SLI Arbitration/Negotiation Deadline Still 11/20

Fly4hire

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
861
Total Time
lots
Apparently reports in a Moak letter that all parties had agreed to arbitration deadline extension to 12/20 are not accurate, and DL is still 11/20.

From a NALPA 11/3 communication:

The Arbitrators have indicated a benefit in issuing one opinion and award instead of a separate award by November 20 and then their opinion by December 20. They believe this is better way of completing the process, so that we receive both the award and opinion on the same day. Accepting this suggestion will not affect the last day of hearings, which under the already agreed to ground rules will be November 17.

While we are supportive of moving the announcement date of the award, it has not been signed off in a document at this time. We continue to work cooperatively to resolve this matter and will keep you informed.
 
Last edited:

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
Total Time
10000+
Apparently reports in a Moak letter that all parties had agreed to arbitration deadline extension to 12/20 are not accurate, and DL is still 11/20.
It just takes NALPA longer to make a decision then most. We are all getting accustomed to it.

The arbitrators want to extend the date of the announcement of the award to December 20th, in order to coincide with the date they must submit their written decision. There is no change to the hearing dates, no one has ever suggested otherwise. All the parties are supportive of this change, even NALPA, but we are all on the edge of our seats waiting to see whether NALPA will cave and actually sign off on it as opposed to being supportive of it. The tension is unbearable, what will they do, will the oversight committee veto it, or the advisory committee, or the committee of alternates? So much drama, we can bearly stand it.:laugh:
 

Fly4hire

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
861
Total Time
lots
It just takes NALPA longer to make a decision then most. We are all getting accustomed to it.

The arbitrators want to extend the date of the announcement of the award to December 20th, in order to coincide with the date they must submit their written decision. There is no change to the hearing dates, no one has ever suggested otherwise./>
A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.

The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.

I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.

What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.

I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay. You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?
 

jetflier

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Posts
718
Total Time
lot's
It just takes NALPA longer to make a decision then most. We are all getting accustomed to it.

The arbitrators want to extend the date of the announcement of the award to December 20th, in order to coincide with the date they must submit their written decision. There is no change to the hearing dates, no one has ever suggested otherwise. All the parties are supportive of this change, even NALPA, but we are all on the edge of our seats waiting to see whether NALPA will cave and actually sign off on it as opposed to being supportive of it. The tension is unbearable, what will they do, will the oversight committee veto it, or the advisory committee, or the committee of alternates? So much drama, we can bearly stand it.:laugh:

{yawn),...oh did you say something ?
 

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
Total Time
10000+
A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.

Yeah, we are suppose to negotiate with ourselves.

The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.

I thought the reason you stated was so that DALPA could negotiate with itself.

I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.

What, are you afraid of a negotiated list?

What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.

I think we made a case based on the facts, unlike NALPA, which had to create ficticious jobs that don't exist in aircraft that aren't flying and use data they know to be inaccurate in a model that's been rejected in other arbitrations.

I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay.

You got us with that one. Moak is pressuring the delay, it's not the arbitrators. We can't pull one over on you guys. The pressure from Moak's slip must be unbearable. How can your committee, advisors, observers, alternates stand it?:laugh:

You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?
Keep it coming.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.

The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.

I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.

What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.

I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay. You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?
I heard you guys needed time to redo your computer model for your own SLI proposal. Yeah, you needed to figure out how many airplanes are ACTUALLY in your current fleet, as some leave. The "snapshot" needs to be current, since your old model had a Jan 1st, 2008 snapshot, including 94 DC9s, and also including 18 787s that WOULD BE on the property July 1st of 2009. That was a classic.......


Bye Bye--General Lee
 

nwaredtail

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Posts
622
Total Time
9000+
I heard you guys needed time to redo your computer model for your own SLI proposal. Yeah, you needed to figure out how many airplanes are ACTUALLY in your current fleet, as some leave. The "snapshot" needs to be current, since your old model had a Jan 1st, 2008 snapshot, including 94 DC9s, and also including 18 787s that WOULD BE on the property July 1st of 2009. That was a classic.......


Bye Bye--General Lee
As always, you heard incorrectly. Why would the arbitrators need more time if they will just award your list? BTW, the actual number of DC-9's on property is closer to 94 than originally thought. Seems DAL likes the little sucker.

