|
Denny,
I guess this is where I differ with everyone. I think too much like a management slug so I would like to see no fences and have the ability to maximize (in a perfect world and really smart managers - like strawberry fields forever) profit. Now with that said, the pure ratio doesn't work with our demographics because, in general, we are older. So, the senior guys retire and we all move up. Then Carl and I retire and more Delta guys move up to the point that 5 to 10 years down the road the upper third of the list (and the widebodys) are all old Delta. The days of service idea sounds interesting, but I would like to see it before I say more. I know.............chicken! Ferd PS..........Allan and Shirley have signed on to represent exNWA guys in all future arbritrations |
Carl,
I try not to get into the "your proposal is worse than my proposal" argument because the same argument can be thrown back and forth with nothing constructive to come of it. Although, at times, I've had a hard time not saying "Right back at ya!!!" (This comment is not directed at you) We get an extra month now to go back and forth with the discussion. IMO, All to no avail because it is not up to us. Again, in my pessimistic mode, I just cannot see a negotiated agreement. As I have said before, one side will have to come off it's basic premise of status and category or DOH for there to be an agreement and I just don't see that happening unless the arbitrators go to one side or the other and say something to the effect "you wont like our list more than the other guys wont like our list." I just don't see them doing that. I believe you mentioned in another post about length of service, that's still a DOH modified list and, as the basic premise, its DOH. Not gonna float on my side just as modified status and category list isn't gonna float on your side. We are the proverbial dogs chasing their tails. Neither one of us is going to convince the other that they are right. It's an exercise in futility. Although, I like to think that I'm like the crusty old Capt. that once told me, when dealing with a angry gate agent, "Why get angry when you know you're going to win the argument?!":D:D Ahhh.......The power of the brakes!!!!! I love it!! I'll always be around to ask questions, try to clarify what I know and TRY to stay out of the mudslinging........unless it's warm mud and there are bikini clad women involved!!!!!!:D Too much typing!!! Denny |
Ahhh Ferd,
Denny Crane has never lost a case!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D Be scared, be very, very scared!!!:D Who am I? I'm DennyCrane! (Wish there was some way to say that really fast in this medium!) |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 490321)
We are the proverbial dogs chasing their tails. Neither one of us is going to convince the other that they are right. It's an exercise in futility.
Denny |
Well, now that you mention election coverage, I guess this isn't so bad!!!:D Good conversation with verying viewpoints. What more could one ask for?!!:D
I'm so sick and tired of getting recorded "vote for me" calls, I could just......sit on the pot!!!!! Denny PS. I agree with you, I don't like fences either. I hope people much smarter than I can figure this out. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 490298)
Carl,
On a seperate post I asked if any Green Book guys had any comments on the 20 year fences - not one response. It appears that fences are very popular if you are "fenced-in" not so popular if you are "fenced-out."
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 490298)
Anyhow I think most DAL guys would love fences but why no fence protection for junior FO's? IF you guys want to fence off your heavies - great, but if the DC-9's are rock solid with the price of oil declining back it up with a fence. If the 9's get parked the furloughs come from the NW side. If DAL parks 88's the furloughs come from the DAL side. I have said before this would allow much more flexiiblity with the bottom of both lists which seem to be a problem area.
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 490298)
You guys are definitely trying to "cherry-pick" where the fences will go, and I don't blame you, but at least admit it.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 490321)
Carl,
As I have said before, one side will have to come off it's basic premise of status and category or DOH for there to be an agreement and I just don't see that happening unless the arbitrators go to one side or the other and say something to the effect "you wont like our list more than the other guys wont like our list." I just don't see them doing that. If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration.
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 490321)
unless it's warm mud and there are bikini clad women involved!!!!!!:D
Carl - sadly, not Denny Crane |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 490254)
Your premise as to NWA using "look ahead" as the basis for constructing the seniority list is completely wrong. You seem to be implying that NWA is using that to somehow justify our whacky notion of DOH. If that is what you are implying, it shows how your own personal bias is blinding you. And your not alone. NWA does not need to defend DOH as a methodology. It has been used in whole or in part for many arbitrated lists. NWA guys offer no apologies for wanting credit for every day of service from our airline - and thus we need no justification. There is an inherent fairness to the DOH concept. If the demographics were reversed, every Delta pilot would see this with complete clarity. The "look ahead" is used to show why a 10 year fence is needed to protect DAL pilots until most of the senior NWA guys are gone. We could have just proffered DOH without a fence, but then our award would be just as extreme as the DAL proposal. |
Wiggy,
Studies have shown that most people listen to someone only long enough to defend or refute. As soon as the person thinks of a defense or a refutation, they're done listening. You are one of those people. There is so much wrong with what you've posted that I don't even want to try to correct. First of all you wouldn't listen, secondly it wouldn't matter. NWA pilots haven't surrendered, and that is the only thing that you're interested in. Bye, Carl |
Carl, There is one simple fact about mergers. If DOH benefits your group then it if the only fair way to merge a list. If if does not then some form of ratio is the only fair way to merge the list. Prior to this round of merger talks I did not know a single Red book pilot at NWA who felt the Roberts award was fair.
