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.

 

[PuffDriver]

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.

Hold on, now. I agree with that one. The question came as to whether or not our informal SLI talks can come back in actual arbitration of an SLI. The answer is a resounding no. Delta can absolutely change our position. Whether or not they would is up for more debate. It was very fair, and the numbers back it up. Anything less, and the numbers point to a Delta loss at a NWA pilot's gain. That's a no-no in ALPA merger policy. We aren't talking about the grievance process here. None of what we have done so far is considered a legal proceeding.

 

[PCL_128]

Hold on, now. I agree with that one. The question came as to whether or not our informal SLI talks can come back in actual arbitration of an SLI. The answer is a resounding no. Delta can absolutely change our position. Whether or not they would is up for more debate. It was very fair, and the numbers back it up. Anything less, and the numbers point to a Delta loss at a NWA pilot's gain. That's a no-no in ALPA merger policy. We aren't talking about the grievance process here. None of what we have done so far is considered a legal proceeding.

I think the problem is that you and Nu were talking about different things. He was referring to their scope language being violated, which would be handled under the grievance process, but you're talking about SLI arbitration. You're correct that SLI arguments can certainly change by the time you get to arbitration. As to the fairness of either side's proposals, like I said, I'm staying out of that one.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The RJDC litigants were first party litigants on a DFR claim against their Rep. (ALPA) It is a different matter.

Third parties like GE, or Bombardier, had standing but no reason to pursue the matter since Delta had signed a $10,000,000,000.00 deal (yes, ten billion sports fans) for almost 500 RJ's which they in fact did end up buying (wonder how they knew scope would be enlarged to allow that to happen in 1999? Lucky guess? :erm: ) Bombardier did not want to rock that gravy train since they sold CRJ200's for more than Boeing rolled a few 717's off the line for.

PCL - If no one challenges a contract, it remains valid. No one has made a run on one of ALPA's five to ten page scope sections. But, you would be interested to know the DMEC filed a grievance over Comair performing Shuttle flying and either lost or withdrew it. Delta (as is often the case) wanted to preserve relations with their pilots and temporarilly ceased CMR's Shuttle ops. Today, Comair operates Shuttle.

Of course the attorney that wrote it is going to tell you he thinks it is good. Ask me how I think I did on my last check ride....

...and I'm not saying someone is going to make that run now, but it is a risk when you complicate scope and step way outside of labor protection provisions to try to control flying performed by another entity.

