Latest DAL/NWA arbitration debates

[jetflier]

As you are aware, the DAL proposal calls for a separate aircraft type for the DC9 FOs.

For me, the highlight of the day was Mr. Katz last questions for a DAL rep. It went something like this;

Katz: Captain ________, you are an MD88 captain. Is that correct?

DAL Rep: That is correct, sir.

Katz: What does it say on your license?

DAL Rep: A310, B767/757, Uh......DC-9.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

It really is no big deal it is the way the handle aircraft that are the same type but with big differences.
We do the same thing with the 767-400 and the 767,757,767-300ER.
We also did the same with the 737-200, 737-300 and the 737-800.
DAL feels that going from a DC-9 to a MD-88 or 90 leg to leg would be too much. I agree.

 

[DAL737FO]

What's the point. The 737 is a common type rating but the 737-200 paid less than the -300 and a whole lot less than the -800. Same type rating though.

 

[JoeMerchant]

The 75/76 pays the same...but the sizes are much different.....Sounds like the DC9 drivers are getting treated differently.....

 

[FDJ2]

The 75/76 pays the same...but the sizes are much different.....Sounds like the DC9 drivers are getting treated differently.....

So are the MD-88 drivers, the MD-90 pays more, so are the 747-200 drivers, the 747-400 pays more. Some one call a lawyer, I smell a lawsuit.:laugh:

 

[ultrarunner]

Yeah, the -9's should be a separate bid. NO reason to jump from ship-to-ship. I think airlines have typically separated that type.

When DAL had -9's in the past, had they started top operate the '88's? DAL may have already had both on property. If so, were they separate?

 

[PuffDriver]

The 75/76 pays the same...but the sizes are much different.....Sounds like the DC9 drivers are getting treated differently.....

Yep, you'd better notify your buddies. This has millions written all over it for you. Plus, it may land you on the Delta list. Why not try?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I think that even the FAA would have issues with you going from a non-FMC platform to a FMC platform, leg by leg. There is a lot of issues with that.

 

[tomgoodman]

-9/-88 transition

When DAL had -9's in the past, had they started top operate the '88's? DAL may have already had both on property. If so, were they separate?

Same type rating, but they were always separate categories, and only instructors maintained currency in both. When we first got the -88, it wasn't really "glass". FMS wasn't ready for installation yet, so the CRT screens only worked in arc and rose modes. After installation, only LNAV was authorized, and after a while, VNAV was given the OK.

 

[General Lee]

As you are aware, the DAL proposal calls for a separate aircraft type for the DC9 FOs.

For me, the highlight of the day was Mr. Katz last questions for a DAL rep. It went something like this;

Katz: Captain ________, you are an MD88 captain. Is that correct?

DAL Rep: That is correct, sir.

Katz: What does it say on your license?

DAL Rep: A310, B767/757, Uh......DC-9.

The cockpits are pretty different, even to someone who has never flown either. I guess the 742 and the 744 are the same too, right? Was this really a highlight? Maybe for you guys. I thought our guy RH did a great job comparing the the 767ER to the A330. Essentially he looked at old records, found out Airbus based the A330 off of the 767-300ER, and looked a Delta specs to see what missions our 76ERs do vs how NWA used the A330, and even looked at how many ultra long haul crewed flights we had vs NWA. A lot of your A330 flights have two man crews, whereas most of our 76ER flights have 3 man crews, and some have 4 man crews (none of yours do). Shouldn't than mean something? Maybe you aren't using your A330s to their max ability? Then, he looked at our pay scales on each pre-DCC. Wow, I think they are identical...... hopefully the arbitrators do too...the A333 is a bit bigger, but it looks like the missions are the same....(thanks to you guys not using it the way it could be used, more often)



Delta's B-767 ER and Northwest A-330 are
11 identical aircraft based on real world data."

Again, the first article,
6 rather than go through the whole thing on page
7 two of the article, it is exhibit page three.
8 It just talks about how when Airbus was
9 designing the A-330-200 model, that it was
10 targeted at the Boeing 767 ER whose range
11 capability was greater than any previous
12 Airbus twin-engine aircraft.

So that when Airbus was designing
14 the airplane, they were designing it to
15 compete with the 767 ER.

