NWA/DAL Pilots reach agrement on SLI...

[nwaredtail]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..oh that hurts. So you've got the hotline to the NWA negotiating committee. That's rich. What a weak post.

Call them back and tell them that they are wrong. The positions are NOT precedent setting. Arbitration is a fresh slate. It shouldn't surprise them that they are wrong. They should be getting used to it by now. I feel better and better about our chances every day when listening to the position of your "negotiating committee".

Here's a hint. Tell them to go back and look at the USAir/AWA pre-arbitration and then arbitration to see how much of the pre-arbitration was admitted to the arbitration testimony.

You guys are better off just letting Occam post for you on here.

Get back to your fluffer job with the General Scab boy

 

[General Lee]

Get back to your fluffer job with the General Scab boy

Really, you are getting desperate. Before long your MEC will get desperate too.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Anyone have any idea on how they did the SLI?

I'm interested to see my fate.

 

[MJ42]

YES, if you got hired at NWA and knew there were old DC9s that could get replaced with higher oil, then you should go before any Delta guy. Do you think it is fair to bring to the table an old plane and then furlough people never intending to fly it?

As far as wanting ANYONE to get furloughed, NO I do not. I hope we all get a no furlough clause or our management has a plan to get replacements quickly to replace the gas hogs. Unity would be great, as long as everything is FAIR.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Unity and fairness would be great, but using your rational all new hires at DAL and NWA (since about November) knew there could be a chance of a merger. We all still took the chance and signed the dotted line, all the while knowing what could happen.

Anyway, looks like things may get worse on both sides. There's bigger things to worry about than where the junior guys fit in. Hope we all come out of this better off.

 

[i fly boxes]

DAL's scope will have to be so wide and big that they can operate NWA as a subsidiary if the news reports are correct.

If the result of this whole ordeal is a holding company with 2 different Airlines being run seperately under it, with the oportunity for whipsaw, I am retiring from this industry

good luck

 

[~~~^~~~]

Heyas,

We're not talking about an SLI arbitration. The conversation is about whether NWA's contract permits operation of two carriers under a holding company.

It clearly does not.

Be careful what you sign.

Nu

Does the contract contimplate the role of NWA as a "holdee?" Why did management come to the table without the pilots? Would you prefer "parts?"

We thought we had things pretty well wired at ASA and Comair too back in 1999. Our contracts were written by ALPA attorneys also.

 

[PCL_128]

Call them back and tell them that they are wrong. The positions are NOT precedent setting. Arbitration is a fresh slate.

I'm not taking any sides on this whole NWA/DAL debate, but the above quote is incorrect. Negotiating notes are commonly used to demonstrate original intent to the arbitrator during grievance proceedings. If the written CBA language isn't clear enough, then the arbitrator looks at negotiating notes. If those aren't clear enough, then he looks at past practice. And so on, and so on.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL:

Respectfully, let us ensure we are talking apples to apples here. With regard to the SLI intergration the NWA pilots demanded ADR / arbitration.

Prior offers of compromise settlement are never admitted in alternative dispute resolution forums unless both parties agree to their submission.

 

[NuGuy]

PCL:

Respectfully, I think you are confused. We are not talking contract interpretation, we are talking arbitration of seniority.

Prior offers of compromise settlement are never admitted in alternative dispute resolution forums unless both parties agree to their submission.

Hi Fins,

No, it isn't PCL that is confused. Contract interpretation is EXACTLY what we're talking about.

The point here is that the DAL guys are trying to change the process by permitting their company to run two airlines under one holding company. That way, you get a AF/KLM merger (although CAL/EAL might be a better example).

The obvious threat here is "Do what we say, or we'll do to you what Lorenzo did to EAL".

But, in order to do this, you must relax portions of section 1. No problem, it's your contract, do what you want.

BUT, the NWA contract doesn't permit this. All of section one remains binding on any holding company, as well as NWA. Your PWA is more than just what's in the binder that you get in your mailbox. Large decisions have been won and lost on the basis of what the "intent" of the contract langauge was.

The moment someone tries to pull a "funny" with section one, it becomes a "major dispute". We all know where that leads, and I can guarentee you that is exactly where it will go.

