Latest DAL/NWA arbitration debates

[~~~^~~~]

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.