 AM
  #71  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by wiggy
Yeah, now they pay more. In the premerger contracts the difference in pay between the 767/757 fleet (213 is the quantity of airplanes, BTW) and the A-330 (32 aircraft, BTW) was a whopping $1.53/hr.
Pre-merger contracts (and LOA 19) are meaningless in this process IMO. The arbitrators understand that none of this would have happened (including LOA 19) without the desire on the part of DAL and NWA to merge. Period.

All the pre-merger business plans, fleet forecasts, etc., are meaningless. Constructive notice to all parties that a merger is taking place happened months ago. A snapshot of fleets and pilots have already been taken, and that's what the arbitrators will work off of. All the rosey forecasts, as well as all the dire ones, are nothing but items for our attorneys to debate and produce billable hours.

Carl
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 05:39 AM
  #72  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
If you look at the original delivery dates of NWA's 787's and the CSAM, it is ever apparent that they were 400 replacements. There arrivals coincide with 400 checks that get quite expensive.
In your mind it is ever apparent. In the arbitrator's minds, it's meaningless because it is unprovable. You cannot prove things that have not yet happened. In court, it's hard enough to prove things that HAVE happened. In the legal realm, proof is a very high standard. A lot of pilots don't get that because they hold their personal opinions and desires so dearly.

Carl
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:08 AM
  #73  
satchip's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
Default

Carl, personal attacks might win points and applause from your base, but they do very little to further your argument. Please answer the questions put to you in a spirit of comity and bipartisanship. Or does your silence suffice as answer enough?
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:12 AM
  #74  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Carl, I am stating what is apparent. You have been around long enough to realize that until the rubber hits the runway it is all suspect.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:14 AM
  #75  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

I am also not discussing what is in the arbitrator's minds. I am stating that the 787 unlike the 777 is not a growth aircraft. It can be proved and if need be will be.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:16 AM
  #76  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

On a side note, I look forward to flying with the guys and gals on here from NWA. Simply enough you are engaged. Most of us are not, and really have no earthly idea about what is going on with our unions and company. That cannot be said of this group.
Through passion comes knowledge.
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:28 AM
  #77  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by satchip
Carl, personal attacks might win points and applause from your base, but they do very little to further your argument. Please answer the questions put to you in a spirit of comity and bipartisanship. Or does your silence suffice as answer enough?
So...does this mean that you were not able to find out what "invective" and hyperbole" means? Or were you just not able to find an example of my posts that illustrate your assertion?

Carl
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:35 AM
  #78  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Carl, I am stating what is apparent. You have been around long enough to realize that until the rubber hits the runway it is all suspect.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
OK, I'll bite. There is no way a 787 will be able to handle the loads we fly into and out of NRT. I've had loads of 400+ on nearly every leg of this trip. Use of the 787 was a "game changer" for NWA in two way:

1. The routes that will bypass NRT from North America
2. The few routes from North America to NRT where the loads are consistently in the low 300 range.

The -400's will need their heavy checks and then keep flying. Either that or give up capacity on high load factor profitable legs to our competitors.

I know this probably doesn't change anyone's mind because the template is that the 787 is a replacement for the 747-400, but I thought I might give it a try.

Carl
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:38 AM
  #79  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I am also not discussing what is in the arbitrator's minds. I am stating that the 787 unlike the 777 is not a growth aircraft. It can be proved and if need be will be.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
If you think you can prove that, you really ARE something.

Carl
Reply
Old 10-08-2008 | 06:54 AM
  #80  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

I do not need to. It has been done and relevant sources will attest to it if need be. It is not my job, but that of the lawyers. Plus I do not think that it needs to be. We are coming at it from a different angle. In essence with all of the seats that the 744 has compared to the 787 and the two more that you are getting it is a zero sum game. Alas, there is no need. You will still have the same amount of command seats.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aubrey770
Pilot Health
6
08-08-2008 04:22 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices