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.

 

[Superpilot92]

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.

I posted the info you requested above, is that not what you wanted? Why does the fact that what i posted is actually backed up somewhere bother you? Why do you feel the further need to post flamebait, Again because i backed it up? Now who is acting childish?

 

[PuffDriver]

I posted the info you requested above, is that not what you wanted? Why does the fact that what i posted is actually backed up somewhere bother you? Why do you feel the further need to post flamebait, Again because i backed it up? Now who is acting childish?

There are too many posts to list.

 

[FDJ2]

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).

Great, let's discuss and see if we understand this language.

Simple question, the threshold level has already been set, the company has parked additional narrowbody aircraft, with no replacements and has announced further reductions, how many 51-76 seaters have been reduced? If none, why not?
:beer:

 

[123]

Your own MEC has stated that the DC-9 would be replaced by a smaller aircraft that pays even less than the DC-9...

Did the MEC say that ALL of the DC-9's would be replaced by smaller aircraft? What was the timeframe that they gave for that?

Do you have a copy of that correspondence so that I can reference it, I can't seem to find it. Thanks,

 

[FDJ2]

Did the MEC say that ALL of the DC-9's would be replaced by smaller aircraft? What was the timeframe that they gave for that?

Do you have a copy of that correspondence so that I can reference it, I can't seem to find it. Thanks,

NWA MEC publication "Across the Table", March 2006 I believe.

 

[123]

NWA MEC publication "Across the Table", March 2006 I believe.

Do you have a copy of it? Is it the one that states the following:

...
Management made
a case that 76-seat aircraft in a dual-class configuration were
needed to compete in the future and, importantly, that they
would not be used to replace DC-9 aircraft.

It is our belief that 51–76-seat aircraft will not accelerate
the retirement of the DC-9 fleet. NWA’s business plan shows
the DC-9 fleet continuing to operate well into the future,
with many of the aircraft remaining in the fleet until
mandatory cycle limits require their retirement from service.
The demand for 100-seat aircraft at NWA is very real

 

[FDJ2]

Do you have a copy of it? Is it the one that states the following:

...
Management made
a case that 76-seat aircraft in a dual-class configuration were
needed to compete in the future and, importantly, that they
would not be used to replace DC-9 aircraft.

It is our belief that 51–76-seat aircraft will not accelerate
the retirement of the DC-9 fleet. NWA’s business plan shows
the DC-9 fleet continuing to operate well into the future,
with many of the aircraft remaining in the fleet until
mandatory cycle limits require their retirement from service.
The demand for 100-seat aircraft at NWA is very real

Is that the one that also states:


"The solution we negotiated has stopped that shift at Northwest and we hope in the industry.DC-9 replacement aircraft, the 77 to 110-seataircraft, will be flown at the mainline by Northwest seniority list pilots."

What are the pay rates on the DC-9 replacement aircraft?


​

 

[Superpilot92]

Great, let's discuss and see if we understand this language.

Simple question, the threshold level has already been set, the company has parked additional narrowbody aircraft, with no replacements and has announced further reductions, how many 51-76 seaters have been reduced? If none, why not?
:beer:

Easy, its because we havent gone below that specified floor. That is precisely why the decision to park (not retire) those DC9s when they did. That was done before the floor was set. That is also why the number of CRJ900's and EMB175s were ordered and none further. Had they ordered more it would have gone against the language.

 

[PuffDriver]

Easy, its because we havent gone below that specified floor. That is precisely why the decision to park (not retire) those DC9s when they did. That was done before the floor was set. That is also why the number of CRJ900's and EMB175s were ordered and none further. Had they ordered more it would have gone against the language.

Anybody see Steenland on TV? Interesting comments about the "older aircraft". And the hits just keep coming.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Boat is half full of water, but hey it is only half full right super?

 

[MCDU]

NWA pilots will be furlough fodder if DAL pilots get their way. 2007 DOH remain employed while pilots hired in 2000 will hit the street.
Seniority should never be for sale. You will never get it back. Taking a snap shot and trying to predict on who will in better shape is a sham. DOH with conditions and protections. Union principles.
DOH at USAIR will only effect the pilot group for 10 years. After that, 80% of East pilot group will be gone and the AWA pilots will be all screaming how DOH is the only fair way.

