It's official, no deal now

[ExAF]

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.....

 

[FDJ2]

Delta's announcement today could well be one of the many parts of the overall merger plan anyway. There will be some admin, mgt and front line reductions with a merger, they are just getting some of those reductions out of the way while the pilots sort things out. Give it a couple more weeks, before declaring it over.

Trimming people now means that those job losses won't be attributed to a merger. This gets real interesting if NWA starts trimming. Imagine for a moment that RA and DS are cutting pieces ahead of the announcement. It makes the whole merger eaiser to push through because the thousands of jobs they planned to cut are already gone.

Slam dunk at the merger hearings.

Or it could be the economic reality of $110/bbl oil.

The fact is that costs for every airline will probably go up faster than revenue. Every airline needs to make adjustments.

 

[Schwanker]

My calculator shows 3446 retirements between now and 2023 and about 2300 by 2020....... Stop posting absolute crap and educate yourself before you post. Your making yourself look very stupid at this point.

THESE NUMBERS WERE POSTED BY YOUR VERY OWN GENERAL! BETWEEN NOW AND 1 JAN 2020, DAL WILL HAVE 1007 AGE 65 RETIREMENTS! MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET A NEW CALCULATOR! YOUR CURRENT ONE MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID!

DAL RETIREMENTS from our list
2013-60,
2014-75,
2015-89,
2016-136,
2017-157,
2018-218,
2019-272,
2020-348,
2021-478,
2022-567,
2023-549,
2024-544,
2025-472

 

[tomgoodman]

A disgruntled analyst's view

The press is looking for someone to blame:

Already, some Wall Street analysts are questioning whether Delta management was in fact committed to making the Northwest merger happen. To be sure, there was pressure on Delta Chief Executive Richard Anderson to negotiate a deal: Many of the hedge funds that bought Delta debt during the carrier's 2005 bankruptcy—and converted it into sizable equity stakes when the airline emerged from Chapter 11 the following year—were pushing management to pursue a merger.

And when Anderson asked the pilot unions from Delta and Northwest to find a way to combine the seniority lists for both carriers, it appeared to be a prudent move to avoid the pilot infighting that has poisoned the merger between the former US Airways Group (LCC) and America West.

But looking back, Anderson—who before joining Delta last year had served as CEO of Northwest—had to have known enough about each of the pilots' unions to think it unlikely they would find common ground. With hundreds of Delta pilots opting to retire before the bankruptcy, the remaining pilots were on average far younger than their peers at Northwest. That meant that in a merger, many Delta pilots would be bumped back to flying smaller planes—an action that would also have meant taking a pay cut.

And when Northwest pilots refused to cede too much ground on the seniority issue, Delta pilots opted to walk. "Pilots are like a bunch of spoiled kids, and it would have required adult supervision to make the merger work," says Roger King, airline analyst for CreditSights, an institutional research firm in New York. "It's a testament to management's impotence that the deal wasn't done—or more probably, to management's real desire to not do the deal. I think they pursued the merger just to get the shareholders off their backs."

--Business Week

 

[Occam's Razor]

Occam, I love your optimism, but I don't share it.

I gather. Luckily, the process doesn't depend upon your (or my) optimism.

The DAL MEC is moving on as I'm sure the NWA MEC is, or ought to be.

It might be better to be prepared to re-engage. The DAL MEC doesn't drive the need to meet. The NWA doesn't either. The "drivers" are individuals in corner offices in Wayzata, New York, and Paris.

Lee Moak's letter effectively ends the discussion from our end, he wouldn't have put it out otherwise.

Ha! Good one! I think you'd be more of an optimist if you were wise to "alternative negotiating" techniques. In baseball, it'd be called the "set-up pitch".

The February 27th "DEADLINE!" was another.

The first few "Final Offers!" fit the same general description.

The NWA MEC has come back before and asked to reengage, but nothing brought forward has been even close to acceptable. Each proposal is just another version of a wish list.

Is that rhetoric necessary? I'm not trying to be your EGPWS here, but "Pull Up!". You're getting close to to the intellectual gutter with comments like that.

I stated early on this wasn't about "getting the best deal we can get" it was about getting the fairest deal for all. A fundamental shift in approach.

"Fair" is not possible. Reasonable is possible. Likely, in fact...if both sides accept the amount of "equal blood" (a negotiating term) shed by the other. Reasonable means the position can be supported with accepted facts.

I was a supporter of the merger under the right circumstances, but too much valuable time has already been wasted and I'm no longer as supportive. I'm sure many DAL pilots feel the same.

