nwaf16dude

I think managing a dynamic seniority list would make 10 year fences look simple.

newKnow

So, when an aircraft is parked, do you think that it will not be replaced with mainline flying? (Ie. If they park an MD-88 will they not replace it with a B-737 or a A-320?)

Also, when an aircraft is delivered, how long do you think it can be attributed to one side or the other? (If they deliver a B-787 to DAL in 2020, is that because of NWA?)

So, I'm just wondering how long would you have to factor in the airplanes coming and going?

Hawaii50

Very rough numbers here but it looks almost no age 65 retirements for the next 4 years then:

+100/yr NW 2013-2015
+75 NW 2016-2017
+25 NW 2018-2019
= 2020
+200 DL 2021-2026

To be fair a dynamic list would have NW guys taking spots on NW jets when a former NW guy retires and DL guys taking spots on DL jets when a DL guy retires. It would have to include which aircraft are replacements for whose aircraft, what happens if a fleet is retired, and should be skewed to take into account that NW guys now have access to bid across an overall larger, higher paying fleet from SOC on. Sounds like a huge cluster to me.

The simpler, better solution to me would be a straight ratio with retirements and the higher paying DL fleet factored in. It may come out as a wash.

Superpilot92

Those numbers arent very accurate or you chose only to look at the the time before the big retirements kick in. You also assume now replacement would come for the planes we are bringing to the table. Fact is we control that right now with our Joint Scope language. Here are the #'s off of the NWA ALPA website. These assume age 60 retirements so if you want to pretend that EVERYONE will go to age 65 then add 4 more years to each date. (thus far the majority of our pilots are retiring at 60 or before.)

YR--RET
08--70
09--96
10--167
11--183
12--199
13--230
14--256
15--285
16--295
17--343
18--314
19--283
20--272
21--255
22--208
23--202
24--191
25--182
26--180
27--152
28--122
2029-2043 roughly 350 retirements

Superpilot92

Thats nearly 1500 pilots by 2020 assuming EVERYONE goes to age 65 which we all know is unlikely.

2993 retirements by 2020 assuming age 60.

Hawaii50

Maybe it wasn't clear enough but I posted rough numbers comparing the difference in NW and DL retirement numbers, not total retirements. It's the difference that matters not the totals. From 2026 on it looks as though DL has at least 100 more/year than NW. Also, I don't think you can assume anything other than an age 65 retirement for everyone.

Xray678

This is a shot at both MECs, but no, I don't think you can count on every mainline airplane that gets parked having a replacement. As a group both the Delta and NWA pilots are fools. We both voted to allow 90 seat RJs. Everytime I pull into ATL I am shocked at how many former mainline gates are occupied by a EMB-175 or a CRJ-900. All of them going to places our 737s and MD-88s used to go. I am sure it's the same at NWA as I see your 175s and 900s all over the place. No doubt Moak and his boys will try to sell us 100 seat RJs in the future as a good deal, just like they did on the 90 seat RJs. (yeah, yeah, I know, its only configured with 76 seats)

As far as deliveries, I think FIRM orders as they exist right now should be credited to the group that ordered them.

I think how long we factor in the aircraft coming and going is negotiable. But I certainly think a period of 5-10 years would not be unreasonable. After that, just dynamic on the pilot retirements.

That said, as others have pointed out that does not take care of all the problems with a dynamic list. Say a pilot bids to be a 767 captain with a qualifier of 70th percentile. Now suddenly 200 NWA pilots retire in the next year and as the list gets reshuffled, that pilot finds himself in the 90th percentile. Is that fair? Should we give him a chance to bid off and go back to something where he be more senior? Or does he just have to wait until a bunch of Delta guys retire and the list is again reshuffled?

Denny Crane

Super,

In the following chart I added 5 years to the NW retirements in your post to compare apples to apples. These are age 65 retirements on from both Co.'s:

NW DL
2013 70 60
2014 96 75
2015 167 89
2016 183 136
2017 199 157
2018 230 218
2019 256 272
2020 285 348
2021 295 478
2022 343 567
2023 314 549
2024 283 544
2025 182 472
2026 180 422
2027 152 318
2028 122 311

In years 29 and 30 we have 654 retirements alone and hundreds in the years after.

In essence, based on age 65, you have a total of 204 retirements more than us thru 2018 and DL's retirements more than takecare of that by 2021, 3 years later.

The numbers for DL were taken off the Company website under pilot resources and scheduling.

IMO, there just is not that big a difference in the short term and way to your advantage in the medium to long term. I know, I know, you all think many will retire at 60 and that my be true, but the only truly known date is at age 65.

Fire Away!!!!!!!

Denny

Carl Spackler

I think this is essentially correct. Folks who are saying we have to cover every possible scenario with dynamic seniority are just trying to scuttle that concept. In negotiations, it's easy to sit there and find 8,000 things wrong with everyone's proposals. Nothing gets done that way. Straight ratio with dynamic seniority is not perfect, but it is middle ground between the two proposals.

Many Delta guys here have been saying that nothing could happen in negotiations unless NWA moves off their insane DOH concept. So here's a concept that does that - and what happens?... 90% of everyone here snipes and "what ifs" it to death.

For you 90% ers out there, you're just begging for an arbitrator's ruling.

Carl

Carl Spackler

I actually have no sympathy at all for the company in this regard. I could write an Excel spreadsheet that would handle dynamic seniority automatically in ONE DAY. If that is too hard for the tender little daisies in management to handle, then we're all in trouble.

Complexity should not be a reason to scuttle a concept. If the concept is fairest to the most people over the longest period of time, that's the one we should use. If Delta can't handle it...too damn bad. It's OUR seniority list not THEIRS.

Carl