It's official, no deal now

[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!