I also have no doubt that if the positions were reversed and NWA had enjoyed greater growth and a newer fleet they would be on this forum screaming about how unfair DOH would be in merging the lists. The truth in the end is simple. Each side will always 100 percent of the time advocate the positions that is best for them. In this case arbitrators will make the final decision. Regardless of how that award comes down I will honor the decision and not blame NWA pilots for the outcome if it goes bad. They are doing what we are doing. Seeking the best deal for both sides. The only complaint I have had is the questionable accurracy of some things put out by the NWA mec and the need for observers ect.. that hinder committee work. I have no complaint at all about NWA asking for DOH. I have no doubt that if DOH benefited the Delta pilots we would be asking for it and I have no doubt that if a ratio benefited the NWA pilots they would be asking for a ratio as they did in their last merger. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 490551)
If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration.
Now if you wanted to include the BAD with the good, meaning both sides get credit for retirement attrition, and both sides get credit for fleet attrition, then it might work. That means for every 742, DC9 and 787 that leaves the fleet plan NWA pilots move down on "their" list, and for every 737 and 777 delivered DAL pilots move up. But I'm quite sure there'll be no negotiated list that only contains limited items favorable to NWA in the short and long term (retirement attrition and mid-length fences). If you'll remember the February negotiations broke down over this very point. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 490613)
Now if you wanted to include the BAD with the good, meaning both sides get credit for retirement attrition, and both sides get credit for fleet attrition, then it might work. That means for every 742, DC9 and 787 that leaves the fleet plan NWA pilots move down on "their" list, and for every 737 and 777 delivered DAL pilots move up. But I'm quite sure there'll be no negotiated list that only contains limited items favorable to NWA in the short and long term (retirement attrition and mid-length fences).
PG |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 490551)
Actually Denny, I think that is EXACTLY what will happen. The arbitrators may even go to both sides privately and say just that.
If I was on the NWA team, my bottom line position of what I would accept in negotiations would be a straight mathematical ratio right down to the .000001%. Then apply a minimal fence IF dynamic seniority was instituted. With dynamic seniority, NWA will only get credit for retirements that actually happen. Same for DAL when their retirements begin to spool up. I know people will pipe up about how that's the most unfair SLI proposal they've ever heard, but if NWA guys can't achieve that via negotiations, then I would take the chance with arbitration. Denny, you are the king of the typewritten mental picture! :D Carl - sadly, not Denny Crane A straight ratio is probably the fairest, but I think that using a dynamic list will create a mess for the categories in the future. So do you reshuffle EVERY category for the next umpteen years every time a pilot retires? You could never count on your relative position in a category month to month. Then there is the question about only making a list "dynamic" because of retirements. What about fleet retirements and previously announced growth airplanes. I think Delta guys lose if a dynamic list involves only retirements and the whole pilot group loses if we have to live under a dynamic list for years. Straight ratio and call it even for your nearterm retirements and our nearterm orders and mid to long term retirements Cog |
How about Dynamic only for early retirements? DAL guys keep saying early retirements won't happen, so they should be good with that, right?
|
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 490782)
How about Dynamic only for early retirements? DAL guys keep saying early retirements won't happen, so they should be good with that, right?
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 490786)
I don't think Delta guys are saying they wont happen. Early retirements however have limited value depending on how old the pilot is when he goes out early. We were hearing from NWA pilots that upwards of 1000 pilots would leave before DCC. We now hear the actual number was in single digits. If the list goes DOH many of your current domestic narrow body captains will go from 15 days a month of domestic flying to 9 or 10 days a month of international with great layovers. I think many will stay. Historically only 50% of pilots however make it to age 60 anyway because of medical or check ride issues. Many early retirements at Delta occur after a pilot has a check ride. He is quietly taken aside and told that it would be in his best interest to retire early.
|
Originally Posted by NWA320pilot
(Post 490807)
I keep seeing DAL guyspost how NWA. Pilots were saying 1000+ early retirements but I hven' actually been able to find any post stating this...... Can somebody show me where all these posts are?
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 484955)
Scoopy, I don't think so. NWA is looking at upwards of 1000 guys jumping ship before DCC to avoid the increase in benefit premiums. Combine that with the probable 10 year fence and were short big time. I also heard that were pulling upwards of 25 DC9-30s from the desert because of the price of oil. That being said, NWAs side of the new Delta will be hiring.