Good! That means we're probably getting closer to the realm of "equal blood". When you're pissed...lemme know! :beer:

We need to attend to our own affairs.

If you're implication is you've been attending to OUR affairs...then "Whoop! Whoop!".

Your team's participation in all of this hasn't been a Mercy Mission to rescue the crew of a foundering ship. It's been an interest-based negotiation to do something that's never been done before. There is no blueprint for this.

I object to your characterization, unless, of course...it's another "DEADLINE!".

Some of the things we try are attempted because the alternative is worse.

 

[ultrarunner]

As of this moment, I have received notice that DAL and NWA could not come to terms on a SLI deal. Thus, no merger as of now

Hey Puff, check your history and tell me that last time airline management waited for a couple of pilot groups to get in bed with each other before they decided to merge/buyout/aquire/etc...

The NWA and Delta pilot groups "attempted", and I use that term loosely, to come to an "agreement" that would be used during the integration.

The short version is the two groups essentially, and smartly IMO, attempted control their own destiny.

That failed, and IMHO will have little to no bearing on what NWA and DAL management decide. Their responsibility is with the investors.

In the end, if the merger goes forward, the pilot groups will fight it out like in the past, and eventually it will go to binding arbitration. And NO, I don't think the groups are smart enough to avoid that. If they were, they'd have already come to an agreement. But egos are big and history has shown it typically takes an arbitrator to put those egos back in line.

Ultra

 

[FDJ2]

I gather. Luckily, the process doesn't depend upon your (or my) optimism.

That's true. But the process wasn't set up for endless quibbling either.

It might be better to be prepared to re-engage. The DAL MEC doesn't drive the need to meet. The NWA doesn't either. The "drivers" are individuals in corner offices in Wayzata, New York, and Paris.

We're always ready. We've had our merger committee up and running for over two years. Don't you know, we're the Delta Machine.



Ha! Good one! I think you'd be more of an optimist if you were wise to "alternative negotiating" techniques. In baseball, it'd be called the "set-up pitch".

The February 27th "DEADLINE!" was another.

The first few "Final Offers!" fit the same general description.

I think you'll become accustomed to another term.

"that was then, this is now."

This isn't an endless negotiation. Get to the middle quickly, no time for "getting the best deal we can get."


Fair" is not possible. Reasonable is possible. Likely, in fact...if both sides accept the amount of "equal blood" (a negotiating term) shed by the other. Reasonable means the position can be supported with accepted facts.

Accepted facts. Interesting, I suppose you'll define the limits of what is an accepted fact. Are we considering pay differetials as an accepted fact, aircraft orders, contractual language brought to the joint contract due to the priorities we took in bankruptcy, staffing formulas, wide bodied to narrow bodied ratios, or just attrition?

I'm sorry, but we can't address your issues without also addressing our own. At the end of the day a rep needs to justify why he accepted this list.


Good! That means we're probably getting closer to the realm of "equal blood". When you're pissed...lemme know! :beer:

Not much time for those games, but I do admire your optimism.



If you're implication is you've been attending to OUR affairs...then "Whoop! Whoop!".

Nope. That's not my implication. We have our own pilot group and airline to deal with, this has taken long enough and probably too long and is becoming more of a distraction than anything else.

Your team's participation in all of this hasn't been a Mercy Mission to rescue the crew of a foundering ship. It's been an interest-based negotiation to do something that's never been done before. There is no blueprint for this.

I never said we were a Mercy Mission to rescue a foudering ship.

I object to your characterization, unless, of course...it's another "DEADLINE!".

I'm sorry you object. We're always willing to receive another text message asking to reengage. That doesn't mean the same deal be there and that may not be of our making. Much valuable time has been wasted huffing and puffing.

I stated early on that there was no time for the typical huff and buff bluster and attempting to "get the best deal you can get." Get to the middle from the outset.

Remember that term, "that was then, this is now." Things change.

Some of the things we try are attempted because the alternative is worse.

That's very true, and that's why we tried. However, some times what we are trying isn't working and the opportunity may have passed us by, so it may be best to move on and try something different with no hard feelings.

If I've offended you I'm sorry. This profession needs many more like you and I mean that.:beer:

 

[3ds]

how about you 2 just put a deal together. seems like most guys on both sides trust you.

 

[Occam's Razor]

FDJ2,

I fully expected the process to be long and difficult. If it was easy, those weenies at AAA and AWA coulda done it! (I keed!)

