NWA Retirements

[General Lee]

Lots of 'em.....you have read our closing arguments haven't you? If so, you would know exactly. Start reading around page 30....

That's one clip.....there are many more reasons given. Read.

Don't worry, we have an explanation in our closing brief which mirrors the truth:


However, against all odds, the NWA Committee pleads that the snapshot date
should be January 1, 2008, three-and-one-half months before the carriers agreed to merge
and ten months before the merger closed. As discussed above, there is nothing in prior
case law to support this extraordinary claim

NWA Committee seeks to have the Panel disregard happened long before the
merger closed and even prior to the April 14, 2008 merger agreement:
• NWA’s decision to reduce from thirteen to ten the number of B-747-200
freighters was announced to pilots no later than January 17, 2008. See
Memo to All Pilots from Tim Rainey, SVP – Flight Operations. DCX-7 at
1.
• Although NWA started the year with a fleet of 94 DC-9s, NWA pilots
were informed on April 3, 2008 by a memo from Mr. Rainey that the DC-
9 fleet would be reduced by the end of 2008 to just 58 aircraft. DCX-7 at
6.
• NWA began 2008 with a fleet of seventy-one B-757s. In Mr. Rainey’s
April 3rd memo, he informed NWA pilots that the fleet would be reduced
to 68. Then, in a follow-on memo dated June 27, 2008, Mr. Rainey
announced that the fleet of B-757s would be further reduced to 61. DCX-
7 at 10.
• NWA began 2008 with a fleet of 130 A-320/319s. In Mr. Rainey’s April
3rd memo, he informed NWA pilots that the fleet would be reduced to 126
aircraft.

Based on its wrong-headed assertion that January 1, 2008 is the
right snapshot date, the NWA Committee would have the Panel use the fleet as of that
date as the basis for calculating captain and FO entitlements for each aircraft type. This
assumption produces a fleet that does not reflect the significant acquisitions and
dispositions at each carrier between January 1st and the date of the merger. Specifically,
NWA would have the Panel assume that there are fifty aircraft in the NWA fleet that, in
fact, were no longer in the fleet, or were about to be gone from the fleet, on the date of
the merger:
• A DC-9 fleet of 94, versus the fleet of 58 DC-9s that NWA will actually have
at the end of the year;
• A B-747-200 fleet of 15, instead of 10;
• A B-757 fleet of 71, instead of 61; and
• An A-320/319 fleet of 130, instead of 126


Can you guys show me any exact numbers stating otherwise? I know Bastian stated "later rather than sooner" for some DC9s, which doesn't say much, and that "30 DC9s might come out of the desert" (actually a diversion for something else). I'd love to see it.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

December 8th cannot come soon enough!

You guys, go out and play a round of golf, kick the dog, or have a beer. Whatever it takes, you need to store your energy for the letdown EVERYONE is going to have on December 8th. There are going to be no windfalls for anyone. I think the arbitrators have made that painfully clear.

General,

Why do you flame the retired guys for taking their DB with them? It was theirs, they deserve it. I got zero, ziltch, nada for my DB and I have 8 years with this company. Those guys worked hard for their pensions and they deserve every penny. I think they are very grateful, albeit because of a federal mandate, that DAL is not contesting a full funding of their pensions.

Be good to eachother...

Windfalls for relative seniority? Like what USAir was given? Windfalls like DOH and Dynamic lists? Those are crazy, and not a part of the ALPA merger policy at all. (DOH was taken out in 1991) We have more retirements in the long run than NWA does, and this seniority list is FOREVER. It doesn't just count in the next 10 years like NALPA seems to think.

