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

DAL/NWA SLI Hearings in a nutshell

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
This is what bargaining is like you ask for more than what you will take so when you come down its still somewhat okay. I am sure when the NWA dream idea is put out it will seem way unfair. Then they will meet half way.

This is not a bargaining position. In an arbitration proceeding, where you get one shot to present a position based on ALPA merger policy, you balance the equity value of each position at each airline and present the most compelling position you can based on the goals set forth in ALPA merger policy. You don't squander it on a dream idea.

The arbitrators are not there to split the difference between each position.
 
The numbers also don't reflect a shrinking NWA mainline, a growing DAL mainline, more DAL orders, more DAL options, more DAL rolling options, the disproportionate pay raise the NWA pilots get or that by adopting DAL scheduling rules and manning formulas NWA pilots will realize a need for 350-500 additional positions. Shrinking NWA mainline? Maybe if you believe your less than credible witness. It's amazing how those claimed DAL aircraft orders don't really exist either. Your guy didn't fair too well.

The replacement aircraft for the DC-9 was going to be 77-110 seaters, all paying significantly less than the DC-9 and "super" less than the MD-88. It would still be the most junior equipment on the property and therefore should be ranked as such. It's nice you have more knowledge of NWA fleet plans than NWA executives. Maybe you should give Steenland a call and fill him in.

Schwanker
 
This is not a bargaining position. In an arbitration proceeding, where you get one shot to present a position based on ALPA merger policy, you balance the equity value of each position at each airline and present the most compelling position you can based on the goals set forth in ALPA merger policy. You don't squander it on a dream idea.

The arbitrators are not there to split the difference between each position.

It that's the case, it makes you wonder why DALPA took such an extreme preposterous position.

Schwanker
 
It that's the case, it makes you wonder why DALPA took such an extreme preposterous position.

Schwanker

Just wondering what makes relative position by equipment more extreme/preposterous than DOH with super-premium widebody flying? Come to think of it I don't know what we think we're going to accomplish with this discussion anyway.
 
Last edited:
Nice try, but this is about what I assumed it would be two to three years before all of this came out.
I think that the arbitrators will agree.
 
We will accomplish nothing, but Relative by equipment is not extreme. It is a moderate position. We could have gone off in left field and asked for a staple. It is apparent that DALPA is trying to be realistic in its goals.
 
You aren't integrated by what you hold, but by what your seniority could hold in a stove pipe. IOW, strict seniority bidding.
So, why organize it based on aircraft category at all? Why not just use the seniority list as a whole? Is there any benefit to the theoretical bid position? Aside from making my blood pressure skyrocket for a few hours while I contemplate a panic-bid to a wide-body commute?
 
SS-
Nice try, but the arrogance by your side is going to do them more harm than good.

Schwanker


Come on man. Arrogance? I would say thinking DOH would work was arrogance. USAir East tried that too (not comparing you directly, rather your position), and it didn't work. Let's look at what you bring to the table, including aircraft and future orders, current expansion plans, hubs and viability of hubs (DTW looks like a winner with the auto industry), and retirements (we both have large chunks, so a dynamic list just wouldn't work---you could move up, then we would move back to the original positions a few years later---NAH) I am not trying to be offensive here, but rather practical. As I stated on the previous page, your extremism for DOH could have been countered by us asking for a staple, and that wouldn't have been nice. (Southern Hosipitality and all)

Bye Bye---General Lee
 
You can do that, and you should have that option if you did prior to DCC.
That is the point. The same bidding power from one day to the next. Even after DCC and SOC. It keeps career expectations similar.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top