I submit that there has been plenty of "huffing and puffing" by both sides.

RE: "Accepted facts. Interesting, I suppose you'll define the limits of what is an accepted fact. Are we considering pay differetials as an accepted fact, aircraft orders, contractual language brought to the joint contract due to the priorities we took in bankruptcy, staffing formulas, wide bodied to narrow bodied ratios, or just attrition?"

Let's use an example from your list to demonstrate how difficult the process can be, and maybe point out how some of the "huffing and puffing" develops.

"Aircraft orders" - Do only firm orders count? How about options? What date should be used for the snapshot of the orders (firm and options)? Should we consider "options" that don't appear in the corporation's 10K filings with the SEC? If so...why?

That issue alone has caused a lot of conflict, when it should be fairly easy to define "aircraft orders" and choose a reasonable date to compare their effect on system blockhours.

There are bright, thoughtful individuals on both sides trying to resolve that relatively simple issue. Once it's settled, the process can move on to developing a ratio to blend pilots to blockhours. If the discussion on the definition of "aircraft orders" includes assertions that can't be substantiated by a published document (ie: Corp. 10K), trust tends to dissolve.

When trust dissolves..."huffing and puffing" follows.

We expect management weasels to engage in "creative" or deceptive tactics. We don't expect it from each other.

But it happens.

Read any thread on this forum and you'll see clear examples of pilots "disagreeing" with enthusiastic disingenuousness.

They'll hit it again. Hopefully, each engagement brings us closer to the perfect list...one with equal blood.

I think the end result will be good for us.

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,

I fully expected the process to be long and difficult.

Brother, there comes a time to let it go. If we're forced into this we can both huff and puff, but this isn't an endless negotiation.

If it was easy, those weenies at AAA and AWA coulda done it! (I keed!)

Excellent point my friend. No one said it would be easy.

Let's use an example from your list to demonstrate how difficult the process can be, and maybe point out how some of the "huffing and puffing" develops.

"Aircraft orders" - Do only firm orders count? How about options? What date should be used for the snapshot of the orders (firm and options)? Should we consider "options" that don't appear in the corporation's 10K filings with the SEC? If so...why?

What matrix do you want to use, or should we ignore them all and just deal with attrition?

That issue alone has caused a lot of conflict, when it should be fairly easy to define "aircraft orders" and choose a reasonable date to compare their effect on system blockhours.

It should be easy to establish where you sit on your seniority list. However, some want a "dynamic list". Which perhaps settles their narrow issue, but ignores other issues such as the wide bodied to narrow bodied issue, aircraft orders and busines plans, pay, staffing formulas brought to the table, etc. It's easy to hold near and dear to your heart your own issue, while simultaneously ignoring the other guys.

There are bright, thoughtful individuals on both sides trying to resolve that relatively simple issue.

If it were simple don't you think it would have been resolved by now.

Once it's settled, the process can move on to developing a ratio to blend pilots to blockhours.

tic, tic, tic. I'm not poking fun or taking a cheap shot, but time literally is money. Where's the value in a drawn out process with oil climbing and the economic environment changing?

If the discussion on the definition of "aircraft orders" includes assertions that can't be substantiated by a published document (ie: Corp. 10K), trust tends to dissolve.

Likewise when assertions of early retirements can't be substantiated trust disolves.

Regardless, so you don't trust us. Time to move on.

Let it go.

When trust dissolves..."huffing and puffing" follows.

Huffing and Puffing unfortunately was inserted early in the process and it wasn't from DS, JM, or LD.

We expect management weasels to engage in "creative" or deceptive tactics. We don't expect it from each other.

So are you implying we use deceptive tactics, Do I now have to be your EGPWS? Woop, Woop. Walk away Occam, walk away.

But it happens.

So you don't trust us, fine. Time to move on.

Read any thread on this forum and you'll see clear examples of pilots "disagreeing" with enthusiastic disingenuousness.

I don't get your point unless you're implying that DS, JM, and LD are being disengenuous. In which case we really don't need to be talking to each other.

They'll hit it again. Hopefully, each engagement brings us closer to the perfect list...one with equal blood.

Is there a scheduled meeting you know of, if so I'd like to know about it. I'll check tommorrow to see if something has changed.

I think the end result will be good for us.

We'll see. I wouldn't hold too much faith in that at this late date. Don't hang your hat on a small adjustment to framework of your last proposal.