A. Right. The bottom line is that the
9 767 average rate is $171.70. For the A-330
10 it's 163.50. And again both within the same
11 neighborhood of each other

So we asked Delta management as
9 they were coming up with the combined schedule
10 that was going to come into effect, I think
11 the first load is in January, what performance
12 data did they use to try to figure out which
13 airplane can accomplish which route.
14 So they gave us a list that is
15 displayed on page 11. And what they gave us
16 was the actual seat count of the aircraft and
17 the range that's based on a full passenger
18 load with appropriate payload corrections
19 based on the mission.
20 Q.


the maximum seat count multiplied by the
3 maximum range to come up with a maximum
4 available seat mile for the airplane.
5 Again, the chart raw data is shown
6 there as it came from Delta management


And obviously we've highlighted
3 there the four legs that Delta does that are
4 double augmented flights. And the A-330 does
5 not do any double augmented flying.
6 As you go down the list for
7 Northwest, you see at the very bottom they do
8 fly the A-330 as part of the Norita hub on
9 shorter range legs that have two pilot crews.
10 When we get to the bottom of the
11 page for the 767 ER, we are still looking at
12 9.9 or 10 hour legs that require three crew
13 numbers.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[clippyrip]

They are the same bird.

You can add a spoiler and fancy hub caps to your Dodge Neon but its still a Dodge Neon. Go ahead and get the 4 door, its still a Dodge Neon.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Anyone else find it interesting that under cross examination NWA's side admits that DOH "disadvantages" the Delta pilots and that a ratio is a much more fair integration methodology to start with.

So as a fall back position NWA's witness testifies if the arbitrators must award a ratio list, then they should make it dynamic, to protect NWA's earlier retirement driven career progression.

But then they admit, Dynamic has problems:

First, they start with an assumption that it would take a Delta MD88 FO ten years of growth and attrition to bid up to the 737, or 757. During the same time without a merger the NWA new hire would hold a 787 B slot, or a 767ER B slot under Delta's plan. Then the witness testifies that adoption of a dynamic list raises the career earnings of a NWA 2008 hire by 4%, while reducing the career earnings of a Delta new hire 5%, comapred to the static proposal.

But with a static ratio, the difference is 1%.

18 You can see the consequence of the
19 static list on the left and the dynamic list
20 on the right for using job value units. The
21 Northwest pilots in the static will see a five
22 percent reduction in their group earnings.
23 The Delta pilots see a four percent
24 in the static than in the dynamic list.
25 The Northwest pilots lose a far
2 smaller amount of group career earnings than
3 the Delta pilots.

Now what was the percentage of NWA raises compared to the Delta raises in the JPWA? It was a whole lot more than 1%.

ALPA's merger goals:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”

Using just and only NWA's testimony, Delta's ratio achieves ALPA's definition better than either of their plans.

I truly do not understand NWA pilots' cries of arrogance and unfairness with regard to the Delta proposal. Once you get past the hazy images of 747's flying over Mt. Osaka and start dealing with objective numbers the visibility clears right up.

Oh, and the Green book pilots just remained on the smaller equipment for quality of life.

 

[nwaredtail]

The 75/76 pays the same...but the sizes are much different.....Sounds like the DC9 drivers are getting treated differently.....

Shush, don't tell anybody. The dumb arbitrators and NWA merger committee might find this out and figure DAL is trying to pull one over on them to the advantage of their own pilots.

 

[nwaredtail]

Anyone else find it interesting that under cross examination NWA's side admits that DOH "disadvantages" the Delta pilots and that a ratio is a much more fair integration methodology to start with.

Funny, I can't find where they said any of that. Disadvantages from a day 1 snapshot maybe, but 5 to 10 years down the road, most DAL pilots make out better under the combined DOH model at the new DAL than they would have of DAL stood alone.

Under your POS model all DAL pilots benefit on the backs of NWA pilots. That won't fly.

I guess your model has no disadvantages for NWA pilots, like:

1. losing 5-10% seniority from day one.
2. Losing 10-20 over the next 5-10 years
3. Losing up to 50% over 15 years

but those numbers the NWA guys should just ignore?

You, GL and others just cherry pick your arguments but with no substance behind it. Your arguments make y'all the USAIR of this SLI arbitration.

 

[~~~^~~~]

And another nail in Dynamic's Coffin:

Q. No other airline has a dynamic
9 seniority list advice, do they?
10 A. Not that I'm aware of.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I guess your model has no disadvantages for NWA pilots, like:
1. losing 5-10% seniority from day one.
2. Losing 10-20 over the next 5-10 years
3. Losing up to 50% over 15 years

Your arguments make y'all the USAIR of this SLI arbitration.

