Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SLI Arbitration/Negotiation Deadline Still 11/20

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
You all get to move up 2000 numbers in the last 2 years, now you will get to move up into NWA retirement slots that you would have never had. Seems fair.

You are integrating with DAL's 2008 seniority list, not 2002's. Get use to it.

BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable.

Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?

What do you have against ratios anyways? Afraid the jobs you brought to the merger can't match DAL's?

Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.

Seems like the arbitrators haven't decided yet.
 
This might be but.....

A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.

The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.

I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.

What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.

I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay. You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?

If this is true, then why does it take an extra 30 days to spit out a DOH list? Seems that DOH with fences could be published in about 30 minutes.
 
Concentrate , focus, you can do it.
BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable. Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.

Here are some transcripts from 10-20, where your 744 Captain (EN) talked about ratios etc. Here he talks about that negotiator on the NWA merger committee (DN):

14 A He and I were both on the Northwest merger
15 committee 1986 through 1990 representing the
16 Northwest pilots in the Republic proceeding.
17 Q By the way, in connection with that
18 proceeding, it was the Northwest pilots' position
19 that a date of hire list was not a proper list but
20 rather the ratio list was a proper list; correct?
21 A Our proposal was a ratioed list, yes


He continues by stating this about ratios and his thoughts at the time:

Q And the Northwest pilots were quite
21 convinced in connection with the Republic merger
22 that a date of hire list was not a fair and
equitable list and that a ratioed list was a fair
2 and equitable list; correct?
3 A We made that proposal, yes. We made that
4 exact argument.
5 Q Not only did you make the argument. I
6 trust you believed the argument as well?
7 A I think it's safe to say that concerning
8 me personally, in the 1986 proceeding as a brand-new
9 guy in the merger world, yes, I was what I rather
10 judgmentally call a true believer. I believed in
11 the approach we were taking

What did the Redbooks want with the Republic pilots at the time? A lot of the greenbooks were senior:

Q And it is correct, just to circle back,
15 that at the time of the seniority integration, it
16 was the red book pilots that had been pressing for a
17 ratioed solution?
18 A The former Northwest pilots proposed a
19 ratioed solution in front of Mr. Roberts, yes

Then our lawyer made the 744 Captain read a portion of an article that the other negotiator wrote:

A You want me to read it out loud?
4 Q Please.
5 A The third paragraph reads as follows, and
6 I quote: "If you have a limited time frame to
7 prepare, we would urge you to concentrate first on
8 the various cases involving Continental and to do so
9 in chronological order. Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic
11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


And lastly, our lawyer debates with your lawyer and states:

He didn't testify on direct about the
20 Northwest Trump shuttle integration.
21 MR. F: No, that's right he didn't.
22 But I asked him questions about other mergers,
including this one, without objection. He was
2 chairman of the merger committee. He is an
3 experienced seniority integration expert, and it
4 seems to me that we ought to have no doubt about
5 what other seniority integrations occurred or what
6 proposed to be occurred at Northwest

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Well, I take it your
8 point is to show that it's a ratio approach.
9 MR. F: Exactly, yes


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
Here are some transcripts from 10-20, where your 744 Captain (EN) talked about ratios etc. Here he talks about that negotiator on the NWA merger committee (DN):

14 A He and I were both on the Northwest merger
15 committee 1986 through 1990 representing the
16 Northwest pilots in the Republic proceeding.
17 Q By the way, in connection with that
18 proceeding, it was the Northwest pilots' position
19 that a date of hire list was not a proper list but
20 rather the ratio list was a proper list; correct?
21 A Our proposal was a ratioed list, yes


He continues by stating this about ratios and his thoughts at the time:

Q And the Northwest pilots were quite
21 convinced in connection with the Republic merger
22 that a date of hire list was not a fair and
equitable list and that a ratioed list was a fair
2 and equitable list; correct?
3 A We made that proposal, yes. We made that
4 exact argument.
5 Q Not only did you make the argument. I
6 trust you believed the argument as well?
7 A I think it's safe to say that concerning
8 me personally, in the 1986 proceeding as a brand-new
9 guy in the merger world, yes, I was what I rather
10 judgmentally call a true believer. I believed in
11 the approach we were taking

What did the Redbooks want with the Republic pilots at the time? A lot of the greenbooks were senior:

