NWA/DAL solving the seniority issue

[General Lee]

IMPORTANT FACT:
Payrates are a flash in the pan. NWA payrates took a drastic hit in BK to save the pension. Fact is (think career expectations) NWA hourly pay rates will be on par with leading industry rates at the signing of our next contract. To discount this is demonstrating your disconnect from reality.

Couple this fact with the next fact: a new hire at NWA will make the top 1/2 the SL in the next 10-15 years in the NWA stand-alone plan. Shoving 7000 pilots infront of this newhire with relatively zero added retirements in the same 10-15 period will result in severe career stagnation.

Schwanker

IMPORTANT FACT: You can't tell the future. Continuing high oil could force the parking of your DC9s sooner, and that could affect your SL in a bad way. FACT: SARS may reappear. FACT: You have no real facts here.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Schwanker]

IMPORTANT FACT: You can't tell the future. Continuing high oil could force the parking of your DC9s sooner, and that could affect your SL in a bad way. FACT: SARS may reappear. FACT: You have no real facts here.


Bye Bye--General Lee

FACT:
I've explained our SCOPE clause to you before and;
FACT:
You choose to ignore it to try and bolster your position.

By the way, did you know a paid for DC-9 costs approx $35 less per seat per segment than a leased B-737 (at attractive rates)? Maybe we'll have to pull some DC-9s out of the desert to replace some of your new costly 737s.

Schwanker

 

[Superpilot92]

IMPORTANT FACT: You can't tell the future. Continuing high oil could force the parking of your DC9s sooner, and that could affect your SL in a bad way. FACT: SARS may reappear. FACT: You have no real facts here.


Bye Bye--General Lee

I assume you believe that your DC9-80s wont be effected by fuel costs? Where are your facts GL before you start pointing fingers? You just said "you cant tell the future" yet you predict in the future the DC9s will be parked "sooner" Hi pot meet kettle!!

 

[General Lee]

Generally, I hope you stay out of the stock market, because it is apparent that you think a $100 stock that goes up $5 has made more than a $5 stock that goes up $3. $5 is better than $3 right???

If you "brought up" your 757 rate to 767 rate, but it is still the same % higher than the NWA rate as other "non brought up" rates, then was the 757 brought up or was the 767 brought down?

As for the pensions, I've heard it both ways from you guys now. Which is it? Does losing your pension mean you need consideration for that in an SLI or were you all essentially made whole by the claim sale and note? Can't have it both ways. But it's sure been tried here.

DTW319,

You skewed the facts to begin with. Don't tell me you didn't. You tried to compare the rates between our 764 and your A330, thanks to them being like sized. Well, our 764 pays more than anything you have, period. Don't tell me you forgot that. And, our 757 pays 2 dollars less an hour than your A330, and we have three times as many 757s as you have A330s. (not counting our 767s, which we have twice as many)

The real facts are that we pay a lot more, have more planes, and more widebodies. We did bring up the 757 rates in 1999 to the 767, and if we lost a certain percentage during our BK, wouldn't that be the same on the 767 as the 757? IF the pay rates on the 757 were lower than the 767, would they still be lower after the pay cut? So, we DID bring the 757 rates UP. The main difference after the C2K contract was the INTL perdiem was more on the 767 INTL (and select 757 INTL flights) The per hour pay rate was brought UP on the 757 to match the 767. The INTL per diem and night override is what was higher--and that counted on both the 75 and 76. That is what took the largest hit after BK. But, you still can't say our 757 was not brought up to the 767 base pay rate. It was. Back then we had more 767-300s doing domestic routes too, including 13 767-300ER domesitc birds only doing domestic (now INTL), and 14 767-200s doing only domestic.

And, I would stay out of the stock market now until it bottoms out.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DTW320]

FACT:
I've explained our SCOPE clause to you before and;
FACT:
You choose to ignore it to try and bolster your position.

By the way, did you know a paid for DC-9 costs approx $35 less per seat per segment than a leased B-737 (at attractive rates)? Maybe we'll have to pull some DC-9s out of the desert to replace some of your new costly 737s.

Schwanker

FACT: That is exactly why Generally doesn't really debate....he trolls. Debate would require facts to be acknowledged and not ignored

 

[~~~^~~~]

DTW DaimlerChrysler Aerospace Airbus 319:

Whatever, the General makes more sense than your "the same is not the same because it is not different enough" logic.

Care to come back to that topic and debate, or was that just something you tossed out the window on a drive by?

 

[General Lee]

I assume you believe that your DC9-80s wont be effected by fuel costs? Where are your facts GL before you start pointing fingers? You just said "you cant tell the future" yet you predict in the future the DC9s will be parked "sooner" Hi pot meet kettle!!

Well, they carry a heck of a lot more than your DC9-30s, 40s, and even 50s. The key here is that you need to be able to pay for your fixed costs, and the fuel costs that are rising. During the busy Spring and Summer season, the planes with more seats tend to be able to pay for the whole deal better. Your DC9s may not be able to do it. RJs may not be able to do it. Yes, your DC9s are owned outright, but our MD88s are also a lot cheaper than before BK ($200,000 a month cheaper), and the additional seats, the FMS and Auto Throttles (allowing direct routings and correct fuel flows for every stage of flight) save on fuel no doubt. Even Southwest is adding an Autothrottle system (only for cruise) for their 737s right now in order to save on fuel. You can't argue with that....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DTW320]

Wow, look up the rates on Airlinepilotcentral. Talk about crazy---why are you paring up the A330 with our 764? Ummm, because our 330 has more seats than your 400? Or are you not using the seat argument today like you have before? Oh, I see, you think the payrate argument will work better here even though you will have to pair-up different airplanes for comparison than before and ignore that whole pesky "percentage" thingymajig....GOT IT!Not even close. Are you debating here, or HOPING? The 767 (and that means our numerous 757s) are next to your A330 pay rates. Our 764 pays more than your 744. Wow, you missed the boat on that one....

Bye Bye--General Lee

Box-O-Rocks

 

[General Lee]

FACT: That is exactly why Generally doesn't really debate....he trolls. Debate would require facts

Again DTW319, when you are cornered, you slam. IT is obvious. Try looking at the numbers on Airlinepilotcentral and get back to me when you are "enlightened." Really, you are looking pathetic. Oh yeah, I troll...........on subjects that I know about. You are losing this one.....keep it up.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DTW320]

DTW:

Whatever, the General makes more sense than your "the same is not the same because it is not different enough" logic.

Care to come back to that topic and debate, or was that just something you tossed out the window on a drive by?

For a self-professed MBA you sure can't hack number comparisons expressed in relative terms, ie percentages. Now don't you have a resignation letter to type?