SLI compromises
11-17-2008, 04:35 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 330Fo
Posts: 215
Sailingfun,
Oh yes they have asked Dal for a plan B. Dal response was that they were not moving off their position. This is why Bloch broke off talks between dalpa et nalpa.
Your leadership is basically saying, 'hey, we don't want to go back to our membership, after selling them that they would get the seniority windfall, and tell them that we have compromised/caved and have 7000 plus pilots cursing their names for the next twenty years. Let them be mad at the arbitraitors, not us.'
We offered 32 proposals to your one! I know you guys have already started celebrating assuming it's a done deal but, well, whatever.
Oh yes they have asked Dal for a plan B. Dal response was that they were not moving off their position. This is why Bloch broke off talks between dalpa et nalpa.
Your leadership is basically saying, 'hey, we don't want to go back to our membership, after selling them that they would get the seniority windfall, and tell them that we have compromised/caved and have 7000 plus pilots cursing their names for the next twenty years. Let them be mad at the arbitraitors, not us.'
We offered 32 proposals to your one! I know you guys have already started celebrating assuming it's a done deal but, well, whatever.
11-17-2008, 06:05 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by Opus
Your leadership is basically saying, 'hey, we don't want to go back to our membership, after selling them that they would get the seniority windfall, and tell them that we have compromised/caved and have 7000 plus pilots cursing their names for the next twenty years. Let them be mad at the arbitraitors, not us.'.
That's funny. DALPA has never promised anyone a windfall. In fact just the opposite. Any rep I have talked to personally has told me to keep my expectations realistic, and that we are not going to get what we want.
I challenge you to back up your statement and provide any proof that the DALPA folks have said anything other than they want to get a fair list.
11-17-2008, 06:14 PM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Let me see if I follow your logic.
Carl
Carl
I quoted you. You said "a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion."
I asked if USAirways got religion. You inferred from that question.
Dan Katz was USAirways attorney.
You figure it out....
(hint: it ain't about the pilots, it's about the "good lawyer")
11-17-2008, 06:19 PM
#124
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by slowplay
You obviously don't.
I quoted you. You said "a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion."
I asked if USAirways got religion. You inferred from that question.
Dan Katz was USAirways attorney.
You figure it out....
(hint: it ain't about the pilots, it's about the "good lawyer")
I quoted you. You said "a good lawyer will MAKE you get religion."
I asked if USAirways got religion. You inferred from that question.
Dan Katz was USAirways attorney.
You figure it out....
(hint: it ain't about the pilots, it's about the "good lawyer")
Carl
11-17-2008, 06:28 PM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 330Fo
Posts: 215
xray,
Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.
What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.
Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.
What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.
11-17-2008, 07:36 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,396
Originally Posted by Opus
xray,
Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.
What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.
Well, if you are of the mindset that a ratio by category list is fair and realistic, where say, I guy like me (mid 90s nwa hire) loses 1800 numbers and being that your proposall is also a static list, Dal guys will get to enjoy the attrition of 2500 of our pilots that are going to retire in the next ten years, then sure dal expectations are realistic. However, from a nwa point of view it will take us eight years to get to the seniority number our date of hire would afford us today.
What proof, well I'm limited on a public forum, but how about this. Your mec has not moved off of its position and is still holding on to a ratio by category and a static list.
Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."
I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.
Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?
11-17-2008, 08:41 PM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Dalpa has not given a plan B because they were not asked to provide one. The arbitrators have given feedback to both sides in the mediation process. The result is the NWA plan B. There was a nice quote in the process when NWA stated that there proposal was still DOH. One of the arbitrators asked what they just spent 4 hours listening to then!
Where in the transcripts is that located? I'm not trying to jab you (I just signed off on a group hug in another thread). I just really want to know.
Respectfully,
New K Now
11-18-2008, 05:40 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Yep
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
How are you getting the shaft? If you are a mid-level A330 FO now...you will be after the merger. You claim we will benefit from your retirements, but how about all of ours that kick in a few years later? Oh yeah, your proposed fence ends right about then...hmmm...
Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."
I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.
Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?
Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."
I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.
Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?