Q And it is correct, just to circle back,
15 that at the time of the seniority integration, it
16 was the red book pilots that had been pressing for a
17 ratioed solution?
18 A The former Northwest pilots proposed a
19 ratioed solution in front of Mr. Roberts, yes

Then our lawyer made the 744 Captain read a portion of an article that the other negotiator wrote:

A You want me to read it out loud?
4 Q Please.
5 A The third paragraph reads as follows, and
6 I quote: "If you have a limited time frame to
7 prepare, we would urge you to concentrate first on
8 the various cases involving Continental and to do so
9 in chronological order. Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic
11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


And lastly, our lawyer debates with your lawyer and states:

He didn't testify on direct about the
20 Northwest Trump shuttle integration.
21 MR. F: No, that's right he didn't.
22 But I asked him questions about other mergers,
including this one, without objection. He was
2 chairman of the merger committee. He is an
3 experienced seniority integration expert, and it
4 seems to me that we ought to have no doubt about
5 what other seniority integrations occurred or what
6 proposed to be occurred at Northwest

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Well, I take it your
8 point is to show that it's a ratio approach.
9 MR. F: Exactly, yes


Bye Bye--General Lee

That took a lot of work.......very nice. and what was the end result of that merger arbitration.................................

Date of hire, with fences.
 
That took a lot of work.......very nice. and what was the end result of that merger arbitration.................................

Date of hire, with fences.

Yes, the Roberts award did that. And the latest precedent, the Nicelau award, did not. Even your retired NWA negotiator stated in the article that:


Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic

11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


Remember how the guy on the stand did NOT want to read that? He did anyway. And finding those quotes didn't take too long. It was all around pg 838 in the testimony for 10-20.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Yes, the Roberts award did that. And the latest precedent, the Nicelau award, did not.

Comparing similar, "equal" airlines to AAA and AWA will not happen. Even Nicalau stated that date of hire would have given a huge windfall to AAA. His award will not and is not the precedent. Sorry......
 
Comparing similar, "equal" airlines to AAA and AWA will not happen. Even Nicalau stated that date of hire would have given a huge windfall to AAA. His award will not and is not the precedent. Sorry......

Really? You think so. AAA was the failing airline, yet still got the top 500 spots. AAA and AWA were fairly close in size, but the small difference allowed AAA to dump ALPA. I don't know where you are getting your info (other than NAPLA), but it will very much be looked at. And your own people on the stand (remember all the stuff I just put here for your viewing pleasure?) say that they should have used ratios, and the Roberts award was NOT the way to go. You can go ahead and disagree with them too. DOH has not been used since the new ALPA merger policy was enacted, and the arbitrators have to follow the policy. Your argument was the same one USAir East had, and we all know how that came out. You say Nicelau stated DOH would have given AAA a windfalll. Between our two proposals, if our's is implemented, we as a group move up 2%, thanks to putting your bottom 400 on the bottom. If your proposal is implemented, we Deltoids all MOVE BACK 14%. Windfall, eh? Do you think if you throw in something crazy, you MAY still get something in the middle? Nope. Not gonna happen.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?

FDJ,

Yes, actually. The Piedmont/Allegheny merger was DOH with fences (for bases), and that happened in 2004.

Actually, it's a very good precedent. Although they were both regionals, they were basically thought of as equals (hmmm, I remember that being brought up recently), but had some differences in demographics.

Nu
 
FDJ,

Yes, actually. The Piedmont/Allegheny merger was DOH with fences (for bases), and that happened in 2004.

Actually, it's a very good precedent. Although they were both regionals, they were basically thought of as equals (hmmm, I remember that being brought up recently), but had some differences in demographics.

Nu

It was a good precedent, compared to the Nicelau award? Hey, you should go with that then.....and make sure you don't re-read any of your NWA testimony that stated you should go with ratios anyway....Do you think the USAir East guys also knew anything about the Piedmont/Allegheny arbitration? Do you think they used it? Your current lawyer was their lawyer too, you know? How did that all work out?

Also, before you stated Eddie came to MSP and stated not much would happen, initially. As ACL65 pointed out, that mainly has to do with your ground guys and mechanics union not allowing our DGS guys to push back or fix planes. Well, when those guys have a vote here in about 6 months, we'll see if the union stays or goes. Then, there will be some movement. We still have "confidential" business plans that were shown in the arbitration, and we'll see how it goes.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 

Latest resources

Back
Top