Delta/Alaska, alliance---then acquisition of Alaska?? Article

[qxdash8]

Ok general, explain something simple to me then. If NWA stood alone, I was set to retire number 37 (.007%) at age 60 and in the top 500(10%) my last 7 years, pretty nice.

Under DAL's proposal, I initailly lose 8% seniority and the highest I would get is around 2200 (17%) at age 60.

Without answering a question with a question, or talking about NWA's proposal (even though most DAL pilots would be better off in 5 years), tell me how this is a good deal for me.

That isn't a good deal for you, but comparing the DL proposal to a stand alone NW is the whole apples to oranges thing. Where would you end up under the NW proposal? I'm not GL so maybe I can ask that question.

By the way - don't you mean age 65?

 

[nwaredtail]

That isn't a good deal for you, but comparing the DL proposal to a stand alone NW is the whole apples to oranges thing. Where would you end up under the NW proposal? I'm not GL so maybe I can ask that question.

By the way - don't you mean age 65?

I actually end up a little worse under NWA's proposal, but only by a couple of % points. What the General and many DAL pilots fail to acknowledge, is that 1000's of DAL pilots actually end up higher up on a DOH combined list than they would have had DAL stood alone. At least the arbitrators have seen this.

The relative seniority by category totally benefits DAL pilots and harms NWA pilots (by loss of attrition and seniority loss) while the NWA proposal only initially may harm a few, but is negated quickly. So an arbitrator will have to decide if it's good to give everything to one side or do what is best for BOTH. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[General Lee]

I actually end up a little worse under NWA's proposal, but only by a couple of % points. What the General and many DAL pilots fail to acknowledge, is that 1000's of DAL pilots actually end up higher up on a DOH combined list than they would have had DAL stood alone. At least the arbitrators have seen this.

The relative seniority by category totally benefits DAL pilots and harms NWA pilots (by loss of attrition and seniority loss) while the NWA proposal only initially may harm a few, but is negated quickly. So an arbitrator will have to decide if it's good to give everything to one side or do what is best for BOTH. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

So, arbitrators have seen that DOH is better for some of our pilots? Which ones? Not our senior guys. Can you post what the arbitrators supposedly said, I would love to see that in the testimony. I don't recall anything like that.

And, we have MORE WIDEBODIES, that PAY MORE. Guess what? We are bringing more to the table. Of course we want more of the pie, we are bringing more into it. You are bringing a lot of low paying planes. Great. If we keep all of the DC9s you keep saying will happen, that will mean more of the lowest paying plane on our combined pay rate list. We are bringing more new widebodies, and more orders. Your 787 orders may never come to fruition. Our vast quantity of 757s that you make fun of because they pay more than your's used to is just a small part of our larger fleet, and higher paying fleet. Ask your current 757 pilots if they minded getting our current 767 pay rate? It was a large raise for them. They are welcome... We are bringing more metal and more pay, while you are bringing older planes that may leave sooner, and a large amount of narrowbodies that pay less. It is all about who brings what to the table. You bring attrition now, while we bring a lot more later on. That issue is a dead issue.

And, an arbitrator will not split down the middle just so both of us are happy. I think that is what you guys are hoping for. If DOH is a 1 and staple is a 10 on a 1-10 scale, we started with a 5.5 and you started with a 1. We won't go down the middle to appease you, and I doubt the arbitrator panel will either.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[regionaltard]

Tell that to the USAir East pilot who had 17 years at USAir and then ended up next to the bottom newhire at AWA.

You mean the guy who was near the bottom of the old list who found himself near the bottom of the new list? What's your point? The merger didn't change his career expectations at all.

 

[General Lee]

You mean the guy who was near the bottom of the old list who found himself near the bottom of the new list? What's your point? The merger didn't change his career expectations at all.

That's right, and that is what is fair. If you are at the bottom of a list, you should still be at the bottom of a combined list. That is relative seniority. We are also bringing more widebodies and higher pay for those widebodies to the table. That is why we would have ratios. It is all about what planes and payscales you bring.

Also, let's look at the whole picture here. Northwest lost a lot of work rules and pay in their BK, but kept their pensions. We lost our pensions, but kept the pay fairly high, and kept most of our rules. Now, after the DCC, NWA has our higher pay (just got a nice raise), and our work rules (like manning rules--2 Captains and 2 FOs for ultra long haul), and we don't get our pensions back. The NWA guys wanting and thinking they deserve more is a joke, but not unexpected.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[nwaredtail]

We are also bringing more widebodies and higher pay for those widebodies to the table. That is why we would have ratios. It is all about what planes and payscales you bring.