Hey, I think it is great that they left with their DB. We had a bunch of guys leave too with their lump sums (but we also lost all of our smaller 737s, MD11s, and 767-200s right after that too). The key here is that unlike the NWA guys who gave up their work rules and pay rates (which were just given back to them), our guys do not get that frozen pension. Yes, we did get a smaller cash payout (that was taxed if it was over the normal 401K allottment), but again that was forced on us. Overall, the NWA guys got to keep their pension, got back their pay and rules that they gave up, and still want MORE from us. They got a nice raise, but don't want to count it towards anything, still insisting that attrition is an equity, which has never been done before with an SLI. It's just ridiculous, but hey, they are GOING FOR IT. We'll see....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Superpilot92]

Blah Blah Blah, If your side says it then it MUST be true. If our side says it it MUST be true.

Again this is ALL extremely pointless. Redrum is dead on in his post.

Happy Holidays :beer:

 

[RedRum]

Hey, I think it is great that they left with their DB. We had a bunch of guys leave too with their lump sums (but we also lost all of our smaller 737s, MD11s, and 767-200s right after that too). The key here is that unlike the NWA guys who gave up their work rules and pay rates (which were just given back to them), our guys do not get that frozen pension. Yes, we did get a smaller cash payout (that was taxed if it was over the normal 401K allottment), but again that was forced on us. Overall, the NWA guys got to keep their pension, got back their pay and rules that they gave up, and still want MORE from us. They got a nice raise, but don't want to count it towards anything, still insisting that attrition is an equity, which has never been done before with an SLI. It's just ridiculous, but hey, they are GOING FOR IT. We'll see....


Bye Bye--General Lee

I see your point and I can understand your frustration.

However, where would you be right now, froma monetary standpoint, if your guys hadn't taken the lump sum and retired? Think about the extra cash you are making now on a widebody, not to mention the quality of life.

I am not being sarcastic. There is merit to all of our arguments. The arbitrators have a difficult job, but we are the ones that will have to pay for it.

Greed prevails no matter what side we are on. There is a lot of it to go around. It will be there when WE retire...WHY? Because of the way us young guns were treated when the perverbial s$$t hit the fan. Too bad.

 

[General Lee]

I see your point and I can understand your frustration.

However, where would you be right now, froma monetary standpoint, if your guys hadn't taken the lump sum and retired? Think about the extra cash you are making now on a widebody, not to mention the quality of life.

I am not being sarcastic. There is merit to all of our arguments. The arbitrators have a difficult job, but we are the ones that will have to pay for it.

Greed prevails no matter what side we are on. There is a lot of it to go around. It will be there when WE retire...WHY? Because of the way us young guns were treated when the perverbial s$$t hit the fan. Too bad.

Hey, it is nice that you are being nice, and I am not trying to be mean here. I like to debate, and I see a lot of reason for it here. A lot of your NALPA stuff is in left field, and a lot of what they are asking for shows entitlement problems, since we have been more forthcoming in trying to bridge the gap. Retirements are on both sides, which NALPA refuses to look at, and the seniority list is forever. Your dynamic list (which is crazy) doesn't account for our retirements at all, and it is obvious. DOH hasn't been used forever, and it is out of our ALPA merger policy, and we are both members of that. (out since 1991) Your side sure does look like the USAir East position. We will see how it goes.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DTW320]

Don't worry, we have an explanation in our closing brief which mirrors the truth:


However, against all odds, the NWA Committee pleads that the snapshot date
should be January 1, 2008, three-and-one-half months before the carriers agreed to merge
and ten months before the merger closed. As discussed above, there is nothing in prior
case law to support this extraordinary claim

NWA Committee seeks to have the Panel disregard happened long before the
merger closed and even prior to the April 14, 2008 merger agreement:
• NWA’s decision to reduce from thirteen to ten the number of B-747-200
freighters was announced to pilots no later than January 17, 2008. See
Memo to All Pilots from Tim Rainey, SVP – Flight Operations. DCX-7 at
1.
• Although NWA started the year with a fleet of 94 DC-9s, NWA pilots
were informed on April 3, 2008 by a memo from Mr. Rainey that the DC-
9 fleet would be reduced by the end of 2008 to just 58 aircraft. DCX-7 at
6.
• NWA began 2008 with a fleet of seventy-one B-757s. In Mr. Rainey’s
April 3rd memo, he informed NWA pilots that the fleet would be reduced
to 68. Then, in a follow-on memo dated June 27, 2008, Mr. Rainey
announced that the fleet of B-757s would be further reduced to 61. DCX-
7 at 10.
• NWA began 2008 with a fleet of 130 A-320/319s. In Mr. Rainey’s April
3rd memo, he informed NWA pilots that the fleet would be reduced to 126
aircraft.