So, you're finger is on "the button", and so is ours. We can all step back, and work something out, OR we can add two names to the list of bankrupt airlines in 2008.

Nu

 

[cessnapilot]

YES, if you got hired at NWA and knew there were old DC9s that could get replaced with higher oil, then you should go before any Delta guy. Do you think it is fair to bring to the table an old plane and then furlough people never intending to fly it?

As far as wanting ANYONE to get furloughed, NO I do not. I hope we all get a no furlough clause or our management has a plan to get replacements quickly to replace the gas hogs. Unity would be great, as long as everything is FAIR.


Bye Bye--General Lee

You seem to miss a couple of important points General…

1. Delta isn’t purchasing anyone. It is a proposed merger by stock swap.

2. Any of the contemplated mergers out there would result in parked airplanes. If UAL/CO, etc take place, the combined airline would most likely remove planes from many markets. So the issue becomes… what planes do you park? Well, one of the many advantages for nwa is that they can park planes that are paid for, and not get hit with any turn back fees. They also have minimal staff, resulting in less of a chance of overstaffing. Not only in pilot ranks, but in every department. They have been working for years to make nwa lean and attractive to a merger partner. Nwa is the best airline out there to merge with.

What does Delta bring to the table? It seems to be, from reading posts here, a group of pilots who think they are in control, special, and more deserving than any other group. RA is number one in my book, but if you trust and believe your management to “take care of you” I think you are mistaken. We are all in this together. Best of luck to us all.
cp

 

[~~~^~~~]

Hi Fins,

The point here is that the DAL guys are trying to change the process by permitting their company to run two airlines under one holding company. That way, you get a AF/KLM merger (although CAL/EAL might be a better example).

The obvious threat here is "Do what we say, or we'll do to you what Lorenzo did to EAL".

But, in order to do this, you must relax portions of section 1. No problem, it's your contract, do what you want.

BUT, the NWA contract doesn't permit this. All of section one remains binding on any holding company, as well as NWA. Your PWA is more than just what's in the binder that you get in your mailbox. Large decisions have been won and lost on the basis of what the "intent" of the contract language was.

The moment someone tries to pull a "funny" with section one, it becomes a "major dispute". We all know where that leads, and I can guarantee you that is exactly where it will go.

So, you're finger is on "the button", and so is ours. We can all step back, and work something out, OR we can add two names to the list of bankrupt airlines in 2008.

Nu

Nu: Interesting post. Very interesting. Several issues come to mind regarding the ability to bind third parties (folks who are not parties to your contract) and anti trust issues.

Ten years ago we researched scope as it applies to the organized labor exemptions to the Sherman Act and decided that these tremendously complex scope provisions could probably be challenged on anti-trust grounds. If the clearance agreement between the FTC and DOJ was written differently, scope as we know it would be challenged by the US Government (or would have been back then-same FTC Chair, but different FTC Counsel now). However ti was thought the scope defense line could be very easily breached by a third party, say Bombardier, GE, or even a Johnathan Orenstein type under anti trust grounds.

The problem being that scope has gone beyond labor protection provisions and morphed into remote control for third party airlines. "All NWA flying by NWA pilots" is easily construed as a labor protection provision. Three pages of "permitted flying" is not.

ALPA flat out has not received good legal advice on the topic. The ALPA attorneys have tried to make something work to meet political goals that just isn't in the law.

While obviously Delta and NWA management have looked at this deal without focusing on anti-competitive behavior (because lets face it, the merger is anti-competitive, hence the rush to get it reviewed by Bush's DOJ) there are holes larger than those that sunk the Titanic in ALPA's so called scope. (and I'm not just saying your scope, there is a lot of really poor contract language out there - written by lawyers that practice politics before law)

If a Comair line pilot can find holes, you would be well advised to find a better line of defense.

I could go into some more history, but it would probably be better as a PM. Point is, I don't know if your contract is capable of binding Delta. I would look for an economic argument and I hope Delta-ALPA has outside Counsel reviewing their own contract language.

You raise the point of how important this language is and I only add emphasis. Ford and Harrison could, if they were asked to do so, run through several airlines' scope like a hot knife through butter, the rub is third party involvement.