11-18-2008, 09:17 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 330Fo
Posts: 215
How are we getting the shaft? Simple, for most of us we will lose upto 1900 numbers in seniority with doh being the reference point. It will take close to nine years to get back to that reference point. Example, if a pilot on the nwa side would be 7100 on the combined list per doh but 8900 on the ratio by category list it would take until 2018 until that pilot is back to 7100.
That same pilot would be 3400 on the nwa list, assuming no merger, would be at 2500 (50%) in four years. On the nwa list that pilot would retire in the top 200 depending on age but on the dal proposed list that pilot would never crack the top 1800. The average age of a nwa pilot is now 53, ergo, complete stagnation or displacement for the rest of their careers.
The concept, that we offered and so far has been reject by dalpa of the dynamic list would work both ways. When a nwa retires we move up. When a dal guy retires you would move up until all 12400 of us no longer are on the property. As for going backwards we also offered up a dynamic lists for that so that it would effect our junior guys and the dal guys would be safe. However, as you remember we have a no furlough clause (stop laughing) and a displacement protection clause for the next 36 months. So, in the short term that doesn't seem to be an issue, at least on paper.
So, the truth is, and please be honest about this, is that you want your date of hire to be deemed more valuable than ours. You want to be placed in a seniority list that favors you and also enjoy all of the nwa attrition.
We have offered up 32 proposals to your one. Finally, we presented to the arbitraitors that, hey, if dal gets relative seniority than at least acknowledge our attrition to give at least a little dignity and respect.
I have posted twice the idea of splitting the diference between doh/rs and not one dal guy responded in favor of that. So, be honest guys. You want your cake and eat it too. We should glad we have job right! Where have heard that before.
That same pilot would be 3400 on the nwa list, assuming no merger, would be at 2500 (50%) in four years. On the nwa list that pilot would retire in the top 200 depending on age but on the dal proposed list that pilot would never crack the top 1800. The average age of a nwa pilot is now 53, ergo, complete stagnation or displacement for the rest of their careers.
The concept, that we offered and so far has been reject by dalpa of the dynamic list would work both ways. When a nwa retires we move up. When a dal guy retires you would move up until all 12400 of us no longer are on the property. As for going backwards we also offered up a dynamic lists for that so that it would effect our junior guys and the dal guys would be safe. However, as you remember we have a no furlough clause (stop laughing) and a displacement protection clause for the next 36 months. So, in the short term that doesn't seem to be an issue, at least on paper.
So, the truth is, and please be honest about this, is that you want your date of hire to be deemed more valuable than ours. You want to be placed in a seniority list that favors you and also enjoy all of the nwa attrition.
We have offered up 32 proposals to your one. Finally, we presented to the arbitraitors that, hey, if dal gets relative seniority than at least acknowledge our attrition to give at least a little dignity and respect.
I have posted twice the idea of splitting the diference between doh/rs and not one dal guy responded in favor of that. So, be honest guys. You want your cake and eat it too. We should glad we have job right! Where have heard that before.
Last edited by Opus; 11-18-2008 at 09:20 AM. Reason: typo
11-18-2008, 10:02 AM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
How are you getting the shaft? If you are a mid-level A330 FO now...you will be after the merger. You claim we will benefit from your retirements, but how about all of ours that kick in a few years later? Oh yeah, your proposed fence ends right about then...hmmm...
Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."
I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.
Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?
Our MEC has always proclaimed that we want a negotiated, fair and equitable agreement, and that putting it into the hands of arbitrators is a failure of leadership. However, we aren't going to accept a poor SLI just for the sake of "a negotiated agreement."
I haven't met ONE Delta guy who wants to "screw" the NWA pilots, nor have I met ONE who even wants to fly the whale, much less longs for some nefarious SLI that will somehow steal your upgrade opportunities. We just want to see the same opportunities available to us one, two, and ten years down the road as we have now. We DON'T want to see anyone displaced from the -9 and 747-200 at all, but if it happens, we don't think we should have to eat the backwards movements that your displacements create.
Likewise, if the story changes and mgmt decides that the M88 has to go and the -9 stays, neither should any of your guys have to eat the displacements that our aircraft leaving would create. Is that too much to ask?
We have argued how to get to what we both want since April. Please don't make it sound like it's easy and all we need to do is "listen to you" or "trust us".
Ferd
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
