NWA Phantom retirements

[Superpilot92]

I'm not pissed at him at all. He is a leader and the only one with any foresight I've seen in this process. He wanted a deal that was equally acceptable to both sides. He's not afraid of guys walking around with derogatory stickers of him an their bag. He expects it.

Could it be the fact that the company wasn't going to give us anything for an arbitrated settlement? They needed a deal with no fences and arbitration would almost certainly have had them. Could it be the fact that without Moak's foresight there would have been no opportunity for either group to profit from this merger? If I was going to blame anyone it would be your MEC but really what good does blaming anyone do?

The fact is that as long as one group latches on to one atribute with no acknowledgement of the other benefits there is no room for negotiation. If you hitch your horse to "more near term retirements", you have to accept many more future DL retirements, many more high paying DL aircraft, and many old DC-9s from NW in a record fuel price environment, as well.

The DC9 argument is getting really old. Sure they are older but do you really think the fuel they burn is that much more than your DC9-80's? Of which you have 120 of them. Your CEO has said on a number of occasions they liked the dc9 as the 100 seater that DAL doesnt have right now. Could it be that the DC9 might actually be around for a little longer? Its rumored that DAL wants the dc9s in atl to run against airtranny. fwiw

 

[Superpilot92]

I'll add something else. Anybody hired in 91 had to wait 5 years for upgrade to captain. Anybody hired in 1996-1999 had to wait 1-1 1/2 years for captain. We'd better go back and take that into account as well. Doesn't bode well for those in the "early retirement credit" argument. What else can we dig up from the past?

NWA newhires were looking at potentially the same thing under our current standalone plan. how does that "bode"?

 

[Noserider76]

The DC9 argument is getting really old. Sure they are older but do you really think the fuel they burn is that much more than your DC9-80's? Of which you have 120 of them. Your CEO has said on a number of occasions they liked the dc9 as the 100 seater that DAL doesnt have right now. Could it be that the DC9 might actually be around for a little longer? Its rumored that DAL wants the dc9s in atl to run against airtranny. fwiw

duplicate post.

 

[Noserider76]

The DC9 argument is getting really old. Sure they are older but do you really think the fuel they burn is that much more than your DC9-80's? Of which you have 120 of them. Your CEO has said on a number of occasions they liked the dc9 as the 100 seater that DAL doesnt have right now. Could it be that the DC9 might actually be around for a little longer? Its rumored that DAL wants the dc9s in atl to run against airtranny. fwiw

I said it has to be factored in. Come on I flew the thing. No FMS, intermixed JT8D-7s through whatever, and a much smaller payload. It may have a place here but the newest are at least 15 years older than DL's -88s. We've been over this many times but it doesn't make it any less legitimate. DL has retired many aircraft that were a generation newer. Makes people around here a little nervous. As to the "they'd have to ground RJs en masse to ground -9s" argument, I don't think they'd have a problem with that either.

I'd feel a lot better to see the company announce a 100 seat mainline order prior to merger implementation. Something our guys could work on together if they weren't too busy busting each other down. I think Forklift Joe would break out the fine Scotch if DL started putting 60's era gas guzzlers at DL wages up against 717's and 737's at Airtran's cost.

 

[123]

The 1000 phantom targets are part of a greater picture that included some things on your side that were questionable as well. So let's put that urban legend to rest..

Not urban legend, it is FACT!

They were a red herring, thrown in to offset the red herring thrown by the NWA side.{/quote]

What was the NWA red herring?

I do not want anybody's seniority. The simple fact is, however, is that it is not fair to me, in a merged group, for you to continue to accrue seniority above and without me doing the same just because a NWA pilot retires.

I agree, which is why I think that a DOH, at least for the bottom portion of the list is reasonable. Just to add facts, I would still be negatively impacted by this in relation to relative seniority for the remainder of my career. Merge the lists, pull the band-aid off and lets move on.

It is also not correct to revisit the past, and try and get additional accrual because our pension was terminated due to a rush on the bank. The note and claim moneys were for concessions taken under LOA51. Pure and simple. They were not for terminated pension.

Well, it was my understanding that part of the claim was issued because of the termination. I don't know the facts as it doesn't pertain to me. The thing that all sides need to understand is that pay rates, bk claims, etc have no impact on the SLI negotiation. Seniority is not for sale.

 

[Superpilot92]

I'd feel a lot better to see the company announce a 100 seat mainline order prior to merger implementation. Something our guys could work on together if they weren't too busy busting each other down.

Reference this

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=112347&highlight=c-series

 

[Noserider76]

Reference this

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=112347&highlight=c-series

I like it. Last I heard the DL guys weren't happy with the costs on the EMB 190/195s. Maybe if they got in early, with a bulk order, DL could get Bombardier to put in a Boeing common cockpit. It would be even better for BA to admit the 737-600 isn't cutting it and get interested in the 100-130 seat class.

 

[PuffDriver]

NWA newhires were looking at potentially the same thing under our current standalone plan. how does that "bode"?

The 1 year captain is a red herring, which is what many of the NWA arguments are. You continue to miss the point. "Potential" retirees, or what your new-hires "potentially" have is meaningless. Plus, if we are going into the future, then we have to consider fleets, orders, Delta retirements, etc. Where do we draw the line? Eventually, we have to be considered 1 pilot group. Instead of going all the way to the youngest pilots retirement. We also have to consider $$$ in career earnings. The whole SLI has to be a package of $$ and seniority. I would imagine that an arbitrator would take considerable pause when looking at the $$$ value your contract comes to when brought to par with Deltas. I would also imagine that the lack of a DB plan at Delta would also run in Delta's favor along with the claim and notes which increase our compensation further. Then we add in where we sit relative to our counterpart at NWA, and it paints a bleak picture for NWA, in my opinion.