FWI, if the 787 won't count, your orders won't either. Even if they are "Delta's orders"
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
As always, you heard incorrectly. Why would the arbitrators need more time if they will just award your list? BTW, the actual number of DC-9's on property is closer to 94 than originally thought. Seems DAL likes the little sucker.

FWI, if the 787 won't count, your orders won't either. Even if they are "Delta's orders"
Really? We are actually getting planes (your computer model actually included your 787s, and FORGOT that we had 8 additional 777s coming, well before SOC), and you are not. You are losing planes (remember those confidential parts left out of the transcripts? What do you think was discussed?). That is all known. Regardless, your DOH stuff is worthless. We are both ALPA members, and that is not a part of the merger policy. Ask the USAir East guys, or your lawyer who represented them, how that went. Very likely it will be relative seniority, with some bumps due to sheer number of widebodies on one side, and DC9s and 742s on the other. And does Delta like the little DC9? We also like some other planes. You will hear shortly. You say there are still going to be close to 94 DC9s on the property after this is over? So, you basically are saying there will be an even LARGER chunk of your guys making the bottom pay scale at Delta? Sounds like a possible windfall if those guys could suddenly hold 767 after your DOH proposal? What is Bloch's phone number?

And why would the arbitrators award more time? So you could fix your computer model that was totally wrong for your own proposal? This own thread says the deadline is still 11-20, so why are you saying there will be a delay? The Written portion was ALWAYS due on Dec 20th.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:

nwaredtail

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Posts
622
Total Time
9000+
Really? We are actually getting planes (your computer model actually included your 787s, and FORGOT that we had 8 additional 777s coming, well before SOC), and you are not. You are losing planes (remember those confidential parts left out of the transcripts? What do you think was discussed?). That is all known. Regardless, your DOH stuff is worthless. We are both ALPA members, and that is not a part of the merger policy. Ask the USAir East guys, or your lawyer who represented them, how that went. Very likely it will be relative seniority, with some bumps due to sheer number of widebodies on one side, and DC9s and 742s on the other. And does Delta like the little DC9? We also like some other planes. You will hear shortly. You say there are still going to be close to 94 DC9s on the property after this is over? So, you basically are saying there will be an even LARGER chunk of your guys making the bottom pay scale at Delta? Sounds like a possible windfall if those guys could suddenly hold 767 after your DOH proposal? What is Bloch's phone number?

And why would the arbitrators award more time? So you could fix your computer model that was totally wrong for your own proposal? This own thread says the deadline is still 11-20, so why are you saying there will be a delay? The Written portion was ALWAYS due on Dec 20th.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Concentrate , focus, you can do it. I never said there was a delay. READ. All that I said that if you are so convinced that our argument was without merit and yours is the "correct" way, you sure seem to spend a lot of time defending your position. It should be a slam dunk for you guys, right. You all get to move up 2000 numbers in the last 2 years, now you will get to move up into NWA retirement slots that you would have never had. Seems fair.

BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable. Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Concentrate , focus, you can do it. I never said there was a delay. READ. All that I said that if you are so convinced that our argument was without merit and yours is the "correct" way, you sure seem to spend a lot of time defending your position. It should be a slam dunk for you guys, right. You all get to move up 2000 numbers in the last 2 years, now you will get to move up into NWA retirement slots that you would have never had. Seems fair.

BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable. Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
You also need to focus, and remember something important: we shrunk as we retired pilots. We actually got rid of our "DC9" equivalent--the 737-200s and 737-300s. We also got rid of all of our MD11s, and 767-200s (15 or so of each of those). This was all during our BK process, not after 9-11 (we got rid of L1011s and 727s)

As far as ratios go, a 744 Capt on the stand (on the 20th I believe) testified that a previous negotiator was a "highly regarded"(initials DN), and then later read for Bloch a paragraph from a book written by that former NWA negotiator that you should "always use ratios." I will look for it again in the transcripts and try to paste it here. It was such a contradiction to his DOH argument.

And talk about "fair and equitable".....your proposal bumps each of us Deltoids back 14% from current relative percentage, whereas our proposal bumps us up only 2%, and that is because we put your bottom 400 on the bottom, thanks to aircraft leaving the fleet and the DC9 being the lowest paid aircraft. You cannot deny either of those two things. And when you say the arbitrators now disagree, don't we still have a 4 day chunk of hearings left? Maybe they want us to try to negotiate, but if you guys are going to be obstinate, then that may be tough.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
Total Time
10000+
You all get to move up 2000 numbers in the last 2 years, now you will get to move up into NWA retirement slots that you would have never had. Seems fair.

