News story on SLI NWA and Delta

[Schwanker]

GL,
The official NWA position is DOH with C&R. This has not changed!

The arbitrators specifically asked for the dynamic concept to be presented after discussed in mediated negotiations. Do you wonder why?
My guess: DALPA set your expectations too high and they can't deliver. Instead, they need the arbitration panel to play the fall guy. DALPA can't sign off on such a negotiated settlement due to the unrealistic expectations given to their membership for fear of a revolt. This way, they can blame it on the panel. Again, just my guess and time will tell.

Schwanker

 

[NuGuy]

GL,
The official NWA position is DOH with C&R. This has not changed!

The arbitrators specifically asked for the dynamic concept to be presented after discussed in mediated negotiations. Do you wonder why?
My guess: DALPA set your expectations too high and they can't deliver. Instead, they need the arbitration panel to play the fall guy. DALPA can't sign off on such a negotiated settlement due to the unrealistic expectations given to their membership for fear of a revolt. This way, they can blame it on the panel. Again, just my guess and time will tell.

Heyas Schwank,

Yup. A DAL LEC rep confirmed as much to one of our guys on an int'l overnight.

They can't budge because they've sold a package of expectations that can't be met. It'd be political suicide at this point to negotiate anything off their initial proposal.

Then the recalls start, and by the time it's all straightened out, you potentially have NWA guys in the mix running for offices in the new combined LEC/MEC structure. Dogs and cats, living together, MASS hysteria!

Nu

 

[Noserider76]

GL,
The official NWA position is DOH with C&R. This has not changed!

The arbitrators specifically asked for the dynamic concept to be presented after discussed in mediated negotiations. Do you wonder why?
My guess: DALPA set your expectations too high and they can't deliver. Instead, they need the arbitration panel to play the fall guy. DALPA can't sign off on such a negotiated settlement due to the unrealistic expectations given to their membership for fear of a revolt. This way, they can blame it on the panel. Again, just my guess and time will tell.

Schwanker

Why was it your guys who were asked to provide an alternate plan (dynamic seniority) while insisting DOH with 10 year fences was still their position? If things were the way you believe, it seems like our guys would have been asked (told) to present an alternate plan as well. During the hearings your guys basically said, "our position is still DOH but if we can't get that, dynamic seniority would be better than the DL position." WTF? The DL attorney was going to cross on dynamic seniority when the arbitrator basically told him "no need". I can't see the arbitrators granting a dynamic list that basically separates the groups for 15 years and starts with 3000 DL guys on the bottom.

The two sides spent a couple weeks negotiating under mediation in DC. Do you really think our side didn't move because of fear of retribution? I guarantee there was movement by both sides but obviously not enough to get a deal. I haven't seen our guys waiver in public position however, which indicates a confidence in that position to me.

 

[tomgoodman]

Border collies at work

I think the arbitration panel has already figured out where the flock ought to go, and is now in the process of "herding" them. To minimize subsequent bleating and head-butting, the sheep must think the destination was their own idea.

 

[General Lee]

GL,
The official NWA position is DOH with C&R. This has not changed!

The arbitrators specifically asked for the dynamic concept to be presented after discussed in mediated negotiations. Do you wonder why?
My guess: DALPA set your expectations too high and they can't deliver. Instead, they need the arbitration panel to play the fall guy. DALPA can't sign off on such a negotiated settlement due to the unrealistic expectations given to their membership for fear of a revolt. This way, they can blame it on the panel. Again, just my guess and time will tell.

Schwanker

Here is your guy Capt A... talking on the stand about your dynamic list concept:

Captain A..

Q. No other set of pilot groups that
13 you know of had ever agreed to a dynamic
14 seniority list in a seniority integration, had
15 they?
16 A. In a consensually agreed-upon
17 integration?
18 Q. Yeah. Yeah. I mean if you talked
19 about two parties engaging in in arm's-length
20 negotiations with a desire to achieve a
21 desired result, you are not aware of any two
22 pilot groups ever reaching an agreement on a
23 dynamic list, have you?
24 A. I have not.


Q. Are you aware of any other pilot
8 seniority integration case where a pilot group
9 has even proposed a dynamic list?
10 A. I believe that was the case in the
11 integration with the Canadian pilots.
12 Q. Was it accepted?
13 A. Was it accepted by the other
14 pilots?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. It was not implemented


And then he was asked about the dynamic list or DOH. Which is it? Here was his response:

Q. If I understand the essence of your
7 testimony, I understand you are now proposing
8 the dynamic list. You wouldn't ask the panel
9 to impose the dynamic list, you are asking
10 them to propose the date of hire list but you
11 are putting the dynamic list in front of the
12 panel as a method to solve the, quote,
13 attrition list that exists at Northwest,
14 correct?
15 A. Within the context of the category
16 status, that is correct.
17 Q. So one of the premises that's built
18 into your building blocks of your dynamic list
19 is the notion of super-premium aircraft,
20 correct?
21 A. I never used that term


Is that screwed up or what? You guys are trying to get whatever you can, and can't even make up your minds. But, we LOVED it when your same Captain A stated he isn't in it "for the thrills", rather the MONEY. So, our higher pay scales are important to you guys, right? They should mean something I guess in this process. Take a look at the pre-DCC pay scales and show what is important, the pay scales. Thanks Captain A.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Heyas Schwank,

Yup. A DAL LEC rep confirmed as much to one of our guys on an int'l overnight.

They can't budge because they've sold a package of expectations that can't be met. It'd be political suicide at this point to negotiate anything off their initial proposal.

Then the recalls start, and by the time it's all straightened out, you potentially have NWA guys in the mix running for offices in the new combined LEC/MEC structure. Dogs and cats, living together, MASS hysteria!