Based on its wrong-headed assertion that January 1, 2008 is the
right snapshot date, the NWA Committee would have the Panel use the fleet as of that
date as the basis for calculating captain and FO entitlements for each aircraft type. This
assumption produces a fleet that does not reflect the significant acquisitions and
dispositions at each carrier between January 1st and the date of the merger. Specifically,
NWA would have the Panel assume that there are fifty aircraft in the NWA fleet that, in
fact, were no longer in the fleet, or were about to be gone from the fleet, on the date of
the merger:
• A DC-9 fleet of 94, versus the fleet of 58 DC-9s that NWA will actually have
at the end of the year;
• A B-747-200 fleet of 15, instead of 10;
• A B-757 fleet of 71, instead of 61; and
• An A-320/319 fleet of 130, instead of 126


Can you guys show me any exact numbers stating otherwise? I know Bastian stated "later rather than sooner" for some DC9s, which doesn't say much, and that "30 DC9s might come out of the desert" (actually a diversion for something else). I'd love to see it.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Your side's entire argument hinges on timing. You want to use what we brought to the merger but also want to assume that neither company even thought of merging prior to the public announcement and made plans as a stand alone right up until the minute of the press release. THAT's Hilarious as well as hugely naive. You can't have it both ways General. If you insist on looking at what NWA did with fleet plans well after the merger announcement (your "snapshot" date) then let's also throw out hourly rates prior to the JPWA TA. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too.....and that's just not going to happen. Nope. Also, please post ALPA merger policy that prohibits DOH from being used. Just because it doesn't require it doesn't mean it can't be considered or used by the panel, as was clearly shown in our briefs/testimony.

 

[DTW320]

Your dynamic list (which is crazy) doesn't account for our retirements at all, and it is obvious. DOH hasn't been used forever, and it is out of our ALPA merger policy, and we are both members of that. (out since 1991) Your side sure does look like the USAir East position. We will see how it goes.

Our dynamic list doesn't cost a DAL pilot any seniority, now or ever. It just prevents him/her from migrating to a 4+:1 ratio, DAL to NWA in a few years. That was clearly shown. A windfall by any measure. Again,(and again) USAir's DOH position was very different than ours as specified in the conditions and restrictions contained in our proposal. It's like saying that a flight from DTW to YYZ is international in the same way that LAX to NRT or NRT to MNL is.

 

[RedRum]

Agree to Disagree

Windfalls for relative seniority? Like what USAir was given? Windfalls like DOH and Dynamic lists? Those are crazy, and not a part of the ALPA merger policy at all. (DOH was taken out in 1991) We have more retirements in the long run than NWA does, and this seniority list is FOREVER. It doesn't just count in the next 10 years like NALPA seems to think.

Hey, I think it is great that they left with their DB. We had a bunch of guys leave too with their lump sums (but we also lost all of our smaller 737s, MD11s, and 767-200s right after that too). The key here is that unlike the NWA guys who gave up their work rules and pay rates (which were just given back to them), our guys do not get that frozen pension. Yes, we did get a smaller cash payout (that was taxed if it was over the normal 401K allottment), but again that was forced on us. Overall, the NWA guys got to keep their pension, got back their pay and rules that they gave up, and still want MORE from us. They got a nice raise, but don't want to count it towards anything, still insisting that attrition is an equity, which has never been done before with an SLI. It's just ridiculous, but hey, they are GOING FOR IT. We'll see....


Bye Bye--General Lee

There's the crux of the matter.

I think DALPA was the one that made 1 proposal ad stuck with it throughout the entire arbotration hearings. We introduced 2 different proposals. From our standpoint you didn't budge, but I digress.

