Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Mergers and Acquisitions
The truth about LOA 19 finally surfaces >

The truth about LOA 19 finally surfaces

Notices
Mergers and Acquisitions Facts, rumors, and conjecture

The truth about LOA 19 finally surfaces

Old 10-25-2008, 05:15 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
It's not extreme because our 10 year fence means that nearly every one of those NWA guys are gone in 10 years. And during the 10 years that NWA guys ARE still around, we can't exercise that seniority in any way except on our own pre-merger aircraft. We cannot excercise that seniority at the expense of any DAL pilot.

As I've asked earlier, where does the DAL fence proposal protect NWA guys in any similar fashion given the extreme inequities that exist on the DAL list from top to bottom?

Carl
Carl,

A ten year fence???? Are you serious?? First of all, do you think the arbitors are going to go for that and how about the tremendous inefficiencies it would create for the company. Fundamentally, any SLI that hinges on a TEN year fence illustrates how patently unfair and convoluted it is. Haven't you guys had enough of LONGGGGGG fences to go down that path again?
Cogf16 is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:17 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Eric Stratton's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Default

Originally Posted by JiffyLube View Post
Well, if there are 500 guys in the DC9 then 500 NWA guys should be on the bottom of the list.
why should 500 slots be put at the bottom of the list just because they dc9's?
Eric Stratton is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:20 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pineapple Guy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Default

Originally Posted by Cogf16 View Post
Carl,

A ten year fence???? Are you serious?? First of all, do you think the arbitors are going to go for that and how about the tremendous inefficiencies it would create for the company. Fundamentally, any SLI that hinges on a TEN year fence illustrates how patently unfair and convoluted it is. Haven't you guys had enough of LONGGGGGG fences to go down that path again?
Cogf16,

You obviously don't know Carl. He LOVES fences. He's a red book guy and those fences are the only thing that allowed him to hold the 747-400 Captain seat, in spite of many green book guys senior to him. He's also on record as supporting "plug n chug" or whatever they call it, that would allow him to stay on the 747, even when they move that equipment to another base. Grandfathered forever, that's his view. Oh.... but he only supports it to save the company training costs.....

PG
Pineapple Guy is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:36 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Default

Carl,

I'm kinda new to forums in general and do not know how to cut and paste quotes so please bear with me.

As far as all your guys retiring in the next 10 years, I just perused your seniority list and saw numerous '85 hires with dates of birth of 1956 or later, many in 1960. You are assuming that all these guys are going to retire at age 60 or before and I think that is an invalid assumption, especially base on today's economic environment and even with out it.

A 10 year fence allows your SL pilots to take advantage of your retirement, as it should, but what about the HUGE number of DAL pilots that start retiring about 2019? You (NW pilots) get the advantage of that as well.

The Dal pilot list mitigates it just the same as the NW list does, only with a shorter 5 year fence during which most of your senior guys who would retire at 60 will be gone. (Thats up for debate as many have pointed out the high price of healthcare these days!!) I think, due to your hard frozen pension plan, most of your 1985 hires will more than likely stay longer than 60 because they do not have 25 years and, as stated before, high health care costs.

The argument about the 402 pilots at the bottom has been gone over and over. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But putting approx. 28 percent of your pilot group in the top 15 to 16 percent of the combined list is incomprehensible to me.

I sure hope we, both merger committees, can work this out, but I have my doubts. One group has to come off their respective stance and I just dont see that happening.

Good luck to us all!!!!

I'd love to stay and chat but I have some beer to drink!!! "D Maybe I'll get back on in a little while after I'm all loosened up!!!

Denny
Denny Crane is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:39 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy View Post
Cogf16,

You obviously don't know Carl. He LOVES fences. He's a red book guy and those fences are the only thing that allowed him to hold the 747-400 Captain seat, in spite of many green book guys senior to him. He's also on record as supporting "plug n chug" or whatever they call it, that would allow him to stay on the 747, even when they move that equipment to another base. Grandfathered forever, that's his view. Oh.... but he only supports it to save the company training costs.....

PG
Yes,
I remember that discussion yesterday about moving the entire CVG 767 category(of which I am a part of) to Seattle and somehow not allowing the pilot group to fairly bid into the category. That would never happen at Delta because the union would see that as unfair to the majority of the group. In fact, last week at a lounge show in ATL, the director of Crew Resources alluded to this fact, saying he wishes he had a magic wand and could instantly turn all the 767 domestic categories into ER categories without incurring the training costs, moving expenses etc. He knows that would never happen and in fact they plan on closing the CVG dom. category and totally rebidding it as an ER category, open to any and all who wish to bid it. Thats how we do things at Delta

Cog
Cogf16 is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 05:42 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Default

Please enlighten me.

I really don't understand the logic. As I understand it, NWA has the biggest aircraft (747-400) and wants to protect those positions. Okay, I can understand that. They want the lion's share of the highest seniority numbers.

But they also have the smallest aircraft (their entire DC-9 fleet is smaller than the MD-88). According to the above concept, they should similarly occupy the lion's share of the lowest seniority numbers.

If you want a big fence at the top, shouldn't there be a similar fence at the bottom to reflect the realities of the fleet differences between NWA and DAL?

Otherwise, it would seem to protect the senior NWA pilots and screw the junior DAL pilots.

How is that equitable?
Wasatch Phantom is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:04 PM
  #27  
Can't abide NAI
 
Bucking Bar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Default

Originally Posted by Eric Stratton View Post
why should 500 slots be put at the bottom of the list just because they dc9's?
Eric,

You're kidding right? This isn't as good as your defense of the frat in the Super Secret Probationary hearing. Just picture Richard Bloch as Dean Vernon Wormer.

Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-25-2008 at 06:12 PM.
Bucking Bar is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:06 PM
  #28  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom View Post
Please enlighten me.

I really don't understand the logic. As I understand it, NWA has the biggest aircraft (747-400) and wants to protect those positions. Okay, I can understand that. They want the lion's share of the highest seniority numbers.

But they also have the smallest aircraft (their entire DC-9 fleet is smaller than the MD-88). According to the above concept, they should similarly occupy the lion's share of the lowest seniority numbers.

If you want a big fence at the top, shouldn't there be a similar fence at the bottom to reflect the realities of the fleet differences between NWA and DAL?

Otherwise, it would seem to protect the senior NWA pilots and screw the junior DAL pilots.

How is that equitable?
I think you're right about that Wasatch. That's the weakness in our SLI proposal in my opinion. There should be a similar fence at the bottom as you suggest. The fact that there is not, makes the NWA proposal extreme for the DAL guys at the bottom. The DAL proposal however, is extreme from top to bottom.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:15 PM
  #29  
Super Moderator
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,851
Default

[quote=capncrunch;485535]I'm glad you guys are sticking to that ridiculous idea because it makes the arbitrators position to side with NWA easier. He already warned you guys that this is a merger of equals and if you don't heed his point, you'll find yourself very upset when the decision comes out.

CAPN,
I guess you did not read the testimony from day 1 of the hearings when the DAL side that this was a merger of equals and the DAL was not going to try to show either side as better or the savior of the other. I repeat - that was our position on day 1 of the hearings so this is not exactly breaking news.

Scoop
Scoop is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:16 PM
  #30  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

I love in Bucking Bar. That is awesome, and quite truthful.
acl65pilot is offline  

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