Facts:
1. NWA brings smaller aircraft to the table, relative seniority by equipment is our status quo without the merger.
2. According to your witness Delta loses 4% under NWA's plan
3. According to your witness NWA loses 1% under DAL's plan.

According to your witness you lose ~1% of pay with Delta's plan. Delta loses ~5%. Which plan meets ALPA's own goals. This is without consideration for the raises obtained by NWA pilots, bringing NWA to parity in the JPWA.

I will refer you to the testimony of Captain Averill on the 15th of November. I'm not picking our best arguments, or even arguments being made by the Delta side. I'm just evaluating your representatives arguments. I'd love to see their charts, maybe NWA will leak them.

I know my side and am not asking for anything more than status quo.

 

[~~~^~~~]

If I just wanted to pick quotes for headline value I'd post stuff like this, while discussing NWA's proposed list:

7 Q. A third of the Delta pilots are
8 stapled on the bottom of the Northwest list;
9 is that correct?
10 A. On the bottom of the Northwest
11 list?
12 Q. Yes, on the bottom of the list, on
13 the bottom of the list. I misspoke. On the
14 bottom of the list.
15 A. Well, there are 3,000 pilots below
16 them.
21 A. The point is that the attrition
22 that we have enjoyed is a function of the
23 ratios that were built at the bottom, based on
24 the jobs that were brought to merger.
25 Q. Does it put a third of the Delta
2 pilots stapled below at the bottom of the
3 list?
4 A. At this point in time, it does.

3,000 Delta pilots stapled? Stapling half the list? Rant Rant & Whine.

The reason why we don't focus on NWA's proposals to staple half of Delta is because it so nuts that it is not worth even debating.

 

[Superpilot92]

This is like a broken record, blah blah blah blah, etc

 

[~~~^~~~]

Really? Broken record?

I thought changing integration methodologies during rebuttal was news. It sure was to me.

I'm comforted a little by the fact however NWA puts together a list, it is not as bad for any of us than we think because it includes pilots who don't work at NWA, who are retires and those who have been out on disability with no intention of returning. Each one of those "gone but still on the list" pilots is a number. If NWA announced two dozen new 747-400 Captain slots, you would think it was news, well, this has the same effect.

The part I do not understand and maybe you can explain is, why do the NWA pilots demand so much more than status quo?

 

[nwaredtail]

Facts:
1. NWA brings smaller aircraft to the table, relative seniority by equipment is our status quo without the merger.

really? I always thought the A330-300 and 747's had more seats in them than the 777. Again, I am sorry for my error. You better call DAL and tell them.

2. According to your witness Delta loses 4% under NWA's plan

Maybe at day one, then everyone moves up more on a % basis at the combined company. This is called a win-win vs. DAL screws NWA

3. According to your witness NWA loses 1% under DAL's plan.

Gee, then maybe the 6% I lose day one, 22% at year 10 and 60% at year 17 are just my imagination.. Tell me how I was going to retire in the top .05% at NWA or DOH, but the highest I get is 17% under DAL screw job. Where does the math get 1%.

Fact is you are either lying or full of crap. You choose.

I know my side and am not asking for anything more than status quo

.

Then you won't mind a dynamic list, because you wouldn't of had NWA retirements anyway, right?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fact is you are either lying or full of crap. You choose.

Then you won't mind a dynamic list, because you wouldn't of had NWA retirements anyway, right?

Your witness, not mine.

Use a pure relative seniority by equipment & dynamic until the day the last current seniority list pilot retires, that is fine by me. Do you remember the fair plan I proposed? Most of the NWA pilots liked it. Search "Fair Seniority Integration" and it should come up.

Problems are that no arbitrator will award and no company can work a relative list. The training costs while everyone plays leapfrog in Toga's and the staffing problems doom the concept.

 

[nwaredtail]

Your witness, not mine.

Use a pure relative seniority by equipment & dynamic until the day the last current seniority list pilot retires, that is fine by me. Do you remember the fair plan I proposed? Most of the NWA pilots liked it. Search "Fair Seniority Integration" and it should come up.

You are making stuff up, but that is par for the course over this SLI process from you and GL. Should surprise nobody. Print the testimony.