Says who, you? You don't get a say last time I looked. How about NWA consistantly made more money than you and had more cash vs. realtive size than you. How about we count that. We also had more airplanes that were paid for, how about that? How about credit for dealing with old flight attendants? Seems ridiculus, right? Let's bet beers on what he says about planes/pay in his award. My bet, not much.

We lost our pensions, but kept the pay fairly high, and kept most of our rules.

That was the choice you made, without any knowledge of a merger. It has nothing to do with a SLI. What did your god, Nicalau, say about USAir's pension, pay rates, rules. Yup, NOTHING.

Now, after the DCC, NWA has our higher pay (just got a nice raise),

Thanks to the NWA Negotiating team. This also has nothing to do with DAL pilots. DELTA MANAGEMENT gave us the raise, NOT YOU!

and our work rules (like manning rules--2 Captains and 2 FOs for ultra long haul),

Same answer

and we don't get our pensions back.

So you want the NWA pilots to take it up the %$#^ because we froze our pensions, which again has nothing to do with you. OK, following that logic, the DAL pilots received more claim money than we did in the BK contract, should NWA pilots get a credit for that. Seems stupid, huh?


If these are really your arguments, I am really starting to feel better about the DOH list.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

What are the retirements for 2012?

Anyone heard about any NWA hiring?

cliff
YIP

 

[General Lee]

Says who, you? You don't get a say last time I looked. How about NWA consistantly made more money than you and had more cash vs. realtive size than you. How about we count that. We also had more airplanes that were paid for, how about that? How about credit for dealing with old flight attendants? Seems ridiculus, right? Let's bet beers on what he says about planes/pay in his award. My bet, not much.

We all know Steenland horded cash to attract a merger partner. He did NOT expand your operations, like we did. While we expanded (17 757ERs from AA etc), you were planning on parking DC9s (Steenland stated that). Yes, your DC9s were paid for, but Steenland stated all but 41 larger ones were going away, and you sold some 757s to FedEx and parked a few A319s.

That was the choice you made, without any knowledge of a merger. It has nothing to do with a SLI. What did your god, Nicalau, say about USAir's pension, pay rates, rules. Yup, NOTHING.

Choice? We had no choice. Do you think we would have had 2000 Captains bailing out if we had a choice? You did have a choice, and eventually got back better pay, and rules, THANKS TO US. What did we get back? We also just used a lot of the money DL offered us to bring you up to parity. It had to be done, but now you want MORE. Ridiculous.



Thanks to the NWA Negotiating team. This also has nothing to do with DAL pilots. DELTA MANAGEMENT gave us the raise, NOT YOU!

Nope. They asked us what we wanted to do with the money. They needed our acceptance for the merger, it was in our contract. We could turn down any code sharing, and before the SOC you would have been a code share initially. Our side stated we needed parity, and no B-scales. Sorry, you are wrong.



Same answer



So you want the NWA pilots to take it up the %$#^ because we froze our pensions, which again has nothing to do with you. OK, following that logic, the DAL pilots received more claim money than we did in the BK contract, should NWA pilots get a credit for that. Seems stupid, huh?

You can't have everything. Sorry. And, the USAir precedent is significant.


If these are really your arguments, I am really starting to feel better about the DOH list.

Don't get used to that feeling.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Flying the Line]

From a non-seriority integration perspecive, a DL,NW, AS would be able to dominate traffic within the Us and abroad. It would be more adviseable for other airlines to protest this than DL, NW or AS.

 

[Full of LUV]

Of course because the DAL folks are assumed to work to 65

Ok general, explain something simple to me then. If NWA stood alone, I was set to retire number 37 (.007%) at age 60 and in the top 500(10%) my last 7 years, pretty nice.

Under DAL's proposal, I initailly lose 8% seniority and the highest I would get is around 2200 (17%) at age 60.

Without answering a question with a question, or talking about NWA's proposal (even though most DAL pilots would be better off in 5 years), tell me how this is a good deal for me.

Because you havn't realized that age 60 retirement has been shot dead by the profession. If you stay to 65 you probably will have similar seniority status those last 5 years, but if everyone at DAL is assumed to go to 65 and you only stay to 60 that is the real cost of "retiring early" that happens.