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

[General Lee]

It's not all only about where we at NWA are now but where we would have finished. In my case, it was in the top 5%. Doubt that would be the case if we start straying too far away from DOH.

Welcome onboard the "New" Delta to you as well.

I know what you are saying, but the only guy that will be happy will be the number 1 guy. We all have and had different expectations, and we also are not totally equal in certain areas, like pensions and super senior pilots. We lost a bunch of Captains when we lost our pensions, and you kept yours but lost some work rules. You will have a bunch of retirements coming up here, and we would have too about 5 years after yours. How do you give you credit for your upcoming retirements, and also allow us to get credit for ours that were not that far behind. You can't count your retirement chunk and dismiss ours.

As far as relative seniority, you pretty much get to do what you were doing anyway. If you are at 50%, then you should be close to that in a merged company. There could be some tweaking though here and there, for aircraft size (hey, those 744s are darn big), salary (a 12 year DC9 FO makes a lot less per hour than a 4th year 767FO for us), etc. I am sure your NWA MEC will go for everything they can, and so will ours. In the end, it will look close to relative seniority I bet.

One more thing, this below came from your NWA MEC bulletin today (?) concerning pay differences between DL and NWA once the DCC and joint contract kick in.

Pay Rumor: NWA vs. DAL
It has been brought to the attention of the NWA MEC leadership that some pilots believe that when we go
to the DAL pay and work rules, pay raises will be a wash. The foundation of this belief is that we will get a
pay raise followed by less working hours. This is a rumor.
This incorrect statement computes pay based on our NWA monthly max to DAL Average Line Value
(ALV), as if ALV was the max for the month. This is not the case. The ALV is the average. To get the max
for the month, 7.5 hours would need to be added to the monthly ALV (see chart below). In addition, last
year the average pay for DAL pilots was round 84 hours per month; making it possible to get more hours of
pay under the DAL system vs. the current NWA pay system.
NWA DAL
Monthly MAX 90 hrs. Monthly MAX 90 hrs.
Monthly Range
(max -12 hrs)
90-78 hrs. Monthly Range
(max -12 hrs)
90-78 hrs.
Monthly MIN. 75 hrs. Monthly MIN. 75 hrs.
Monthly Range
(min -12 hrs)
75-63 hrs. Monthly Range
(min -12 hrs)
75-63 hrs.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PuffDriver]

Keep up the useful contributions you add to these discussions, they are very insightful.

You guys brought it up, one of those "you made your bed" things.

 

[NuGuy]

Pay Rumor: NWA vs. DAL
It has been brought to the attention of the NWA MEC leadership that some pilots believe that when we go
to the DAL pay and work rules, pay raises will be a wash. The foundation of this belief is that we will get a
pay raise followed by less working hours. This is a rumor.
This incorrect statement computes pay based on our NWA monthly max to DAL Average Line Value
(ALV), as if ALV was the max for the month. This is not the case. The ALV is the average. To get the max
for the month, 7.5 hours would need to be added to the monthly ALV (see chart below). In addition, last
year the average pay for DAL pilots was round 84 hours per month; making it possible to get more hours of
pay under the DAL system vs. the current NWA pay system.
NWA DAL
Monthly MAX 90 hrs. Monthly MAX 90 hrs.
Monthly Range
(max -12 hrs)
90-78 hrs. Monthly Range
(max -12 hrs)
90-78 hrs.
Monthly MIN. 75 hrs. Monthly MIN. 75 hrs.
Monthly Range
(min -12 hrs)
75-63 hrs. Monthly Range
(min -12 hrs)
75-63 hrs.

And this came out the VERY next day:

Yesterday’s Hotline contained a piece comparing flight hours under the Northwest contract to the Delta contract. Unfortunately,
this item contained factual inaccuracies and has been pulled from the Hotline. We will provide our pilots with information on this subject in the future.

On another topic, you assume that the same integration method will be used on the entire pilot group. This may be unfounded. The pilots at the top of the list may be treated in an entirely different manner than those in other "segments".

You heard it here first.

Nu

 

[Turtle21]

...yes, I think some people will be unhappy, except the number 1 seniority pilot. ...

Even he won't be happy when he flys.. because his FO will be complaining the whole time about how he was cheated in seniority.:laugh:

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Keep up the useful contributions you add to these discussions, they are very insightful.

That's pretty interesting considering the NW side is the side that keeps bringing it up!

 

[Superpilot92]

That's pretty interesting considering the NW side is the side that keeps bringing it up!

ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!

http://www.allyourbasearebelongtous.com/flash/

 

[Occam's Razor]

..payrates will not be used to compare one aircraft to another (different) aircraft...but payrates in general can be used ie. nwa 757 pays $144/hr, dal 757 pays $160/hr nwa 330=$162/hr dal 76-400 pays $172/hr----NOT saying those two aircraft are substantially equivalent just stating their payrates.. these are pre-merger payrates..

