Notices
Mergers and Acquisitions Facts, rumors, and conjecture

NWA SLI Shenanigans

Old 11-26-2008, 10:42 AM
  #111  
Gets Weekends Off
 
satchip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Default

Originally Posted by Superpilot92 View Post
Even under the NWA proposal, YOU would move up in numbers when a NWA pilot retires. Only positions are blocked off, BOTH on the NWA and DAL sides. It goes both ways fellas, thats all we're saying.

The DAL side keeps saying they dont want to fly our aircraft anyway so whats the problem?
No, under your proposal when a NW guy retires only NW guys move up the list, leapfrogging more senior Delta guys. Your fence proposal also ends at the precise time that the Delta retirements out number the NW ones. How many times have we heard you and others harping about "Delta benefiting from OUR retirements!"? If they are your retirements then their your jets that are being parked and your furloughs. If you want to share the pain then you have to share the gain. If we are one group then we all benefit from guys leaving at the top and we all suffer from planes leaving at the bottom.
satchip is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 11:03 AM
  #112  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
No, under your proposal when a NW guy retires only NW guys move up the list, leapfrogging more senior Delta guys.
That's not true satchip. I've posted the exact language of the NWA proposed fence, and there is no leap frogging. None.

The leap frogging you cite was the concept of dynamic seniority as it relates to actual attrition. That concept was if the list was constructed via a RATIO. There is no such dynamic seniority concept as part of the NWA proposal which is Date of Hire and a 10 year fence.

You are correct about the fences expiring too close to when DAL retirements begin to kick in. I think the fences should extend to the end of DAL's big retirement push to be fair.

All just a moot point now though, but I wanted you and everyone else to be clear on what the NWA proposal is and what it isn't.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 11:23 AM
  #113  
Underboob King
 
Superpilot92's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
No, under your proposal when a NW guy retires only NW guys move up the list, leapfrogging more senior Delta guys. Your fence proposal also ends at the precise time that the Delta retirements out number the NW ones. How many times have we heard you and others harping about "Delta benefiting from OUR retirements!"? If they are your retirements then their your jets that are being parked and your furloughs. If you want to share the pain then you have to share the gain. If we are one group then we all benefit from guys leaving at the top and we all suffer from planes leaving at the bottom.

I agree that we should just all as a group take what both sides are bringing. Unfortunately neither of us made the proposals or has a real say in it. However under the NWA proposal there would be no leap frogging in seniority numbers. Everyone would move up the list as attrition took place. What the proposal does do though is block out certain positions on BOTH sides so that only the original pilots of each airframe could bid them until the period of time expired. Therefore as attrition takes place in those positions, let say the 747 than only NWA pilots would be eligible to bid those seats. Same goes for the blocked off DAL seats. What this does is it allows the NWA side to get the benefits of our sides retirements without having the RD swooping in and taking those positions. The DAL side also has the same protections during the same period of time. Its not perfect but that was the jist of it.

Bottom line is EVERYONE moves up in numbers so there is no leap frogging of seniority. If there gets to be a point to where there arent enough people to bid those positions then the other side will be able to bid them.

Good thing is that the arbitrators have already said on a couple of occasions that neither sides list will be used so we can all look at the other sides proposal as worst case scenario.
Superpilot92 is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 03:17 PM
  #114  
Gets Weekends Off
 
satchip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Default

Carl you are correct I did mix metaphors so to speak. Your DOH proposal fence expires at the time of the Delta retirements and your dynamic lists proposes leapfrogging. Both proposals fail to meet ALPA merger policy as presently stated and fail to meet the fair and equitable standard. We have argued those points ad nauseum. The point is if positive attrition due to retirements is an equity (which by the way, it has never been recognized as one in the past) then negative attrition due to aircraft retirements should be a negative equity factored into the equation. You can't take ownership of one and not the other. Any list that uses the equity of attrition to place one subset of the group ahead of another must also account for the negative attrition equity also.

Last edited by satchip; 11-26-2008 at 03:18 PM. Reason: verb tense
satchip is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 03:36 PM
  #115  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
Carl you are correct I did mix metaphors so to speak. Your DOH proposal fence expires at the time of the Delta retirements and your dynamic lists proposes leapfrogging. Both proposals fail to meet ALPA merger policy as presently stated and fail to meet the fair and equitable standard. We have argued those points ad nauseum. The point is if positive attrition due to retirements is an equity (which by the way, it has never been recognized as one in the past) then negative attrition due to aircraft retirements should be a negative equity factored into the equation. You can't take ownership of one and not the other. Any list that uses the equity of attrition to place one subset of the group ahead of another must also account for the negative attrition equity also.

Here's the problem with your argument. We still have DC9s(60+). They're still flying. There's NO OFFICIAL plan to park them in your phantom 5 year time period. Therefore, it's unjustified to put the so called "responsibility of the furlough jet" on NWA pilots. They're STILL FLYING. WE'VE FURLOUGHED NO ONE!!!!! Show me the press release that says they're all being parked. That's right, there isn't one.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 04:24 PM
  #116  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

I think the plans that you are looking for will start to take form very shortly after the SLI. (12.09.08)
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 05:16 PM
  #117  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot View Post
I think the plans that you are looking for will start to take form very shortly after the SLI. (12.09.08)
You mean DC9s coming out of storage?!

I'm guessing the opposite though. You're not supposed to say stuff like that. Your source is too good.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 05:56 PM
  #118  
Gets Weekends Off
 
capncrunch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
Any list that uses the equity of attrition to place one subset of the group ahead of another must also account for the negative attrition equity also.
Like the Delta over expanded in Europe furloughs. You wanted it to cut both ways...
capncrunch is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 06:18 PM
  #119  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TBoneF15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 248
Default

I thought we were going to stop all this cr@p.

If not, then both sides need to try some new material. This is boring.
TBoneF15 is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 06:56 PM
  #120  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by TBoneF15 View Post
I thought we were going to stop all this cr@p.

If not, then both sides need to try some new material. This is boring.
Well, I'll be the first to admit I didn't follow my own advice. Sorry guys. I'm back to not arguing this. As I said earlier, it's over.
johnso29 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NoSoupForYou
Mergers and Acquisitions
37
11-23-2008 01:09 PM
MJB68
Major
6
10-19-2008 12:30 PM
DAL4EVER
Mergers and Acquisitions
12
10-18-2008 01:02 PM
Scoop
Mergers and Acquisitions
176
10-10-2008 07:03 PM
JetFlyer06
Mergers and Acquisitions
4
08-08-2008 08:48 PM

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