 

[PuffDriver]

Not urban legend, it is FACT!


It is a fact taken out of context. DYODD



I agree, which is why I think that a DOH, at least for the bottom portion of the list is reasonable. Just to add facts, I would still be negatively impacted by this in relation to relative seniority for the remainder of my career. Merge the lists, pull the band-aid off and lets move on.

That does not account for the position our new hires find themselves in with regard to the bottom of your list. This will be further exacerbated by the time a PID is issues, and most of these guys are on second year pay, along with the pay bump.


Well, it was my understanding that part of the claim was issued because of the termination. I don't know the facts as it doesn't pertain to me. The thing that all sides need to understand is that pay rates, bk claims, etc have no impact on the SLI negotiation. Seniority is not for sale.

Your understanding is incorrect. Both are for concessions given in the last round of cuts. Where you are confused is that the note was payable in the event the pension was terminated, but is not FOR the terminated pension.

This will all come up in arbitration.

 

[DTW320]

Your understanding is incorrect. Both are for concessions given in the last round of cuts. Where you are confused is that the note was payable in the event the pension was terminated, but is not FOR the terminated pension.

This will all come up in arbitration.

You got the $650M note with 15 year term when/because/due to the pension terminated. Good luck convincing an arbitrator that it was really "for" something else.

 

[PuffDriver]

You got the $650M note with 15 year term when/because/due to the pension terminated. Good luck convincing an arbitrator that it was really "for" something else.

The note was for concessions given in LOA 51. Pension termination was not part of LOA 51. There was a reason it was worded that way, and anybody taking the stand will say the same thing.

Anything else is just spin, but I expect nothing less form you. BTW there is another spelling error here, can you find it?

Another gold star on the line. <drum roll>

 

[DTW320]

I said it has to be factored in. Come on I flew the thing. No FMS, intermixed JT8D-7s through whatever, and a much smaller payload. It may have a place here but the newest are at least 15 years older than DL's -88s. We've been over this many times but it doesn't make it any less legitimate. DL has retired many aircraft that were a generation newer.

At the end of 2007 (10-K):
NWA average age of fleet = 17.5 years.
DAL average age of fleet(no RJ's) = 13.7 years
(with RJ's included = 12.4 years)

Average age of DL MD-88 (117 of 'em): 18 years
Average age of NWA DC9-50's: 28 years. 10 years difference, not "at least" 15.

What fleets have you retired that were a generation newer than aircraft produced in 1980 like our -50's?

 

[DTW320]

The note was for concessions given in LOA 51. Pension termination was not part of LOA 51. There was a reason it was worded that way, and anybody taking the stand will say the same thing.

Anything else is just spin, but I expect nothing less form you. BTW there is another spelling error here, can you find it?

Another gold star on the line. <drum roll>

I'll look for it while you go follow Lee around asking to polish his shoes and carry his flight bag.

 

[Noserider76]

At the end of 2007 (10-K):
NWA average age of fleet = 17.5 years.
DAL average age of fleet(no RJ's) = 13.7 years
(with RJ's included = 12.4 years)

Average age of DL MD-88 (117 of 'em): 18 years
Average age of NWA DC9-50's: 28 years. 10 years difference, not "at least" 15.

What fleets have you retired that were a generation newer than aircraft produced in 1980 like our -50's?

I noticed you qualified it with -50s. There are still quite a few -30s to be accounted for and 15 years was generous there. The -50s have the same cockpit and versions of the JT8D as the -30s are are still a generation older than 1980s aircraft. DL retired the DC-9-30s in 1992. The 737-200/300, 767-200, MD-11, as well as the 727s and L1011s have all gone since 2000.

I know NW retired the 72s (Champion), DC-10s, and old 74s, and sold the MD-80 subfleet. Kudos for keeping 100 seat flying on property. You'd be a much smaller pilot group without it. Having some 125 seat -50s with a common cockpit as the 105 seat -30s may have saved it. It doesn't change the fact that those airplanes will be (and would have been regardless of merger or scope) squarely in management's crosshairs. If the merger is approved, it's up to the combined group to protect itself there. The threat of having to ground RJs en masse won't scare them a bit.

 

[123]

The 1 year captain is a red herring, which is what many of the NWA arguments are. You continue to miss the point. "Potential" retirees, or what your new-hires "potentially" have is meaningless. Plus, if we are going into the future, then we have to consider fleets, orders, Delta retirements, etc. Where do we draw the line? Eventually, we have to be considered 1 pilot group. Instead of going all the way to the youngest pilots retirement. We also have to consider $$$ in career earnings. The whole SLI has to be a package of $$ and seniority. I would imagine that an arbitrator would take considerable pause when looking at the $$$ value your contract comes to when brought to par with Deltas.

Wouldn't you agree then that the career earnings is a "potential"? how do you know that future paycuts and furloughs are not going to happen?

I would also imagine that the lack of a DB plan at Delta would also run in Delta's favor along with the claim and notes which increase our compensation further.

Please explain the logic here. How does a frozen or terminated DB plan play into an arbitrators decision on seniority lists...I think I smell a red herring...