 

[General Lee]

FDJ2,

I fully expected the process to be long and difficult. If it was easy, those weenies at AAA and AWA coulda done it! (I keed!)

I submit that there has been plenty of "huffing and puffing" by both sides.

RE: "Accepted facts. Interesting, I suppose you'll define the limits of what is an accepted fact. Are we considering pay differetials as an accepted fact, aircraft orders, contractual language brought to the joint contract due to the priorities we took in bankruptcy, staffing formulas, wide bodied to narrow bodied ratios, or just attrition?"

Let's use an example from your list to demonstrate how difficult the process can be, and maybe point out how some of the "huffing and puffing" develops.

"Aircraft orders" - Do only firm orders count? How about options? What date should be used for the snapshot of the orders (firm and options)? Should we consider "options" that don't appear in the corporation's 10K filings with the SEC? If so...why?

That issue alone has caused a lot of conflict, when it should be fairly easy to define "aircraft orders" and choose a reasonable date to compare their effect on system blockhours.

There are bright, thoughtful individuals on both sides trying to resolve that relatively simple issue. Once it's settled, the process can move on to developing a ratio to blend pilots to blockhours. If the discussion on the definition of "aircraft orders" includes assertions that can't be substantiated by a published document (ie: Corp. 10K), trust tends to dissolve.

When trust dissolves..."huffing and puffing" follows.

We expect management weasels to engage in "creative" or deceptive tactics. We don't expect it from each other.

But it happens.

Read any thread on this forum and you'll see clear examples of pilots "disagreeing" with enthusiastic disingenuousness.

They'll hit it again. Hopefully, each engagement brings us closer to the perfect list...one with equal blood.

I think the end result will be good for us.

Occam my simian friend, if you are looking for a merger so badly why don't you look no further than DFW? I think they are looking at you now. That would be great for you, except they may be a "tad bit" more senior. No worries though---after they buy you and dismantle your DTW hub (too close to ORD and MSP), they can ship what is left of you to LGA MD80. You may think that "the law is now on your side with the Sen Bond Ammendment"---only to find out that the APA doesn't care---they will staple you and then you can sue them for years to clear it up. By that time, all of their 15 year FOs will be happily flying your DC9s in MSP saying "finally an upgrade, even though it is on a DC9....hey center can I have a heading to Minot please?" That should be fun for you.

If we ever were to merge and of course you guys forced us to send it to an arbitrator due to your lack of preparedness, even he/she would see your arrogance and compare it to the level of entitlement only the Easties (the East Infection I have heard it called) of USAir have so far attained. Yes, you have old farts (with pensions) flying your planes, that are just as old as the pilots. Get over yourselves and don't call us back asking "hey guys, haven't heard from you in awhile....do you still like us???" until you have something based in reality. We are like sized airlines with identical histories. You are older, with pensions. We are paid more with no pensions. You have to give a bit chief. Say it with me "That was then, this is now...." And tell your Greenbook Comittee Chair to go back to Minot and do a walkaround for some fresh air and a new outlook.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Occam's Razor]

Get back in the shallow end, chump. You're WAAAAAY over your head here!

 

[Occam's Razor]

FDJ2,

I'd be pretty surprised if we DIDN'T meet again.

So are you implying we use deceptive tactics, Do I now have to be your EGPWS? Woop, Woop. Walk away Occam, walk away.

I thought I was pretty clear. "Both" was how I put it.

We could list the tactics both sides have used to date, but that wouldn't get is anywhere. It would only prove that both sides have done it.

So you don't trust us, fine. Time to move on.

Good thing it's not your call!

 

[Frank Lorenzo]

I'm glad to see the optimism on the part of the pilots to get this deal done.

It is very unsettling to see executive bonuses at risk. This merger will put tens of millions into the pockets of the most deserving employees at both airlines - Doug Steenland and Dick Anderson.

Although both airlines will be parking planes soon, it is heartning to see the pilots willing to fall on the sword to make this deal happen. When me and the rest of the airline execs came up with the spin that consolidation has to happen to "save" the airlines, I never in my wildest dreams though that labor would hop on the bandwagon. Thanks guys!

OK, so there will be a few thousand layoffs. I don't think it's fair to be bitter about that. You have to look at the big picture here. The bonuses produced by these mergers will continue to attract the "top tier" talent that has been doing such a spectacular job managing the airlines for the past few decades. The employees should be downright grateful for that.

Cheers!

 

[JAM-BRO]

BUHUHAAAA!!!!!!

Get back in the shallow end, chump. You're WAAAAAY over your head here!