DALPA Conflict of Interest

[PCL_128]

It is an issue if you are, or were recently on the DAL Comm Cmte - please just answer the question.

Why is it an issue? I don't really understand your complaint. Why are union volunteers prohibited from posting on FI in your opinion? I did it for years as an elected officer, and none of my members complained about it. This is an anonymous message board. We should leave it that way.

 

[PuffDriver]

Heyas DTW,

Don't worry about these guys. Read the last day arbitration transcript, and you will find that the NWA Attorney absolutely shredded the DAL witnesses.

Every one of the DAL "witnesses" was completely befuddled on the stand, and couldn't answer simple questions.

The endgame hasn't even started.

Nu

Whhhaaaa, whhhaaaaa, :crying: :crying:

 

[NuGuy]

After seeing the full name, dates of birth, employee number, dates of hire of every Delta and Northwest pilot posted on the internet I see why it was irresponsible of NALPA to make it public.

And how exactly did they do that? The hearings were open to interested parties, but not the press or public. No printed or digital information was provided to any of the observers.

All of the hearing transcripts were published on their respective, secure, websites after the hearings, which would have occurred if they had been open or closed.

Fish another pond.

Nu

 

[DTW320]

I did. All of it.

So you think 5:1 in your favor is fair? Of course you do! You think NWA 1999 hires should be junior to DAL 2007 hires? Of course you do!

DAL did no hiring between 1992 and 1996 yet NWA 1989 hires should be junior to DAL 1996 hires? Just simply hilarious and has ZERO chance of becoming reality. I'm actually the most impressed by the fact that you guys can keep a straight face in light of this!

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

So you think 5:1 in your favor is fair? Of course you do! You think NWA 1999 hires should be junior to DAL 2007 hires? Of course you do!

DAL did no hiring between 1992 and 1996 yet NWA 1989 hires should be junior to DAL 1996 hires? Just simply hilarious and has ZERO chance of becoming reality. I'm actually the most impressed by the fact that you guys can keep a straight face in light of this!

Parts of our proposal were shooting for the moon.... we're going to be making fun of your proposal and testimony in the same way.

 

[michael707767]

DAL did no hiring between 1992 and 1996 yet NWA 1989 hires should be junior to DAL 1996 hires? Just simply hilarious and has ZERO chance of becoming reality. I'm actually the most impressed by the fact that you guys can keep a straight face in light of this!

If a 96 hire occupies the same relative position on the list and the same equipment as an 89 hire, then what is the problem. Get beyond the emotional hire date issue and come up with something that makes sense.

 

[DTW320]

Parts of our proposal were shooting for the moon.... we're going to be making fun of your proposal and testimony in the same way.

What!!!??? You can't be right. I heard right here that this was "completely fair" and that it "didn't go far enough". Hmmmmmmmm........

 

[FBN0223]

Date of hire, with no bump or flush is the only fair solution.
There truly are benefits for both pilot groups using this method.
For the Delta pilots: You were very fortunate to have a retirement package that enabled you to move unusually fast up the list. This came in the form of a massive number of Delta senior pilots all leaving at once. In other words a "lump sum bonus." Well guess what? More good news for you. Now it's the senior NWA pilots turn to vacate the premises. You won't see everyone leaving at once but steady and continuous retirements over the next five years. We are essentially sharing our upward movement with you. You're welcome!!!

For NWA pilots: Although sharing what was once our upward mobility with another pilot group, it will allow us to continue upward progression and retire in our relative seniority positions.

Quite simply, ratios are a very greedy proposal and an unrealistic and unfair solution. It's saying, "I got mine and I want all of yours as well." It won't fly.

good luck

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Ditto.
All I see in this is the ability to hold tomorrow what I hold today, and expect the same QOL for it.

 

[Mikes Apartment]

Date of hire, with no bump or flush is the only fair solution.

NEVER going to happen.

 

[FBN0223]

Not until November 2008

 

[ACL65PILOT]

OK I am board. We are all very stubborn.
Hey I have an idea, lets let an arbitration panel decide this!