There are a host of reasons why scope should be all "Delta" flying performed by "Delta" pilots. This is yet another reason.

~~~^~~~

 

[PuffDriver]

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

Fortunately, that is not the way this is headed. Keep asking them, though, and they will get it sooner or later.

 

[PuffDriver]

I think the problem is that you and Nu were talking about different things. He was referring to their scope language being violated, which would be handled under the grievance process, but you're talking about SLI arbitration. You're correct that SLI arguments can certainly change by the time you get to arbitration. As to the fairness of either side's proposals, like I said, I'm staying out of that one.

Yep, overlooked that. Too much fluffing I guess. Regardless, it will be done IOW both PWAs--if it becomes necessary.

 

[generaltso]

So the issue becomes… what planes do you park?

Good question, but 35 RJ's is a great start!

 

[MJ42]

Good question, but 35 RJ's is a great start!

Your next sweet tea is on me! Better yet...next beer!:beer:

 

[Superpilot92]

bottom line here guys is that we are both ALPA, we both are fighting for the same cause, to get the best contract and most pay, right? In order to effectively do that we need to be getting along and stop the name calling BS. We should be fighting to keep everyone on property both sides, fighting for our stake in the new company, and fighting for pay raises. This will make the largest airline in the world with pretty much the largest pilot group. That's only worth something if we stand together, otherwise its not worth much. Mgmt would love for us to be fighting each other because if we fight each other we cant fight them. However this goes down, eventually we will all be part of the same company working towards the same goals.:beer:

 

[johnsonrod]

bottom line here guys is that we aer both ALPA, we both are fighting for the same cause, to get the best contract and most pay, right? In order to effectively do that we need to be getting along and stop the name calling BS. We should be fighting to keep everyone on property both sides, fighting for our stake in the new company, and fighting for pay raises. This will make the largest airline in the world with pretty much the largest pilot group. That's only worth something if we stand together, otherwise its not worth much. Mgmt would love for us to be fighting each other because if we fight each other we cant fight them. However this goes down, eventually we will all be part of the same company working towards the same goals.:beer:

Amen brother...

 

[PuffDriver]

bottom line here guys is that we aer both ALPA, we both are fighting for the same cause, to get the best contract and most pay, right? In order to effectively do that we need to be getting along and stop the name calling BS. We should be fighting to keep everyone on property both sides, fighting for our stake in the new company, and fighting for pay raises. This will make the largest airline in the world with pretty much the largest pilot group. That's only worth something if we stand together, otherwise its not worth much. Mgmt would love for us to be fighting each other because if we fight each other we cant fight them. However this goes down, eventually we will all be part of the same company working towards the same goals.:beer:

Unquestionably correct. Nobody is disputing those things. Unfortunately, it IS going to take an internal battle to make one side realize that they are not going to be all gain in this merger. There will have to be some sacrifice on their part as well. That means that they do not get the list purely as they wish. As soon as they figure it out, all will be well. In the meantime, the NWA loudmouths on here will continue to have their hat handed to them until they finally not pass on the opportunity to find fault with their MEC, or keep quiet whichever comes first.

 

[nwaredtail]

There will have to be some sacrifice on their part as well. That means that they do not get the list purely as they wish. As soon as they figure it out, all will be well.

I think having to wear that outdated, u-boat commander uniform should be enough.

 

[Superpilot92]

Unquestionably correct. Nobody is disputing those things. Unfortunately, it IS going to take an internal battle to make one side realize that they are not going to be all gain in this merger. There will have to be some sacrifice on their part as well. That means that they do not get the list purely as they wish. As soon as they figure it out, all will be well. In the meantime, the NWA loudmouths on here will continue to have their hat handed to them until they finally not pass on the opportunity to find fault with their MEC, or keep quiet whichever comes first.

Maybe maybe not. Each side has its own stories and rumors. I am a pretty reasonable person and typically look at all information prior to making my judgment, however in this case it is not possible to gather enough to judge. You guys have a completely opposite view and are either being told the truth or someones interpretation of the truth. Same goes for us at NWA. I dont know. All i know is that there is the DAL side, the NWA side, then there is the "deal" It appears that NONE of us really know the real "deal" We just got a letter today from the MEC saying things are being ironed out and that we shouldn't get to worked up about the rumors, media "experts" i think was the term used. Both DAL and NWA have great experienced ALPA pilots working on behalf of all of us. Is it going to be fair to everyone? No. But again when its all said and done we are all still going to be alpa and on the same team. If this happens I look forward to flying with any DAL pilot and I hope the same mentality is shared by all. Cheers! :beer:

I know some of you might get misty eyed with that stuff so i apologize in advanced especially to 737 Pylt, he is such a softy when it comes to stuff like that.

 

[FBN0223]

I think having to wear that outdated, u-boat commander uniform should be enough.

I agree and it will be hats optional for those based north, right?

 

[clippyrip]

I think having to wear that outdated, u-boat commander uniform should be enough.

Para scope up....

 

[PuffDriver]

Maybe maybe not. Each side has its own stories and rumors. I am a pretty reasonable person and typically look at all information prior to making my judgment, however in this case it is not possible to gather enough to judge. You guys have a completely opposite view and are either being told the truth or someones interpretation of the truth. Same goes for us at NWA. I dont know. All i know is that there is the DAL side, the NWA side, then there is the "deal" It appears that NONE of us really know the real "deal" We just got a letter today from the MEC saying things are being ironed out and that we shouldn't get to worked up about the rumors, media "experts" i think was the term used. Both DAL and NWA have great experienced ALPA pilots working on behalf of all of us. Is it going to be fair to everyone? No. But again when its all said and done we are all still going to be alpa and on the same team. If this happens I look forward to flying with any DAL pilot and I hope the same mentality is shared by all. Cheers! :beer:

I know some of you might get misty eyed with that stuff so i apologize in advanced especially to 737 Pylt, he is such a softy when it comes to stuff like that.

When you are right, you are right. I'm out, and my best to you, sir.