Nu

Was this like your MEC Chair saying on the stand "I don't recall" when asked if he was told about impending furloughs at NWA? Maybe he didn't remember being asked that question, or the exact amount of pilots in question? Hillarity continues....

Hey wait, here's more from the stand about your dynamic list, and it is hillarious:

So you've shown to the panel a
17 method for solving an attrition differential
18 in 2018 of 300 pilots. You've offered them a
19 methodology that has never been used anywhere,
20 to your knowledge, and that if I'm looking
21 correctly on the last page of tab 16, it puts
22 a third, staples a third of the Delta pilots
23 who are on the list today below the Northwest
24 pilots who are on the list, correct?
25 A. That's what this exhibit would
that the fact of the matter that it
3 retains the same relationship. 3232, who is
4 the most junior Northwest pilot, is in exactly
5 the same place in 2018 that pilot 3232 was in
6 on July 1st, 2008.
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.
17 Q. Who have nothing to do with this
18 seniority integration proceeding, correct?
19 They have nothing to do with the seniority
20 integration?
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
pilots stapled below at the bottom of the
3 list?
4 A. At this point in time, it does.
5 This is the worst, in the next five years
6 following this. As the Delta pilots enjoy
7 outside attrition, this treatment reverses
8 itself dramatically.
9 Q. To quote a question that your
10 counsel asked one my witnesses in another
11 case, this isn't a list, is it, correct, it's
12 an abomination?
13 A. I would not dignify that with a
14 response.


Our guy RH then testified our stance towards attrition, and put it simply:

MR. FREUND: Before you launch into
11 this, just so it's clear, did the Delta
12 pilots accept the proposition that
13 attrition is an equity et al that
14 should be balanced into the panel's
15 treatment?
16 THE WITNESS: No, we haven't
17 accepted that. We have heard the
18 Northwest pilots' concerns so we
19 included that as part of our analysis.
20 But as we've heard many times, as
21 far as I know there hasn't been an
22 integration where attrition has been
23 specifically cited as an equity.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ExAF]

Agree

I think the arbitration panel has already figured out where the flock ought to go, and is now in the process of "herding" them. To minimize subsequent bleating and head-butting, the sheep must think the destination was their own idea.

I agree...They just needed it on the table/record officially during the hearing. I think they mediated the negotiations and have a feel for "the realities" vs the extremes. They are ready to "split the baby" and be the fall guy for both sides. Ready to be done and move along.

 

[General Lee]

I agree...They just needed it on the table/record officially during the hearing. I think they mediated the negotiations and have a feel for "the realities" vs the extremes. They are ready to "split the baby" and be the fall guy for both sides. Ready to be done and move along.

Split down the middle? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. We went with a 4.5 (on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being DOH), and you went with a 10. You think they are going to go for a 7? No way. They may go for a 5 and call it even. NALPA's proposal has been shredded, and now their trying even harder for something that has never been done before, a dynamic list. Here's the testimony to prove it:


Q. No other set of pilot groups that
13 you know of had ever agreed to a dynamic
14 seniority list in a seniority integration, had
15 they?
16 A. In a consensually agreed-upon
17 integration?
18 Q. Yeah. Yeah. I mean if you talked
19 about two parties engaging in in arm's-length
20 negotiations with a desire to achieve a
21 desired result, you are not aware of any two
22 pilot groups ever reaching an agreement on a
23 dynamic list, have you?
24 A. I have not


And here is what you guys stated about your own DOH proposal:

A. Absolutely. The date of hire list
19 does have a problem initially with the fact
20 that the list is top-loaded with Northwest
21 pilots as a function of the early retirements
22 of Delta pilots. We recognize that


Sounds Fantastic guys! Keep it going.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[nwaf16dude]

Not sure why you think you need to keep saying things like "NWA's proposal has been shredded." It was very clear from the transcript that NWA was only presenting a possible alternative that was requested by the Arbitrators. We have not "shredded" our original position, we are just showing some flexibility and admitting that there may be some problems with our initial proposal. The arbitrators have not heard any flexibility or humility from your side, and I think that plays in our favor. The panel got a great insight into your side's attitude when your witness refused to admit that there might be a problem with putting your bottom guy ahead of NWA guys hired 8 years ago. The 8th will be interesting. Good luck to us all.

 

[General Lee]

Not sure why you think you need to keep saying things like "NWA's proposal has been shredded." It was very clear from the transcript that NWA was only presenting a possible alternative that was requested by the Arbitrators. We have not "shredded" our original position, we are just showing some flexibility and admitting that there may be some problems with our initial proposal. The arbitrators have not heard any flexibility or humility from your side, and I think that plays in our favor. The panel got a great insight into your side's attitude when your witness refused to admit that there might be a problem with putting your bottom guy ahead of NWA guys hired 8 years ago. The 8th will be interesting. Good luck to us all.

We expanded after we brought back our furloughed pilots, when Delta bought 17 AA 757ERs, which meant hiring a lot of people. When you brought back your furloughs, you hired 176 due to attrition only. We hired nearly 700 for expansion. And in reality, your MEC was warned supposedly of possible furloughs prior to the DCC. So, those 176 could have been furloughed, along with up to 174 more on top of that.(up to 350) That is called carreer expectations. Up to 350 of your pilots had an expectation of getting furloughed---in the eyes of your MEC. It is likely that our people took that into account when creating our proposal, along with the fact that your smallest plane pays the least, and would be numerous now in our fleet. Was it fair to have a 17 year USAir East guy next to a newhire from America West? Now ask your question again about an 8 year NWA guy (who could have been furloughed twice since 9-11) next to a newhire at an expanding Delta?

Bye Bye--General Lee