Those pre-merger payrates are certainly fair game. So are the formulas that resulted in those rates. Kind of a two-edge sword.

But I think we're getting distracted here. The panel will be tasked with merging the lists...not the payrates. The rates are set in the joint contract...and BOTH pilot groups have ratified them.

The pre-merger rates matter only to the extent one group (or both) choose to use them to establish primacy. In that event, I would think the actual Joint Contract would neutralize the argument.

The key will be how the panel views expectations. My personal experience is that arbitrators tend to give more weight to empirical items (the here and now, which can be measured precisely) more than they will arguments that include the phrase, "...the expectations of..."

 

[General Lee]

Those pre-merger payrates are certainly fair game. So are the formulas that resulted in those rates. Kind of a two-edge sword.

But I think we're getting distracted here. The panel will be tasked with merging the lists...not the payrates. The rates are set in the joint contract...and BOTH pilot groups have ratified them.

The pre-merger rates matter only to the extent one group (or both) choose to use them to establish primacy. In that event, I would think the actual Joint Contract would neutralize the argument.

The key will be how the panel views expectations. My personal experience is that arbitrators tend to give more weight to empirical items (the here and now, which can be measured precisely) more than they will arguments that include the phrase, "...the expectations of..."

Yes, and the NWA guys agreed NOT to use the new A330 payrates if they were brought up to the 764 pay rates. That is a large chunk of the senior pilots right there. I would also think that the "here and now" pay rates should mean alot, since that does give sight to "what could have been." No windfalls allowed. And, let's look at the here and now of aircraft parking. What has been stated? How will that affect each pilot group? What are the "expectations" of each group? All of those are important. Good luck to all of us.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[licorice]

Those pre-merger payrates are certainly fair game. So are the formulas that resulted in those rates. Kind of a two-edge sword.

..how so?... If the formula is based on weight, speed, pax capacity, range, fuel specs, aesthetic appeal of paint schemes, etc...etc...how did the premerger 757 payrate, for example, end up being 11% greater at DAL?
QUOTE]

The pre-merger rates matter only to the extent one group (or both) choose to use them to establish primacy

.

And which group, do you suppose, if they chose to, and you were a betting man, would use payrates to establish "primacy"?

In that event, I would think the actual Joint Contract would neutralize the argument.

..ahaa! I thought so...you so subtly display your true "leaning"...--not to belabor a point to much, but, how could both groups claim primacy on payrates?

The key will be how the panel views expectations. My personal experience is that arbitrators tend to give more weight to empirical items (the here and now, which can be measured precisely) more than they will arguments that include the phrase, "...the expectations of..."

.. with that, I will agree. But does that extend to the expectation that every Northwest pilot would have eventually been #1 on their list as Nuguy et al. would have us believe?---Or is the nwa "expected" seniority really a "here and now" and the actual dal seniority "here and now" really an "expectation"? [/quote]
Is it just inconceivable that premerger payrates could have any bearing whatsoever on what an arbitrator might want to, at least, take a casual glance at, among many other factors, in order to differentiate where two pilot groups are "coming from"?..I mean, could they just take a "peek" at the premerger payrates...for a minute?...30 seconds? -even if allowed to be followed with 20 minutes of caveats, exceptions, objections, disclaimers etc. etc.... ?

 

[PuffDriver]

Those pre-merger payrates are certainly fair game. So are the formulas that resulted in those rates. Kind of a two-edge sword.

But I think we're getting distracted here. The panel will be tasked with merging the lists...not the payrates. The rates are set in the joint contract...and BOTH pilot groups have ratified them.

The pre-merger rates matter only to the extent one group (or both) choose to use them to establish primacy. In that event, I would think the actual Joint Contract would neutralize the argument.

The key will be how the panel views expectations. My personal experience is that arbitrators tend to give more weight to empirical items (the here and now, which can be measured precisely) more than they will arguments that include the phrase, "...the expectations of..."

While that is your opinion, recent experience has shown something somewhat different. If the formula is what it is, why were NWA rates so much lower equipment by equipment?

I think that the recent mergers reflect that indeed expectations matter.

 

[Occam's Razor]

While that is your opinion, recent experience has shown something somewhat different.

Examples?

If the formula is what it is, why were NWA rates so much lower equipment by equipment?

I'm thinking you've never looked at the formulas in your own contract. If so, you'd understand. Here's a refresher:

The productivity of each aircraft is rendered into a factor that is multiplied by another number that ALPA and management negotiate. The product is the hourly payrate. The B777 carries more stuff (people, cargo...called "lift") a greater distance ("range") than a B757. [Note: "speed" is also a factor, but is essentially neutral due to similar cruising speeds for most airliners] ALPA contends that the pilots flying the more productive aircraft, in a per hour sense, should get paid more.

