DAL/NWA SLI Hearings in a nutshell

[~~~^~~~]

We need an employee number thread to avoid the complete crazies.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Funny. Not a bad idea.

 

[AirportBum]

There is no reordering of the lists. A position on the new seniority list is not determined by what a pilot chooses to fly, but rather what his seniority is capable of holding if everyone bid what their seniority can hold.

I'll buy that. Sounds much better when explained that way.

Next question: If the 88's and -9's are the same "category" for integration purposes, shouldn't the most junior DAL 88-holding pilot be down at the bottom with the -9 guys? Still looks like a staple for the bottom 10%. I don't see anything relative about it.

Still optimistic for a middle ground . . . .

 

[AirportBum]

Disregard my above question. I re-read the original post and see that the -9 guys are conveniently the only "small guage" (doesn't do much for the ego ) aircraft.

That certainly justifies a STAPLE of ~ 500 pilots

 

[Truckdriver]

Next question: If the 88's and -9's are the same "category" for integration purposes, shouldn't the most junior DAL 88-holding pilot be down at the bottom with the -9 guys? Still looks like a staple for the bottom 10%. I don't see anything relative about it.

Why should the -9 guys be integrated with the 88 guys. When they park the 9's and furlough 450 guys in the next two years there would be 100 NWA guys furloughed and 350 DAL guys. Pre merger career expectations are a big part of this deal and no pre merger Delta guy should be furloughed as a result of a shrinking NWA DC-9 fleet. That is the whole reason for two days of testimony on the -9 and how it is being replaced by Compass and Mesaba flying. Pre-merger Delta guys shouldn't take the hit for that anymore than we should get the benefit for the NWA retirements.

 

[FDJ2]

quote=Schwanker
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, maybe you should review your own MEC's "Across the Table" publication, March 2006 I believe, where it states that the replacement aircraft for the DC-9 will be 77-110 seaters, all of which will pay less than the DC-9.

 

[FDJ2]

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

Schwanker

It's consistant with the most recent interpretation of ALPA merger policy, hardly an "extreme".

 

[FDJ2]

So, why organize it based on aircraft category at all? Why not just use the seniority list as a whole?

Not all aircraft categories have the same value. Does the DC-9 position have the same value as the "super premium" 747?

 

[FDJ2]

Next question: If the 88's and -9's are the same "category" for integration purposes, shouldn't the most junior DAL 88-holding pilot be down at the bottom with the -9 guys? Still looks like a staple for the bottom 10%. I don't see anything relative about it.

Still optimistic for a middle ground . . . .

The DC-9 F/O position is the least paying position, on the smallest and oldest airframe, with the shortest range in the combined fleet. Additionally, the DC-9's replacement, according to NALPA, is an even smaller aircraft, that will pay even less.

 

[Superpilot92]

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.

Stapling the bottom 400 NWA pilots, putting 99 NWA hires behind 2007 DAL hires and 85 NWA hires behind 88 DAL hires is not a "realistic" goal :nuts: . Its ridiculous and i am sure the arbitratiors will see right though the BS that both sides will try and present.