Notices
Mergers and Acquisitions Facts, rumors, and conjecture

NWA fence proposal

Old 10-30-2008, 05:02 PM
  #111  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,221
Default

Originally Posted by Opus View Post
sailingfun,

But is it fair for a NWA 96 hire to go behind a DAL 2000 hire? Under your proposal I would go from a 330 FO back to either an 319/320 FO or 73 fo. And even though I would end in the top 100 at NWA I would never crack the top 1500 under the DAL lists. So, the word 'fair' can be used by many.
A 2000 hire at Delta can hold 777 copilot. He can do very well on the 767ER. I suspect like a 2000 hire at Delta you would not hold 330 FO on a stove piped list. You are holding it out of seniority just as the 777 FO above would. You can't compare what you hold now to what you would hold on a stove piped list. You have to compare apples to apples. If once a list was rationalized you could show you can't hold equal equipment then I agree it would not be fare. Also keep in mind that every NWA pilot will enjoy higher pay and seat progression over time because Delta brought a much larger average fleet size to the overall mix.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 05:28 PM
  #112  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ferd149's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Default

Sailing,

IMO doing the category list (stove piped) like you guys propose is where the whole ratio thing breaks down. I agree that a pure DOH list is unfair to you guys, (yes I would love it), but your attempt to "rationalize" the list drops me 4% vs my current NWA list. I'm just under half way up as a 9/95 hire and the percentage gets worse as you go towards the bottom of the stovepipe, to the point you run out of premerger Delta guys and 404 exNWA guys are at the bottom.

Lots of problems with a pure DOH list including bad year group management, ie you hired when we didn't and vise versa (I call it a saw tooth list) but of the two I would argue that DOH is "cleaner" than the stove pipe.

Good discussion, don't ya wish we could be flies on the wall and hear the pros discuss this? What ya wanna bet we are close to their arguments......and why we're still fighting about this 7 months later.

Hope to see ya in NRT sometime your 777 dudeness!

Ferd
Ferd149 is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:16 PM
  #113  
Looking for a laugh
 
Justdoinmyjob's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Default

The way I see it, the final outcome will not go far enough for some NWers, and will go too far for some Dlers with respect to fences and or closer DOHs, ( not a straight DOH list though.) My personal plan is to drink large amounts of beer, followed by putting my fingers in my ears and saying, "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" whenever anybody starts to complain how they got screwed on the SLI, regardless of which side they originally came from.
Justdoinmyjob is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:21 PM
  #114  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob View Post
My personal plan is to drink large amounts of beer, followed by putting my fingers in my ears and saying, "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" whenever anybody starts to complain how they got screwed on the SLI, regardless of which side they originally came from.
What an excellent plan. Especially that beer part.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:30 PM
  #115  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
When Chairman Bloch made his "roulette wheel" statement, I believe he was talking about this type of expectation - among others. Just the same as if I were to say that all our 787 options will allow me to fly as a senior 787 CA. I think the arbitrators made it about as clear as I have ever heard (prior to an award), this level of protection for pilots (especially senior ones) can't be predicted, and as such, ain't gonna happen.

Carl
Is it possible, Carl, that some of those "among others" you cite with Bloch's "roulette wheel" statement just as likely refer to expectations of future advancement due to retirements? IOW, a mid seniority NW pilot claiming: "All the NW retirements will allow me to be very senior in 5-7-10 years". You would be hard-pressed to justify a negative answer to that question. On a more general note, I can tell you that 210 DL pilots in the top 1400 positions simply will not "fly". And I find it hard to believe 2 of 3 arbitrators would disagree, given the uncertainties of the future of this industry. Now, we can speculate on the gargantuan and detailed fences that you might think would assuage our concerns, but they won't, DL brings 1100 senior international widebody captain positions to the merger, NW brings 500. 210 of 1400 is extreme, to put it mildly, regardless of what your blue and red charts show. DL has not put on their rebuttal case yet, (and they have full access to all the details of the NW proposal, and I don't) I would imagine they will find many uncontemplated (by us) faults w/NW's proposal. Speculating on ever-increasing-in-complexity DOH fences, (which ultimately leads to an actual non-merger of pilot groups, to keep everyone safe) is futile. The final solution, whether negotiated or arbitrated, will expose both pilot groups equally to those "vagaries of the future". DOH w/fences does not expose both groups equally to that risk.
wiggy is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:36 PM
  #116  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 330Fo
Posts: 215
Default

Sailing,
I guess I just don't understand why we can't find somewhere in the middle,like splitting the difference between DOH and Relative Seniority. Then we'd both be equally ****ed/happy pending one's disposition. I don't know what DALPA is thinking but I hope it doesn't go to arbitration not because I do not believe our guys didn't make great arguments, with Blouch stating that we are equals, but rather for the harmony of the next 20 years it really would not be good for either group to outright win. I.E I don't want date of hire (don't shoot me fellow NWAers) because the disharmony and ill will that would cause for the next upteen years and the same argument goes for relative seniority.