PS My guess on the 5 to 10 year fence is that it will be negotiated because the arbitrator warned Delta that this is a merger of equals. |
So one post from one guy? Hardly seems like "NWA pilots" were saying this. Maybe what should me posted in "NWA pilot posted 1 time" :)
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 490585)
Wiggy,
Studies have shown that most people listen to someone only long enough to defend or refute. As soon as the person thinks of a defense or a refutation, they're done listening. You are one of those people. There is so much wrong with what you've posted that I don't even want to try to correct. First of all you wouldn't listen, secondly it wouldn't matter. NWA pilots haven't surrendered, and that is the only thing that you're interested in. Bye, Carl (.... now, let's see, how can I, personally, get an advantage through dynamic lists?:cool:) |
For what it's worth, I have a buddy that is a professional mediator (family law, accidents etc.) and he says hands down that respective parties that do not come to the middle end up with a third party decision that, he says, for the majority is unacceptable to both sides. Thus, if neither DAL nor NWA are willing to move to the middle we will end up with an arbitrated agreement. So, while both sides emote how they are right in the arena of ideas we may end up with a decision that both sides hate. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
So, to my fellow NWAers and to DALPA, split our differences in half and call it a day. |
Originally Posted by NWA320pilot
(Post 490854)
So one post from one guy? Hardly seems like "NWA pilots" were saying this. Maybe what should me posted in "NWA pilot posted 1 time" :)
First you get me to do your work for you, then you complain that I only answered your question by quoting one post instead of all of them? OK, so only one dude flat out said it (throughout several posts, not just one), but plenty of other NWA dudes carried on the discussion without scoffing at least the premise. For example: From Carl Spackler: "For those talking about NWA management not "letting" 1000 guys retire, you should know it's not management's decision to make. If 1000 NWA guys want to retire early, there's nothing that can be done......I know it's a high number, but I don't think it's quite 1000 guys." From NwaF16dude: "I'd have a hard time believing they'd let a 1000 go, but I'd sure love it if they did. Hope you're right" I can't figure out how to quote from another thread and I'm sick of copy/paste, so that's all you get. You can look up the rest yourself. Take it or leave it. I'm out. |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 490934)
So, to my fellow NWAers and to DALPA, split our differences in half and call it a day.
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 490934)
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
But a "win" for either side is a loss for all of us.:eek: |
Slowplay,
I am confused at what you're point is. If it's that DAL is more likely to win with the arbitraitors and they shouldn't compromise because you're sure to win but a win for either side would be a loss for both then wouldn't that contradict you're premise of not moving from your position? Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded. Further, our argument that we have no desire to bid DAL equipment for ten years was to demonstrate to the arbitraitors that we are not looking for a windfall. My point, and let me clear on this, is that I do not feel that neither Date of Hire nor Relative Seniority would be good for the combined airline. A move to the middle where we split our differences, and I personally would lose 850 numbers of seniority per DOH under that scenario, would be preferable to having either an arbritration board dictate our seniority or having one side win out. Neither side wants 5000 plus pilots or 7000 plus pilot disgrumbled and disenfranchised for the next twenty years. My vote is we go to the middle. Any takers? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 489404)
My understanding of the term "Prevailing Equities" concerns the status quo on what the value of a specific DOH brings to each pilot on each list. I have a lot of friends at NWA. Some hired before and some after me. Even those hired several years ahead of me fly lower paying equipment and don't enjoy the quality of life that I do. One of them the other day asked if I ever fly when I commented on how I never see him. (Yes, I do like 9 to 10 day a month schedules!)
When two parties want the same thing and the court cannot in good conscience say that one has a better right to the item than the other, the court will leave it where it is. |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491031)
My vote is we go to the middle. Any takers?
The Delta side is obviously counting on getting a reasonable position accepted. The NWA side figures it is going to get split up the middle and presented a skewed position to throw the middle off on their side. Both parties have their strategies. Middle is the absolute worst case for Delta, so no, no thanks. I can wait until Christmas for a decision that effects the next 30 years. |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491031)
Slowplay,
I am confused at what you're point is. If it's that DAL is more likely to win with the arbitraitors and they shouldn't compromise because you're sure to win but a win for either side would be a loss for both then wouldn't that contradict you're premise of not moving from your position?
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491031)
Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded.
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491031)
Neither side wants 5000 plus pilots or 7000 plus pilot disgrumbled and disenfranchised for the next twenty years.
