Can anyone understand "problems" with NWA's seniority list?

[General Lee]

Heyas 320,

Yup. But we got a raise!<-----massive sarcasm (for the Delta impaired)

I won't go into the lengthy list of items we lost to get the money (which is a tiny raise..when you subtract out the QoL/protections we lost).

Suffice to say, if we said "fine, we'll go back to our old PWA if you give us DOH/fence", and you could bet there'd still be howls of dismay from the Deltoids.

I didn't want their PWA or their raise. I voted yes for the SLI methodology. In the end, there can be only one.

Nu

So, was it DOH or a Dynamic list? You said there could only be one...... Wait, so you didn't give up on DOH, but if that doesn't work, then you want the dynamic list. Even one of the arbitrators was confused:


ARBITRATOR EISHEN: But in the
4 event this board determines that that
5 end of the spectrum is not the approach
6 it wishes to take and wants to take a
7 different approach in some way
8 incorporating a ratioed category
9 approach, that this would be your
10 alternative award for the board?
11 THE WITNESS: I think you stated
12 that well. Yes


You guys make EVERYONE confused....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Nu,

The problem is that the Deltoids can't relate to the idea of someone being on a disability retirement and keeping their seniority #, with the right to return if they get their medical back, for 7 years. Take a look at the disability provisions in the Delta contract. Any NWA pilot used to the generous provisions of our DRP status is in for a shock to read what happens to us as DAL pilots if you get a serious medical setback. But remember, their contract is vastly superior to our old contract in every way.....at least that's what I heard here over and over.....

BTW, The last NWA seniority list (July 2008) contains a grand total of EIGHT pilots who were over 65 as of July 2008.....out of 5173.....8

Typical FI DALPA BS

Wow, we must have gotten that wrong, just like we have figured out that you are overstaffed: Take a look:


Well, first, we're going to look at
18 Northwest aircraft. And I bolded these
19 aircraft staffing ratios to show where the
20 Northwest number is significantly above the
21 Delta number.
22 And you see that the 747-400
23 captain and A-330 captain are each bolded.
24 The number that the Northwest committee put
25 forward is well above what we put forward


And then you see on the 747 first officer, we
3 have that bolded as well.
4 And that is the number we think
5 should be lower there. The number is too high
6 on the Northwest side and the A-330 first
7 officer and the 757 first officer.
8 We will go through the reasons for
9 each one of those on the next slide but that's
10 what the next several slides are going to
11 cover, the reason for bolding it.

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Wait, I'm sorry, I
13 misunderstood, apparently.
14 Didn't you say that the bolding was
15 to show that it was higher on the
16 Northwest side?
17 THE WITNESS: The Northwest has a
18 number of 13.6 compared to a 9.5 on the
19 Northwest aircraft.
20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Right.
21 THE WITNESS: Whether it's a
22 proposal or it's in the documentation,
23 they are saying there should be 13.6
24 captains for each aircraft.
25 So in this case there's 16

2 747-400s. Under the Delta side we say
3 it should be 9.5 captains. That's the
4 staffing ratio that should be applied
5 to each aircraft that is operated.


So, are those extra Captain slots for your planes reserved for sick guys out on medical? That sure is nice of you, but we don't do that at Delta, and now you don't.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Speedbird34]

Heyas 320,

Yup. But we got a raise!<-----massive sarcasm (for the Delta impaired)

I won't go into the lengthy list of items we lost to get the money (which is a tiny raise..when you subtract out the QoL/protections we lost).

Suffice to say, if we said "fine, we'll go back to our old PWA if you give us DOH/fence", and you could bet there'd still be howls of dismay from the Deltoids.

I didn't want their PWA or their raise. I voted yes for the SLI methodology. In the end, there can be only one.

Nu

You should suggest going back to just having your own Airline!!
Take all the baggage with you.
All this BS. Thank God this charade is finally coming to an end and we can move forward with our careers good or bad.

 

[dragon]

Pssst, Fins.....last day of testimony was yesterday.

Nu

Yeah,

But we can't read about it until today.

 

[FDJ2]

NWA only publishes a seniority list every six months, so obviously there will be retired pilots on the list.

Nu

That would explain pilots who retired in 2006.


Q. And with respect to Clxxxxx Pxxxxx, it's got his date of birth, his age 60 date and the notation prior to 12-31-07. And what did your research show with respect to Clement Patterson?

A. Well, I went back and looked at the historical data and in fact, the last seniority list that he was on at Northwest was July of 2006. So he may have, in fact, retired prior to 12-31-07 but he didn't retire between the 13th and the 31st of that month,of that year. He hadn't been on a seniority list at that point for over a year.​

Q. So he should not have been on any list that formed a database for the Northwest exhibit purporting to show retirements after 12-13-07?​

A. Correct.​

 

[DTW320]

You should suggest going back to just having your own Airline!!
Take all the baggage with you.
All this BS. Thank God this charade is finally coming to an end and we can move forward with our careers good or bad.

That would be fine by a lot of us! But....WE never said that "we can stop any merger". Who was that????

 

[Scope out RJ's]

That would be fine by a lot of us! But....WE never said that "we can stop any merger". Who was that????

You never said a lot of things. But your guys' testimony, for not saying alot, sure makes a person laugh!:laugh: But I'll give you a hint junior, its the same group that got your your pay raises!
NEXT!

 

[nwaf16dude]

Wow, we must have gotten that wrong, just like we have figured out that you are overstaffed: Take a look:


Well, first, we're going to look at
18 Northwest aircraft. And I bolded these
19 aircraft staffing ratios to show where the
20 Northwest number is significantly above the
21 Delta number.
22 And you see that the 747-400
23 captain and A-330 captain are each bolded.
24 The number that the Northwest committee put
25 forward is well above what we put forward


And then you see on the 747 first officer, we
3 have that bolded as well.
4 And that is the number we think
5 should be lower there. The number is too high
6 on the Northwest side and the A-330 first
7 officer and the 757 first officer.
8 We will go through the reasons for
9 each one of those on the next slide but that's
10 what the next several slides are going to
11 cover, the reason for bolding it.

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Wait, I'm sorry, I
13 misunderstood, apparently.
14 Didn't you say that the bolding was
15 to show that it was higher on the
16 Northwest side?
17 THE WITNESS: The Northwest has a
18 number of 13.6 compared to a 9.5 on the
19 Northwest aircraft.
20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Right.
21 THE WITNESS: Whether it's a
22 proposal or it's in the documentation,
23 they are saying there should be 13.6
24 captains for each aircraft.
25 So in this case there's 16

2 747-400s. Under the Delta side we say
3 it should be 9.5 captains. That's the
4 staffing ratio that should be applied
5 to each aircraft that is operated.


So, are those extra Captain slots for your planes reserved for sick guys out on medical? That sure is nice of you, but we don't do that at Delta, and now you don't.


Bye Bye---General Lee

So basically you're using Delta testimony to prove delta testimony. Dude, that is patently ridiculous... Delta claims NWA only needs 9.5 captains per 747-400, but Delta needs 22.5 per 777?

 

[~~~^~~~]

At least both sides are arguing over ratios and relative seniority by equipment.

It probably would have helped the arbitrators if both sides had worked on agreeing to a set of data, BEFORE they worked on a list agreement. Everything is built on the data and both sides appear to be making this hard for the panel.

 

[nwaf16dude]

Stand by for a surprise...I agree. We should have had a neutral 3rd party come up with the staffing numbers. But, then again, maybe that's what the arbirators are doing.