I do hope calmer heads will prevail and the two sides will just split their differences in half and then we can ***** about it over beers in AMS or CDG or NRT. I'll buy the first round.

Last edited by Opus; 10-30-2008 at 07:37 PM. Reason: typo
Opus is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:44 PM
  #117  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hawaii50's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by Opus View Post
Sailing,
I guess I just don't understand why we can't find somewhere in the middle,like splitting the difference between DOH and Relative Seniority. Then we'd both be equally ****ed/happy pending one's disposition. I don't know what DALPA is thinking but I hope it doesn't go to arbitration not because I do not believe our guys didn't make great arguments, with Blouch stating that we are equals, but rather for the harmony of the next 20 years it really would not be good for either group to outright win. I.E I don't want date of hire (don't shoot me fellow NWAers) because the disharmony and ill will that would cause for the next upteen years and the same argument goes for relative seniority.

I do hope calmer heads will prevail and the two sides will just split their differences in half and then we can ***** about it over beers in AMS or CDG or NRT. I'll buy the first round.
The DL argument now is relative seniority by equipment with the DC-9s in a separate category at the bottom. Widebody, narrowbody, DC-9. DL has the large majority of the large aircraft so that plan puts a larger number of DL guys near the top. Straight relative seniority would be in the middle of DOH and relative seniority by equipment.

Last edited by Hawaii50; 10-30-2008 at 07:51 PM.
Hawaii50 is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 08:46 PM
  #118  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 330Fo
Posts: 215
Default

Okay, if that's what you want to believe then okay! But, no matter how you run the numbers I lose 1700 numbers by the DAL proposal and that is not the middle of the road by any means. If DAL is going to hold on to relative seniority argument and not move from that position then the SLI will end up in the hands of the arbitraitors and then come what may. The NWA side feels that they have a solid argument as does the DAL guys however, my point being, is that for either side to outright win would be a loss for both sides as we would have disharmony and ill will for years to come. My proposal was that we find middle ground between Relative Seniority and Date of Hire not the DAl version that relative seniority is the middle ground. For that matter if Relative Seniority is the middle ground for DALPA what then is the real DAL list. Staple?
Opus is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:22 PM
  #119  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Default

Originally Posted by Opus View Post
Okay, if that's what you want to believe then okay! But, no matter how you run the numbers I lose 1700 numbers by the DAL proposal and that is not the middle of the road by any means. If DAL is going to hold on to relative seniority argument and not move from that position then the SLI will end up in the hands of the arbitraitors and then come what may. The NWA side feels that they have a solid argument as does the DAL guys however, my point being, is that for either side to outright win would be a loss for both sides as we would have disharmony and ill will for years to come. My proposal was that we find middle ground between Relative Seniority and Date of Hire not the DAl version that relative seniority is the middle ground. For that matter if Relative Seniority is the middle ground for DALPA what then is the real DAL list. Staple?
Opus, I suspect hawaii's statement that DL's position is now staight relative (vs. status and category) seniority is his guess or opinion of a plausible DL position in the negotiations. But if that were true, it would represent a movement toward compromise on the part of DL. I have yet to hear of any compromise (rumored, speculated, guessed, or opined) on the NW side, have you heard of any? --not trying to stir anything up here, just wondering if there are any rumors, etc. on your side.
wiggy is offline  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:27 PM
  #120  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hawaii50's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by Opus View Post
Okay, if that's what you want to believe then okay! But, no matter how you run the numbers I lose 1700 numbers by the DAL proposal and that is not the middle of the road by any means. If DAL is going to hold on to relative seniority argument and not move from that position then the SLI will end up in the hands of the arbitraitors and then come what may. The NWA side feels that they have a solid argument as does the DAL guys however, my point being, is that for either side to outright win would be a loss for both sides as we would have disharmony and ill will for years to come. My proposal was that we find middle ground between Relative Seniority and Date of Hire not the DAl version that relative seniority is the middle ground. For that matter if Relative Seniority is the middle ground for DALPA what then is the real DAL list. Staple?
I think you missed my point. I'm not really making a value judgment on either proposal. My point was that the current DL position is not relative seniority, it's relative seniority by equipment broken into 3 categories which skews the top of the list toward the group with the larger equipment and skews the bottom guys to NWA because the proposal puts the DC-9 in it's own category at the bottom. You would have to come out much better with just a straight relative seniority plan. Straight relative seniority would have you at the same position on the combined list as you are on your list now, ie your 75% down the list now and you end up 75% down the combined list.
Hawaii50 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ERJ Jay
Major
3
10-22-2008 06:57 AM
MJB68
Major
6
10-19-2008 12:30 PM
Scoop
Mergers and Acquisitions
176
10-10-2008 07:03 PM
NoSoupForYou
Mergers and Acquisitions
10
09-06-2008 07:00 PM
Oberon
Major
2
08-08-2008 10:10 AM

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices