DL/NWA Seniority List Integration Arbitration starts TODAY...article

[PuffDriver]

Substance to you may not be substance to me fwiw. Also, I assure you that your posts bring just as much relevance to me as mine probably bring to you imp:. Time to grow up and stop with the childish bickering you constantly attempt on this forum.

Thanks again for your substantial contribution to the discussion Puffybaby. Kisses :blush:

"I was told",

"My posts are of substance",


Nothing concrete, just rumors an innuendo. Read the testimony, concrete and factual. Meanwhile, your lawyer focuses on age, and how unfair it is that, gasp, a younger guy might end up senior to an older one.

I like where this is headed.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

It is not a dead airframe at all. Other have put in orders for it. It was revived this last summer.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It doesn't sound like they've cancelled the "C" to me.

cliff
YIP

Cliff, correct. The C Series was canceled after NWA said no, then re-started nearly two years later with a Luthansa LOI.

 

[ExAF]

Long Term Thinking

Think LONG TERM.

Everyone IS thinking LONG TERM...Seniority is FOREVER.

 

[FDJ2]

Again, For some reason you DAL guys cant grasp this , but we have scope protections that set a Mainline Aircraft Floor 1 year after bankruptcy that mgmt couldn't go below without FIRST parking 76 seaters.

I'm not sure you understand your own scope clause. Could you post the language in your scope clause that prevents NWA from parking DC-9s without acquiring a replacement aircraft?

Your own MEC has stated that the DC-9 would be replaced by a smaller aircraft that pays even less than the DC-9 and far less than the MD88, so considering the super premium MD88 and the small gauge DC-9 and its successor, shouldn't the MD88 position be ranked ahead of the DC-9 and its 77 seat replacement jet?

 

[FDJ2]

DC9's are to be kept flying through 2012 until a replacement can be found for the 100 seat market. Thats what your team is saying. The DC9 fills a void in the DAL fleet. From now until 2012 we all need to ensure any further aircraft are delivered and flown as mainline aircraft.

The DC-9 does fill a void between the larger MD-88 and a 76 seat RJ, and it is treated as such in the DALPA proposal, right behind the MD88.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

I'm not sure you understand your own scope clause. Could you post the language in your scope clause that prevents NWA from parking DC-9s without acquiring a replacement aircraft?

He doesn't. He's been there how long? I understand his nervousness though. After all, without this deal, he's back to being a regional pilot.

Your own MEC has stated that the DC-9 would be replaced by a smaller airacft that pays even less than the DC-9 and far less than the MD88, so considering the super premium value of the MD88 over the DC-9 and its successor, shouldn't the MD88 position be ranked ahead of the DC-9 and the 77 sea replacement jets?

Never give facts to the NW pilots. It only distorts their use of big words like "super premium" and "double super flagalistic awsome wide body flying," along side of their 2 "fortress hubs."
Maybe he should call himself super supreme cool pilot 92?:laugh:

 

[Superpilot92]

I'm not sure you understand your own scope clause. Could you post the language in your scope clause that prevents NWA from parking DC-9s without acquiring a replacement aircraft?

Your own MEC has stated that the DC-9 would be replaced by a smaller aircraft that pays even less than the DC-9 and far less than the MD88, so considering the super premium MD88 and the small gauge DC-9 and its successor, shouldn't the MD88 position be ranked ahead of the DC-9 and its 77 seat replacement jet?

Here you go, Enjoy the read

B.7.c.(7)(a) Caps Subject to Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(c), the maximum number of 51–76 seat aircraft carrying the NW code designator operated by Feeder Carriers shall be capped at 90 (the "upper cap") (including aircraft operated under Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)) and/or 55 (the "lower cap") (excluding aircraft operating under Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)). Both caps shall include AVRO-85 aircraft configured in dual class with 69 passenger seats or less. After the amendable date of this Agreement, the upper cap shall increase by 3 51–76 seat aircraft per calendar year, provided that at least 10 77–110 seat aircraft (as defined in Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(c)1') have entered into active service at the Company (increased to 5 aircraft per year if at least 15 77–110 seat aircraft have entered into active service at the Company).
1-9 Section 1 – Recognition and Job Security July 31, 2006
B.7.c.(7)(b) Subject to the provisions of Section 1 B.7.c.(2), Section 1 B.7.c.(3), Section 1 B.7.c.(4) and Section 1 B.7.c.(5), there shall be no limits on the use or ownership of 51–76 seat aircraft.

B.7.c.(7)(c) Additional 51–76 Seat Aircraft.

B.7.c.(7)(c)1' 77–110 Seat Aircraft. For purposes of this Agreement, "77–110 seat aircraft" shall mean Company aircraft that are configured with 77 to 110 passenger seats, but shall not include (i) aircraft certificated for more than 118 seats, (ii) aircraft in the Company’s fleet on the date of signing of this Agreement, and (iii) aircraft of a different model, series or derivative of an aircraft type in the Company’s fleet on the date of signing of this Agreement (e.g. B717 and A318).
NOTE 1: Pilot rates of pay, work rules and other terms and conditions of employment applicable to 77–110 seat aircraft are set forth in Letter of Agreement 2006-07.
NOTE 2: In the event the Company acquires one or more aircraft types that meet the foregoing definition of 77–110 Seat Aircraft, the parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of establishing an appropriate certificated maximum gross takeoff weight ("weight") that shall then be incorporated into such definition. Such weight shall not be less than the certificated maximum gross takeoff weights of any aircraft type in existence on the date of signing of this Agreement that would meet the foregoing definition of 77–110 Seat Aircraft (e.g. EMB190 and EMB195).

B.7.c.(7)(c)2' For each 1 new 77–110 seat aircraft placed into active service by the Company, 1 additional 51–76 seat aircraft may be added to the lower cap and upper cap set forth in Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(a) (both subject to the same ratio peel-back for 51-76 seat aircraft in the event that the number of 77–110 seat aircraft are thereafter reduced), provided that the aggregate number of new 77–110 seat aircraft and Company narrowbody aircraft (currently DC9, A319/320 and B757 aircraft) in active service is at or above the "Threshold Level". The Threshold Level shall be the number of Company narrowbody aircraft and new 77–110 seat aircraft in active service (reduced by 10) on the earlier of the following: (i) 1 year following emergence from bankruptcy; or (ii) the date of delivery of the 36th 51–76 seat aircraft to carry the NW code designator, provided such date shall not be prior to the date of emergence from bankruptcy. If the aggregate number of Company narrowbody aircraft and new 77–110 seat aircraft falls below the Threshold Level, the Company will have 6 months to return to the Threshold Level or the Company must reduce the number of 51–76 seat aircraft to the
applicable cap number set forth in Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(a).

 

[Superpilot92]

He doesn't. He's been there how long? I understand his nervousness though. After all, without this deal, he's back to being a regional pilot.


Never give facts to the NW pilots. It only distorts their use of big words like "super premium" and "double super flagalistic awsome wide body flying," along side of their 2 "fortress hubs."
Maybe he should call himself super supreme cool pilot 92?:laugh:

Read the above

Some of us actually attempt decent debates on this forum. Its a shame there are so many childish posters on here to distract from educated discussions. Does it make you feel good to do nothing but flame and post bs on this forum? Thanks again for your contribution Gramps

 

[PuffDriver]

Read the above

Some of us actually attempt decent debates on this forum. Its a shame there are so many childish posters on here to distract from educated discussions. Does it make you feel good to do nothing but flame and post bs on this forum? Thanks again for your contribution Gramps

Unfortunately, you are not one of them. Your -9s were and are going away to be replaced, maybe, by even smaller aircraft. This has been admitted in the transcripts if you actually read them. Meanwhile, don't make us laugh by calling yourself "educated" with discussion.