The multiplicand that ALPA negotiates [Hint: Why DAL B757's are paid more than NWA B757's right now] is influenced by...wait for it...EVERYTHING. It's a function of priorities and the environment at the time. Labor's shorthand for that force is "leverage".

Example: Your C2K negotiations took place in an environment influenced by UAL's stunning 2000 contract, with it's eye-popping payrates and work rules. The multiplicand DAL negotiated in the Summer of '01 reflected that. It was a snapshot that was made OBE by the events of 9/11.

The simplest way to counter the "We get paid more on the same aircraft so we should be more senior!" argument is to overlay the approved formula in the contract...and plug in the actual productivity numbers for the aircraft. In the case of the JCBA, we know that some of the formulas were artificially adjusted to get the deal done...but the pre-existing (old contract) formulas can still be submitted as evidence. Since the new ALPA-negotiated multiplicand in the pay formula can also be submitted [Note: The adjustment process and rationale can NOT be submitted], the argument is moot.

I think that the recent mergers reflect that indeed expectations matter.

Go back and re-read my post. I didn't say they DON'T matter. I said they are given less "weight" by professional arbitrators than irrefutable empirical data. A formula is more real than a dream.

 

[PuffDriver]

Examples?



I'm thinking you've never looked at the formulas in your own contract. If so, you'd understand. Here's a refresher:

The productivity of each aircraft is rendered into a factor that is multiplied by another number that ALPA and management negotiate. The product is the hourly payrate. The B777 carries more stuff (people, cargo...called "lift") a greater distance ("range") than a B757. [Note: "speed" is also a factor, but is essentially neutral due to similar cruising speeds for most airliners] ALPA contends that the pilots flying the more productive aircraft, in a per hour sense, should get paid more.

The multiplicand that ALPA negotiates [Hint: Why DAL B757's are paid more than NWA B757's right now] is influenced by...wait for it...EVERYTHING. It's a function of priorities and the environment at the time. Labor's shorthand for that force is "leverage".

Example: Your C2K negotiations took place in an environment influenced by UAL's stunning 2000 contract, with it's eye-popping payrates and work rules. The multiplicand DAL negotiated in the Summer of '01 reflected that. It was a snapshot that was made OBE by the events of 9/11.

The simplest way to counter the "We get paid more on the same aircraft so we should be more senior!" argument is to overlay the approved formula in the contract...and plug in the actual productivity numbers for the aircraft. In the case of the JCBA, we know that some of the formulas were artificially adjusted to get the deal done...but the pre-existing (old contract) formulas can still be submitted as evidence. Since the new ALPA-negotiated multiplicand in the pay formula can also be submitted [Note: The adjustment process and rationale can NOT be submitted], the argument is moot.



Go back and re-read my post. I didn't say they DON'T matter. I said they are given less "weight" by professional arbitrators than irrefutable empirical data. A formula is more real than a dream.

He, he, keep hang'in on by those fingertips and flailing your arms around. The facts are what they are. NWA 757 paid less than Deltas. NWA a330 darn near paid less than Deltas 757s. Neogitating captital, a lot of it, was used to bring NWA up to Delta compensation, and then give NWA equity. That will be reflected in the NWA career expectations as well as Delta career expectations. It is not a dream. It is reality. Your pay sucked. Our sucked much less. That matters, a lot.

I guess next is Superdupercalifragilistic premium widebody flying. Or perhaps the argument that red is a more senior color than blue. Oh yeah, age, let's use that.

BTW where is DTW and the pay rate argument?

Oh, BTW, the C2K springboard came off of United, whos springboard came off of our 777/764 agreement--they called it the Delta dot--just to bring you up to the facts pertaining c2k

 

[Flybet3]

How much you gonna bet they are going to go by DOH. I've always said, merge the lists by DOH but don't move anyone!!! and then once the vacancies come out then you bid by seniority. Simple.

 

[tblosser]

How much you gonna bet they are going to go by DOH. I've always said, merge the lists by DOH but don't move anyone!!! and then once the vacancies come out then you bid by seniority. Simple.

Not so simple. Delta’s previous mergers were not date of hire. As a result the pilots from previous carriers are not in date of hire order. If the arbitrators award date of hire how would these pilots be treated? Would they be re-ordered based on date of hire? That would move them ahead of current Delta pilots who they are now junior to.

 

[Superpilot92]

Not so simple. Delta’s previous mergers were not date of hire. As a result the pilots from previous carriers are not in date of hire order. If the arbitrators award date of hire how would these pilots be treated? Would they be re-ordered based on date of hire? That would move them ahead of current Delta pilots who they are now junior to.

I am not saying it will be one way or the other but this has to do with this merger not previous mergers.