Of course, the best would be to have 12000 mildly irritated.:D |
Are you girls done bickering yet? ;)
|
If you think the arbitraitors are going to award Relative Seniority b/c you 2k more pilots than we do I would say you're wrong. Relative Seniority, the Dal list, has many of losing 1700 numbers. In ten years nwa/dal relative seniority will be close to the same to date of hire. So, effectively it will take ten years to get back to where I am today. Go ahead and try and justify that all you want but that would be an unbelievable windfall for DAL. So, don't go around saying you don't want to bid our airplanes if you're against fences. If Dal doesn't move from its position it will go to arbitraition. In the spring your premise was either take our proposal or the whole deal is off. Now, the deal is on no matter what. No more walking away b/c you didn't get your way. Our proposal, whether you like it or not, is a low cost proposal as it will not cause the displacement of one Dal pilot. So, don't think for a moment that the arbitraitiors won't take that into account.
The middle is the answer. A windfall for either side isn't. I realize I went to public schools so this seems so elemental and beyond me why others don't get it. Do you really want to spend the next decades working in an environment, from the training deptartment to line flying, where both sides are resentful and going after each other? |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491031)
Arbitraitor Bloch said we were "equals" a word that DAL should take to heart since the premise of their argument, like you have emoted, that we are not equals and thus should get super seniority, (seniority above date of hire). If the arbitraitor is using the word equals then that should concern Dalpa that the relative seniority windfall is most likely not going to be awarded.
|
Pride before the fall! Equality does not mean a huge windfall for DAL, who under their will ratio puts nwa pilots behind them and then take full advantage of the nwa retirements. That is not equality. Date of hire with a ten year fence guarantees that not one nwa pilot will displace a Dal pilot and while you have zero attrition for the next decade you will watch tremendous attrition on the nwa side.
You can continue to argue your point but do not think for one second that the Nwaers are going to cave. Won't happen. |
Opus,
As per the comparison of retirements I showed in another thread based on age 65 retirements, you only have 204 more retirements by 2018 and then we start taking over and then it's not even close. I can see why you want to have only a 10 year fence.:rolleyes: Denny |
I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 491169)
I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 491169)
I think the fences being talked about are all wrong... (of course I am biased).. but since the 777 and 747 are paying essentially the same.. the 330 and 767-400 are essentially the same... the only glaring difference is the fact that NWA has nothing comparable to the 767. THAT is where the fences should be, and ironically, that is precisely where they aren't.
|
That's because Airbus products don't need fences to keep pilots out. They need fences to keep pilots in!
If it aint Boeing .... What! Mein Gott! No fences around my precious 767? :eek: :eek: :eek: |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 491051)
Both parties have their strategies. Middle is the absolute worst case for Delta, so no, no thanks. I can wait until Christmas for a decision that effects the next 30 years.
For you to say the middle is the absolute worst case scenario shows that you believe there is no possibility of DOH being chosen as the SLI construction method. Unbelievable. If you are this careless and cavalier with your investments and personal matters...Yikes! You've really unmasked yourself for the extremist that you are. The middle is the worst case scenario...absolutely unreal. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 491301)
For you to say the middle is the absolute worst case scenario shows that you believe there is no possibility of DOH being chosen as the SLI construction method.
I think there is zero chance of DOH being the method. |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 491150)
Pride before the fall! Equality does not mean a huge windfall for DAL, who under their will ratio puts nwa pilots behind them
Fair and equitable?:p The middle ground is at the 50, not the 35. You want credit for all your "super premium" even though it was compensated less than our standard widebody flying, but you don't want credit for bringing in 800 of the lowest paying (and high risk) jobs on the DC-9. Tell me again the difference in bidding power of a 2001 and 2007 hire at your airline? Is that caused by DOH or their relative position on your list?:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 491307)
I think there is zero chance of DOH being the method.
We've agreed to a process over which we have little control. The truth is that either side's proposal could be adopted as is. Knowing that will keep all of our expectations in check Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 491362)
This is the kind of hubris that makes for bitterness after an award. You're so convinced that the chances are zero, that your angry for the rest of your career when the impossible (in your view) happens.
We've agreed to a process over which we have little control. The truth is that either side's proposal could be adopted as is. Knowing that will keep all of our expectations in check. Well, if ALPA policy made even one mention about DOH, I would not say its about a zero chance. But yes, I am convinced that a straight DOH merger will not happen. On the 1% chance it does, I think it will be accompanied by very long fences, ala the Roberts award. I disagree on the amount of control. The arbitrators are bound to abide by ALPA policy. You seem to think they have a lot of latitude, which in theory they may, but in practice, they do not. Arbitrators are hired all the time to rule on disputes. Many times, like this, ground rules and conditions are spelled out. They are not going to rule on the outer edge of their authority or they risk never being hired again to arbitrate a dispute. DOH will not happen. Neither will the DALPA proposal for that matter, but the DALPA proposal is a whole lot closer to any reasonable read of ALPA policy than a DOH list. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:22 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands