NWA/DAL Pilots reach agrement on SLI...

[Jon Rivoli]

I would be real suspicious as to why management want the SLI done before proceeding. If there is no intention to park airplanes then no one would get displaced and you have years to work out the details. If, however, your intent is to park airplanes having the SLI done before hand resolves in advance who gets displaced and/ or furloughed, thus simplifying the process. If you accept what management claims about the benefits of merging, it would seem it could be accomplished through a code share agreement. I'd be dragging my feet if I were you.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=111372

cliff
YIP

 

[ultrarunner]

I would be real suspicious as to why management want the SLI done before proceeding. If there is no intention to park airplanes then no one would get displaced...

I think the pilot groups showed the initial pro-active stance in an attempt to have more control over their own destiny. Smart move IMO.

However, I don't think any reasonable person thinks airframes are not going to be parked...and pilots furloughed....that's just an unreasonable expectation, especially in a merger of this size

In addition to the combined carrier, capacity still needs to be reduced.

Delta's got a fleet of 6 types and NWA 4 types. Only overlap is 75's. So the combined carrier has 9 types...maybe more depending on if the carriers bid some of the common types separately.

In any event, you're not going to realize any synergy by not trimming all that down.

The details of the SLI will be out soon enough...

 

[~~~^~~~]

So, sure, it can work this way, but only if you guys sell all of your airplanes and operate only 50 seaters.

Nu

Nu, you are way above my pay grade there. There are no "talking points" but based on the articles in the press and web board conjecture, Delta found a hole in your fragmentation language they could drive an airline through.

Guess we will learn more this week, but thus far, the positions taken by the NWA MEC have been wrong nearly 100% of the time and the web board rumors have been verified ex post facto.

Again, I do not know enough to take a position, just reporting what I'm reading.

My guess is that NWA will be operated separately until (1) the fleet is right sized and bases aligned and / or (2) the NWA MEC Reps come to their senses and realize they are way past "peak leverage."

Besides, the NWA management came back to the table without the pilots. Once you are at Delta you will like the Delta management much better than you like NWA.

We will see how it works out, but I feel like time is on Delta's side.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I would be real suspicious as to why management want the SLI done before proceeding.

They were pretty up front about that. They planned to move a lot of NWA's fleet around, to backfill for 50 seat jets leaving the market and take advantage of growth opportunities across the World; mostly Pacific routes, some acquired back in the Pan Am deal.

MD88's were probably then going to backfill NWA's larger jets in the same fashion MD88's are doing trips that were flown by the 757's at DAL.

Oil has changed that plan and we have not heard the new plan yet. Little bits of it seems to indicate that oil pushed the CRJ's into position above the DC9's since the DC9 is not cost competitive with the 50 seaters.

DAL is supposed to start hiring again this fall. There are openings here that are not being filled and staffing is being run tight. Lots of greenslip and extra flying opportunities for new hires that want to earn 140 to 160 hours (pay+credit) a month. A few new hires on the MD88 will probably be near $9,000 this month with aggressive greenslipping.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Additionally, orders AND options are locked in during any transaction. No snaking the 787s away.

So, sure, it can work this way, but only if you guys sell all of your airplanes and operate only 50 seaters.

Nu

Nu, if DAL buys them, they are Delta jets.

I'm not sure Delta wants them. They can not do what the 777 does and DAL is concerned that the 787 might have devleopment problems (a concern raised a year ago that rings true today).

Delta wants some help with the 777-200LR to get it to Sydney with a full load.

 

[General Lee]

Does this mean you're willing (and ok with) throwing me and others under the bus? Should we get furloughed over, say..., a Delta guy that just started class this week?

Hopefully there are no furloughs, I've already been through one. If it's a done deal, lets fight together to keep everyone on property.

YES, if you got hired at NWA and knew there were old DC9s that could get replaced with higher oil, then you should go before any Delta guy. Do you think it is fair to bring to the table an old plane and then furlough people never intending to fly it?

As far as wanting ANYONE to get furloughed, NO I do not. I hope we all get a no furlough clause or our management has a plan to get replacements quickly to replace the gas hogs. Unity would be great, as long as everything is FAIR.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

YES, if you got hired at NWA and knew there were old DC9s that could get replaced with higher oil, then you should go before any Delta guy.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Yep..

 

[NuGuy]

Nu, you are way above my pay grade there. There are no "talking points" but based on the articles in the press and web board conjecture, Delta found a hole in your fragmentation language they could drive an airline through.

Just checked with the negotiating committee. They KNOW which section DAL thinks they have snaked.

But the answer is still "no way". Why? Because both ALPA's and the company's negotiator notes show otherwise.

"Notes?" you say. Yup, each side makes detailed notes during contract negotiations in order to clairify any downline disputes. "But they're only notes!". True, but NWA and ALPA have a long history (precendent setting), that notes are admissible as evidence in arbitration. In each case, the side with the notes on point wins.

So, go ahead and sign off on what you think you might have. Make sure to get a "out" clause that states if something doesn't hold up, you guys keep your cash.

Nu

 

[~~~^~~~]

Nu:

They are the experts, hope they are right this time.

NWA management came to the table without you guys. I do not know how they did it.

You know what positions the NWA MEC has taken and what they have had to back up those positions.

I do not know where things are going, but we are not in section six and there is no "status quo" to violate.
If this thing makes it to arbitration, I can pretty much guarantee you will not be in the same position you are in now. We probably will not be in the same shoes either. It is dangerous to "assume" anything.

~~~^~~~

 

[contrail67]

Hopefully this wont result in too many furloughs. I think when it all shakes out we're still looking at 500 to 1000 on the street...uhhhg....

Just curious, how do you know the numbers already?

 

[PuffDriver]

Just checked with the negotiating committee. They KNOW which section DAL thinks they have snaked.

But the answer is still "no way". Why? Because both ALPA's and the company's negotiator notes show otherwise.

"Notes?" you say. Yup, each side makes detailed notes during contract negotiations in order to clairify any downline disputes. "But they're only notes!". True, but NWA and ALPA have a long history (precendent setting), that notes are admissible as evidence in arbitration. In each case, the side with the notes on point wins.

So, go ahead and sign off on what you think you might have. Make sure to get a "out" clause that states if something doesn't hold up, you guys keep your cash.

Nu

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..oh that hurts. So you've got the hotline to the NWA negotiating committee. That's rich. What a weak post.

Call them back and tell them that they are wrong. The positions are NOT precedent setting. Arbitration is a fresh slate. It shouldn't surprise them that they are wrong. They should be getting used to it by now. I feel better and better about our chances every day when listening to the position of your "negotiating committee".

Here's a hint. Tell them to go back and look at the USAir/AWA pre-arbitration and then arbitration to see how much of the pre-arbitration was admitted to the arbitration testimony.

You guys are better off just letting Occam post for you on here.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

We're not talking about an SLI arbitration. The conversation is about whether NWA's contract permits operation of two carriers under a holding company.

It clearly does not.

Be careful what you sign.

Nu

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

R the MD88s owned outright by DAL, as the -9s are by NWA?

Thanx!

cliff
YIP

 

[Flyer1015]

Mark my words.......

The only people who will benefit from a Delta-NWA merger:

- Delta mangement + NWA management (what with their stock options and golden parachutes)

- Wall street a-holes

Those who will be hurt by the merger:

- Employees (both NWA and Delta)
- Customers


Discover "synergies"? What synergies would that be?

DC9, A319/A320, 757, A330, B747.

MD88, 737, 757/767, 777.

Well, I guess at least one match (757) is better than none!

Big bases.... ATL CVG and DTW MSP MEM.

Expect base closure somewhere (perhaps CVG).

I expect.....

* Lots of airplanes to be parked
* Base(s) closure(s)
* Plenty of furloughs


I'm gonna add this to my favorites list, and if any of this turns out to be true in the future, I'm gonna come back with a "told ya so!"