 

[formerdal]

Date of hire, with no bump or flush is the only fair solution.
There truly are benefits for both pilot groups using this method.
For the Delta pilots: You were very fortunate to have a retirement package that enabled you to move unusually fast up the list. This is great in theory, but not in reality. Yes, we saw a large number of early retirements. We also saw a comensurate number of AIRCRAFT retirements. We did not move up the list abnormally quickly, the reason there are relatively junior pilots in widebodies is because so many guys are choosing to remain senior due to the depressed payrates.!!!

 

[jetjockey#1]

So you think 5:1 in your favor is fair? Of course you do! You think NWA 1999 hires should be junior to DAL 2007 hires? Of course you do!

Can this pilot, 1999 hire, HOLD, seniority ways, not fly, but hold a widebody position as a lineholder? At DAL, 2007 new hires are HOLDING 60% on a widebody fleet.

I just want somebody to explain to me how is this statement unfair.

You should be able to HOLD the same equipment and schedule the day after the merger as you did the day before.

In simpler terms, if you are flying narrow body at NWA because that's all your SENIORITY can afford, you should not be a lineholder on a DAL widebody the day after the merger.

I am talking about what your seniority can hold, not the equipment you choose to fly for QOL. I am also not implying that the 10+year DC9 FO who can hold widebody but chooses the DC9 for QOL should be part of this equation.

As far as the retirements, I am fine with a dynamic number for you guys, as long as we get one as well, for our retirements down the road, protection for the jets we are getting, and yes off course, when they park the DC9s the same dynamic number should go backwards.

I know, I know, NWA is all about DOH or nothing. I do wonder though, if this merger was between USAIR east and NWA, would you all still feel like DOH is the one and only fair way to merge any two airlines. Last time I checked the most junior active pilot on the list had 16 years at USAIR east.

 

[FBN0223]

The USAir east situation also seems to make into this conversation but has almost no similarities.

To emphasize my point:
1) USAir was headed for Chapter 7 before the merger saved them
2) USAir had thousands on furlough merging with a company who was hiring or had hired very recently.
3) It was hardly a dream merger. One a LCC the other a major under financial duress.

DOH, in the USAIR case, was going to be controversial in the best case scenario.

The NW/DL situation is much different. DOH, with protections for Delta pilots, is the only fair way to go. Hey, if you are a 2007 hire flying the B767-400ER, you will keep your position. No bump, no flush. Just DOH.

 

[FDJ2]

The USAir east situation also seems to make into this conversation but has almost no similarities.

To emphasize my point:
1) USAir was headed for Chapter 7 before the merger saved them
2) USAir had thousands on furlough merging with a company who was hiring or had hired very recently.
3) It was hardly a dream merger. One a LCC the other a major under financial duress.

DOH, in the USAIR case, was going to be controversial in the best case scenario.

The NW/DL situation is much different. DOH, with protections for Delta pilots, is the only fair way to go. Hey, if you are a 2007 hire flying the B767-400ER, you will keep your position. No bump, no flush. Just DOH.

Nicolau set all the financial aspects of the integration aside when he concluded, that despite AAA being in its second bankruptcy, that both airlines needed each other. Thus the integration by comparable equipment and status.

 

[michael707767]

The NW/DL situation is much different. DOH, with protections for Delta pilots, is the only fair way to go. Hey, if you are a 2007 hire flying the B767-400ER, you will keep your position. No bump, no flush. Just DOH.

if the SLI is fair, no one should need protections.

besides, how do you ensure no bump no flush when the company starts to move aircraft around the system?

 

[FBN0223]

Should probably just wait for the arbitrators decision.

I will say that's it very difficult to understand how Delta's proposed seniority list is remotely fair. You guys actually proposed Delta 2007 hires who are still on probation being senior to a large group of our NWA 1999 hires.

 

[JoeMerchant]

The terms "fair" and "career expectations" are in eye of the beholder......Using "fair" and "career expectations" as cornerstone of any merger policy is a recipe for failure and will result in a group that isn't unified.....

This is going just about the way I expected....The fireworks will really start after the decision and the furloughs start....Someone pass the popcorn.....

 

[Capt. Caucasian]

You guys actually proposed Delta 2007 hires who are still on probation being senior to a large group of our NWA 1999 hires.

Just to clear a point, there are only a handful of 2007 hires still on probation. Those, for the most part, are on military leave.

Delta's probation lasts one year or 400 flight hours, whichever happens first. Most folks got off probation within six months.