Problems are that no arbitrator will award and no company can work a relative list. The training costs while everyone plays leapfrog in Toga's and the staffing problems doom the concept.

So you are saying the training cost to train a pilot increases? OMG, are you a fricking retard? It costs exactly the same because we all have the same training freezes etc. NWA dealt with the 20 year roberts award just fine, it's called a computer.

BTW, from what I can see, there must be a reason the arbitrators wanted to learn more about a dynamic list.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The only thing I "made up" was my willingness to accept your idea, if you were willing to start with status quo and keep your dynamic concept until we both retire.

The discussion in the arbitration proceeding as to why dynamic would be difficult to implement is common sense. One side moving, then the other, is going to set off more training cycles and make it more difficult to staff the business.

Of course, your green book pilots will probably retire off of smaller equipment, so it isn't like we are talking 777 or 747 retirements that effect a whole lot of people in the stovepipe.

 

[NuGuy]

And another nail in Dynamic's Coffin:
Quote:
Q. No other airline has a dynamic
9 seniority list advice, do they?
10 A. Not that I'm aware of.

I LOVE this response. By your same reasoning, we shouldn't even be flying at all, because in 1903, "flyin' machines" hadn't been invented by someone else already.

New merger, new ideas. Think outside the box. The arbitrators are NOT bound by precendent, nor are they restricted to only what has been done before. They could make an award based on wang/breast size, and be fully within their rights to do so.

Several of our pilots were at the hearing, and listened to the comments between the parties and the arbitrators, and there is strong ancedotal evidence that this is where the award is heading.

Time to play "lets make a deal". I see a negotiated settlement more likely now than ever.

Nu

 

[~~~^~~~]

Wow, that is not the impression I got from reading the transcript. But I have no huge hang up with dynamic as I do want to preserve the NWA guys status quo.

But, if Dynamic is used, then we have to begin with a ratio by equipment that recognizes today's status quo.

But, I think dynamic as a concept is dead. It has been tried before, but has never been implemented in any labor situation. Bloch (as luck would have it) is the only labor expert who has any experience with a dynamic list. He presided over an integration where the two sides volunteered to try dynamic, but who then never implemented it. The airline failed, so we don't know how it would have turned out.

"Attrition has not been accepted as an inherent equity in SLI proceedings before," so I think it is a bit of a curiosity.

 

[michael707767]

As you are aware, the DAL proposal calls for a separate aircraft type for the DC9 FOs.

For me, the highlight of the day was Mr. Katz last questions for a DAL rep. It went something like this;

Katz: Captain ________, you are an MD88 captain. Is that correct?

DAL Rep: That is correct, sir.

Katz: What does it say on your license?

DAL Rep: A310, B767/757, Uh......DC-9.

the 764 and the 767 have the same type. Should they be treated the same?

 

[TWA Dude]

I think that even the FAA would have issues with you going from a non-FMC platform to a FMC platform, leg by leg. There is a lot of issues with that.

Not so. TWA had both glass and steam-gage MD80s in a common fleet. No big deal.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

nwaredtail.... have you ever actually been in the cockpit of an md-88 and compared it to a 9?

Even the 717 is also a DC-9 type rating... I don't know how the FAA signed off to that one at all.

Regardless... your point is very lost on those of us who actually know both aircraft groups... it would be dangerous to have the same pilots transition from type to type in between legs.

 

[nwaredtail]

nwaredtail.... have you ever actually been in the cockpit of an md-88 and compared it to a 9?

Even the 717 is also a DC-9 type rating... I don't know how the FAA signed off to that one at all.

Regardless... your point is very lost on those of us who actually know both aircraft groups... it would be dangerous to have the same pilots transition from type to type in between legs.

aircraft types is not what the merger committees were discussing. i agree you shouldnt go between the these two types. Dangerous? this I disagree with.

 

[Noserider76]

Fact is you are either lying or full of crap. You choose.

Nice. You called him a liar or full of crap in one post and a retard in another. You're a real piece of .... work. Are you sure you don't work on the ramp?

Fact is any dynamic list would have to take everyone currently on the list through retirement and separate the equipment we bring to the merger and its replacement. A 15 year dynamic list just happens to expire right when DL retirements are at a peak relative to NW. Your guys have appeared utterly self-serving through this entire process and have done nothing at all for the combined pilot group. You're very fortunate you weren't dealing with another group like your own.