DOH is the way to go. Like the Piedmont pilots who intially fought DOH while merging with USAIR. DOH with conditions and protections works in the long run, but most pilots are to short sighted to grasp that concept.

M

 

[michael707767]

DOH is the way to go. Like the Piedmont pilots who intially fought DOH while merging with USAIR. DOH with conditions and protections works in the long run, but most pilots are to short sighted to grasp that concept.

ALPA policy makes no mention of DOH.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Guess what. the next ten years are the problem. DC-9's going bye bye, 744's that were put on short term leases, with the assumption that the 787 would be on time, will go bye bye as there are many people out there that want them, 742's in the words of our VP of MTC are DOA, 320's that are nearing the end of their life(old ones), MD-88's only have about 10 years left in them (per our fleet plan)
Notice that all but the 88 come from NWA. I believe that we(DAL) are correct in our thinking that many of these will be gone in the next five years. With or with out a merger. With out it the 744 would be replaced, with 18 787, the DC-9's are being replaced with 175's, CR-9's and the like. With the DALPA proposal it takes in to account where the furloughs will come from when, not if these airframes are parked.
I know you are defensive, I would be too. It is tough to face the cold hard reality that even though you are making money now, your fleet will be farmed out much like ours was a half a decade ago. We realized our pain, we refuse to endure the pain of rationalizing your fleet.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Northwest Fleet (as of 3/31/08)
Aircraft Seats Owned Leased Total Orders
B747-400 403 4 12 16 -
B747-200 Freighter - 9 3 12 -
B787-800 TBD - - - 18
A330-300 298 21 - 21

A330-200 243 11 - 11 -
B757-300 224 16 - 16 -
B757-200 182 38 17 55 -
A320-200 148 45 28 73 2
A319-100 124 55 2 57 5
DC9-50 125 34 - 34 -
DC9-40 110 11 - 11 -
DC9-30 100 42 - 42 -
CRJ-200 50/44 - 141 141 -
CRJ-900 76 19 - 19 17
EMB-175 76 16 - 16 19
Total Jet Aircraft
321 203 524 61

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Most of your orders are for 175's and CR-9's last time I checked those were not going to be flown by you or us.
This data comes from your website.

 

[FDJ2]

Easy, its because we havent gone below that specified floor. That is precisely why the decision to park (not retire) those DC9s when they did. That was done before the floor was set. That is also why the number of CRJ900's and EMB175s were ordered and none further. Had they ordered more it would have gone against the language.

So if they "retire" vs "park" all the DC-9s, how many 51-76 seat RJs can NWA operate?

 

[Superpilot92]

the DC-9's are being replaced with 175's, CR-9's and the like. With the DALPA proposal it takes in to account where the furloughs will come from when, not if these airframes are parked.

You of all people know and understand the SCOPE language yet you pretend its not there, why? I know it makes your argument sound better but still.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

You agreed with me on another board. All it takes is a LOA bud.
Read what FDJ2 states. That my friend is fact. Nuances of the terms of the scope is what you need to understand. The lawyers do.

 

[DTW320]

Guess what. the next ten years are the problem. DC-9's going bye bye, 744's that were put on short term leases, with the assumption that the 787 would be on time, will go bye bye as there are many people out there that want them, 742's in the words of our VP of MTC are DOA, 320's that are nearing the end of their life(old ones), MD-88's only have about 10 years left in them (per our fleet plan)
Notice that all but the 88 come from NWA. I believe that we(DAL) are correct in our thinking that many of these will be gone in the next five years. With or with out a merger. With out it the 744 would be replaced, with 18 787, the DC-9's are being replaced with 175's, CR-9's and the like. With the DALPA proposal it takes in to account where the furloughs will come from when, not if these airframes are parked.
I know you are defensive, I would be too. It is tough to face the cold hard reality that even though you are making money now, your fleet will be farmed out much like ours was a half a decade ago. We realized our pain, we refuse to endure the pain of rationalizing your fleet.

Ooooh, new spin! Cool! NWA 744's will now be parked and that will cause more NWA furloughs. Entertaining fiction you have dreamed up there.
787 was never a planned replacement for 744's. Sorry. Different mission entirely. Richard seems pretty excited about using the 744 in the DAL system. DC-9 ASM's can't be replaced with the # of 175's allowed.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Not spin fact. Look at the financing on the 744's when it was done and how it correlates to the 787.