Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NWA/DAL Arbitration hearing

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Just something to be cautious of, and please don't intrepret this as an attack against any NW or DL guys.

Personal impressions of these hearings are subject to spin. Case in point: during the AWA/USAir arbitration hearings the USAir MEC posted daily "updates" stating how well their side was doing. According to them the arbitrator didn't believe the AWA witnesses, thought our lawyer was crazy, and was very sympathetic to USAir's story. Suffice it to say the USAirways pilots were presented with what they wanted to hear vice what they had to hear.

The only objective source are the transcripts. Are they being provided to both sides in a timely (within days) manner?
 
Just something to be cautious of, and please don't intrepret this as an attack against any NW or DL guys.

Personal impressions of these hearings are subject to spin. Case in point: during the AWA/USAir arbitration hearings the USAir MEC posted daily "updates" stating how well their side was doing. According to them the arbitrator didn't believe the AWA witnesses, thought our lawyer was crazy, and was very sympathetic to USAir's story. Suffice it to say the USAirways pilots were presented with what they wanted to hear vice what they had to hear.

The only objective source are the transcripts. Are they being provided to both sides in a timely (within days) manner?

Yes they are provided in a timely manner. They're interesting to read, and I would say, yeah a little spinning is going on. But oh well, so be it.
 
Afterwards, at the end of the hearing the Chmn said that a negot settlement would be in the best intrest of both groups and THEY WERE TREATING THIS
ARBITRATION AS ONE OF EQUAL COMPANIES.

IF this is what Bloch said, knowing Bloch, he is giving a very strong warning. Look at his past cases in airlines and pro sports.
 
He said mostly the same thing at the opening of the case in CA. It is best for both to be able to negotiate a list rather than have one forced upon us.
 
With ALPA merger policy being so vague, a negotiated settlement between to parties is impossible.

M
 
With ALPA merger policy being so vague, a negotiated settlement between to parties is impossible.

M

Unfortunately ALPA merger policy pretty much has to be vague. Every merger is a unique, standalone set of variables. You can't apply a strict, broad, policy to address every merger.

Of course the end result is the endless SLI process, which should have a decent outcome with DAL/NWA (due to the foresight to have the 3-person panel written into the process) and had a nightmarish one with AAA/AWA.

Maybe there can be a better formal ALPA policy. I am curious as to what it should be.
 
Afterwards, at the end of the hearing the Chmn said that a negot settlement would be in the best intrest of both groups and THEY WERE TREATING THIS
ARBITRATION AS ONE OF EQUAL COMPANIES.

I don't know if this was a direct quote or spin but if it holds true, it is a huge warning shot.
 
Maybe or maybe not. I think it kind of indicates that a 500 pilot staple was a stretch even for an opener and the arbitrators did not find that very realistic. My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
If that is the case, what benefit would there be to NW pilots to negotiate? Honestly curious...

You may be right, if the arbitrators kept giving indications that they were leaning towards one groups position, why would that group negotiate? Maybe we should just negotiate something out before it heads that way.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top