We will see how it turns out. We will all have to figure out a way to "get along." I don't want anything that compares to what NWA management did to fragment one sect against another. Life is too short.

 

[FDJ2]

I see your point and I can understand your frustration.

However, where would you be right now, froma monetary standpoint, if your guys hadn't taken the lump sum and retired? Think about the extra cash you are making now on a widebody, not to mention the quality of life.

RedRum, he'd be about where he is right now.

Here's a little quote that should explain:

"In the three years before we faced liquidity shortfall (10/1/2002 – 10/1/2005) we had about 2,200 pilots retire.

About 1,450 of those pilots would have retired by December 2007 (when the FAA retirement age changed).

Of those 750 left, about 250 were on long term disability.

Of the 450 left, 100 would not be in the top 33% of our list today.

Therefore, you are talking about 350 pilots that early retired that held active flying positions and would be in the top 33% on our list. A significant number but not the “thousands” that the Northwest pilots expect.

Note: Of the remaining 350 pilots some would have been lost to attrition so the actual number would even be a bit smaller."

Also consider that if our pension had survived more Delta pilots would have retired with their lump sum since the pension stopped paying lump sums in 2005. So it is quite possible that General Lee and other Delta pilots would have been further up the seniority list then where they find themselves today.

Regardless, you are not merging with Delta's 2002 seniority list, but rather with Delta's 2008 list.

 

[General Lee]

Your side's entire argument hinges on timing. You want to use what we brought to the merger but also want to assume that neither company even thought of merging prior to the public announcement and made plans as a stand alone right up until the minute of the press release. THAT's Hilarious as well as hugely naive. You can't have it both ways General. If you insist on looking at what NWA did with fleet plans well after the merger announcement (your "snapshot" date) then let's also throw out hourly rates prior to the JPWA TA. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too.....and that's just not going to happen. Nope. Also, please post ALPA merger policy that prohibits DOH from being used. Just because it doesn't require it doesn't mean it can't be considered or used by the panel, as was clearly shown in our briefs/testimony.

I guess STAPLE could also be used too, but we for some reason decided against that, since it was about as dumb as DOH. Ask the USAir East guys how that went. Hey, ask your lawyer, he represented them.

You guys want to throw the earliest date on there (Jan 1st) because that is when you still had most of your airplanes on the books, and after that a lot of them were announced to go away. We ALL CAN UNDERSTAND why you would want to do it, especially since the merger announcement was 3 months later.

Were our hourly rates the same in Jan as they were in July? Sure they were. We brought YOUR RATES UP TO OURS. There is nothing you can say about that. You benefited a great deal as pilots, whereas as a company we benefit getting a NRT hub. Your income immediately rose at the DCC, remember that? We got a perdiem raise (along with you). Oh wait, you DESERVED that pay raise, along with DOH and a Dynamic list. Talk about Hillarious. And, you pointed out that your overall list made more money on average via ALPA dues. Fins was correct in saying we had 600 newhires that year, with no dues during their first year. How about this year? We were expanding, and you were hiring for attrition.

You can assume that Steenland and RA were "talking" prior to the merger, but during the first attempt it was broken off at the last minute due to a dispute between RA and Steenland on who would receive which title while running the company. Do you remember that? I am surprised that you guys didn't try to get the snapshot during the 1st merger attempt too. What if they had had another argument during this last time too? Could it have been scrapped again? Haven't you heard of the saying "I won't believe the plane is here until it is on our ramp." Nothing is final until the paperwork is signed, and in reality we should have made the snapshot at the DCC, but instead we decided to give in "again" to you and go for July. Man alive, we sure are nice to you guys. I can't wait until I can go into our MSP crew lounge, stop in the entrance, announce in the deepest voice I can, "Hey guys, thanks for your SLI proposal.....You guys are NUMBER ONE!! (and use a finger to show the number 1)" (although I think our guy will actually be number 1 in seniority)It will be fantastic. Other than all of that, welcome aboard!

Bye Bye--General Lee