Sealing those holes might not be possible, which is yet another reason why all branded flying has to be done by pilots on that brand's seniority list.

All that has saved scope so far is the lack of a third party with a motivation to break it.

~~~^~~~

 

[PCL_128]

Nu: Interesting post. Very interesting. Several issues come to mind regarding the ability to bind third parties (folks who are not parties to your contract) and anti trust issues.

Ten years ago we researched scope as it applies to the organized labor exemptions to the Sherman Act and decided that these tremendously complex scope provisions could probably be challenged on anti-trust grounds. We did not go there because it would have been the end of scope due to the loose way it has been written by all the MECs that sought to "sell" their flying. If the clearance agreement between the FTC and DOJ was written differently, scope as we know it would be challenged by the US Government (or would have been back then-same FTC Chair, but different FTC Counsel now). However ti was thought the scope defense line could be very easily breached by a third party, say Bombardier, GE, or even a Johnathan Orenstein type under anti trust grounds.

The problem being that scope has gone beyond labor protection provisions and morphed into remote control for third party airlines. "All NWA flying by NWA pilots" is easily construed as a labor protection provision. Three pages of "permitted flying" is not.

ALPA flat out has not received good legal advice on the topic. The ALPA attorneys have tried to make something work to meet political goals that just isn't in the law.

While obviously Delta and NWA management have looked at this deal without focusing on anti-competitive behavior (because lets face it, the merger is anti-competitive, hence the rush to get it reviewed by Bush's DOJ) there are holes larger than those that sunk the Titanic in ALPA's so called scope. (and I'm not just saying your scope, there is a lot of really poor contract language out there - written by lawyers that practice politics before law)

If a Comair line pilot can find holes, you would be well advised to find a better line of defense.

I could go into some more history, but it would probably be better as a PM. Point is, I don't know if your contract is capable of binding Delta. I would look for an economic argument and I hope Delta-ALPA has outside Counsel reviewing their own contract language.

You raise the point of how important this language is and I only add emphasis. Ford and Harrison could, if they were asked to do so, run through several airlines' scope like a hot knife through butter, the rub is third party involvement.

Sealing those holes might not be possible, which is yet another reason why all branded flying has to be done by pilots on that brand's seniority list.

~~~^~~~

Fins, with all due respect, an army of ALPA attorneys are far more qualified to interpret anti-trust law as it relates to scope language than you or I. I discussed the anti-trust issues with one of ALPA's lead attorneys about a year and a half ago when there were rumblings that MAIR was going to argue that the MSA holding company letter was in violation of anti-trust laws. ALPA legal is pretty confident that the holding company language that has been negotiated at most carriers over the last few years will survive any anti-trust arguments made in the courts. DAL management may try to play that game, but their chances of success are not good. Not to mention that any DAL pilot who is in favor of being a party to something like that should be dragged out in the streets and shot.

 

[snow-back]

YES, if you got hired at NWA and knew there were old DC9s that could get replaced with higher oil, then you should go before any Delta guy. Do you think it is fair to bring to the table an old plane and then furlough people never intending to fly it?

As far as wanting ANYONE to get furloughed, NO I do not. I hope we all get a no furlough clause or our management has a plan to get replacements quickly to replace the gas hogs. Unity would be great, as long as everything is FAIR.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Since when do airlines furlough based on equipment type?

I guess you can rationalize anything when your that myopic!

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas Fins,

As part of our section one, we have "Notice to Transaction Successor" clauses.

Basically, it compells the company to notify and require, as part of the legal framework of any transaction (complete OR partial), the recognition and compliance with Section 1.

This isn't a matter of our contract binding on a third, unrelated, party, to which I happen to agree with you.

Rather, this langauge REQUIRES, as part of any transaction, that the successor recognizes and complies with section 1.

Simply put, either they become a party to the contract, or no transaction can be made.

Of course, DAL ALPA is free to argue in court that they are not party to this, BUT, in doing so, would open the floodgates for every RJDC type outfit to claim that they are not party to DAL scope, either.

And that, as you pointed out, is very dangerous ground to tread.

Nu

 

[PuffDriver]

Get back to your fluffer job with the General Scab boy

So than you agree that it is not precedent setting. I thought as much.