You are integrating with DAL's 2008 seniority list, not 2002's. Get use to it.

BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable.

Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?

What do you have against ratios anyways? Afraid the jobs you brought to the merger can't match DAL's?

Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
Seems like the arbitrators haven't decided yet.
 

Full of LUV

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Posts
1,021
Total Time
5100
This might be but.....

A change to the award date also means that the deadline for negotiation slides a month. The delay probably in agreeing to the extension has more to do with allowing DALPA more time to negotiate.

The reason the arbitrators want the dates to coincide is they need more than 3 days to construct a list that encompasses 12000 pilots. And 12/20 is the written justification of award of 11/20.

I'd be fine with a 12/20 award date, but think you guys should not have any more time to negotiate past 11/20.

What's the matter - your case is airtight, the arbitrators are going to award it as you call it, they just need another 30 days to construct the list you have already provided for them? Not.

I think Moak's little slip in accuracy was intentional to help pressure that delay. You guys seem to be getting a little nervous - do you need the extra time to reformulate your strategy?
If this is true, then why does it take an extra 30 days to spit out a DOH list? Seems that DOH with fences could be published in about 30 minutes.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Concentrate , focus, you can do it.
BTW, What does ALPA merger policy say about ratioed lists. EXACTLY NOTHING! All that is says is fair and equitable. Seems the arbitrators already disagree with Fair and equitable.
Here are some transcripts from 10-20, where your 744 Captain (EN) talked about ratios etc. Here he talks about that negotiator on the NWA merger committee (DN):

14 A He and I were both on the Northwest merger
15 committee 1986 through 1990 representing the
16 Northwest pilots in the Republic proceeding.
17 Q By the way, in connection with that
18 proceeding, it was the Northwest pilots' position
19 that a date of hire list was not a proper list but
20 rather the ratio list was a proper list; correct?
21 A Our proposal was a ratioed list, yes


He continues by stating this about ratios and his thoughts at the time:

Q And the Northwest pilots were quite
21 convinced in connection with the Republic merger
22 that a date of hire list was not a fair and
equitable list and that a ratioed list was a fair
2 and equitable list; correct?
3 A We made that proposal, yes. We made that
4 exact argument.
5 Q Not only did you make the argument. I
6 trust you believed the argument as well?
7 A I think it's safe to say that concerning
8 me personally, in the 1986 proceeding as a brand-new
9 guy in the merger world, yes, I was what I rather
10 judgmentally call a true believer. I believed in
11 the approach we were taking

What did the Redbooks want with the Republic pilots at the time? A lot of the greenbooks were senior:

Q And it is correct, just to circle back,
15 that at the time of the seniority integration, it
16 was the red book pilots that had been pressing for a
17 ratioed solution?
18 A The former Northwest pilots proposed a
19 ratioed solution in front of Mr. Roberts, yes

Then our lawyer made the 744 Captain read a portion of an article that the other negotiator wrote:

A You want me to read it out loud?
4 Q Please.
5 A The third paragraph reads as follows, and
6 I quote: "If you have a limited time frame to
7 prepare, we would urge you to concentrate first on
8 the various cases involving Continental and to do so
9 in chronological order. Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic
11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


And lastly, our lawyer debates with your lawyer and states:

He didn't testify on direct about the
20 Northwest Trump shuttle integration.
21 MR. F: No, that's right he didn't.
22 But I asked him questions about other mergers,
including this one, without objection. He was
2 chairman of the merger committee. He is an
3 experienced seniority integration expert, and it
4 seems to me that we ought to have no doubt about
5 what other seniority integrations occurred or what
6 proposed to be occurred at Northwest

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Well, I take it your
8 point is to show that it's a ratio approach.
9 MR. F: Exactly, yes


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:

nwaredtail

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Posts
622
Total Time
9000+
Here are some transcripts from 10-20, where your 744 Captain (EN) talked about ratios etc. Here he talks about that negotiator on the NWA merger committee (DN):

14 A He and I were both on the Northwest merger
15 committee 1986 through 1990 representing the
16 Northwest pilots in the Republic proceeding.
17 Q By the way, in connection with that
18 proceeding, it was the Northwest pilots' position
19 that a date of hire list was not a proper list but
20 rather the ratio list was a proper list; correct?
21 A Our proposal was a ratioed list, yes


He continues by stating this about ratios and his thoughts at the time:

Q And the Northwest pilots were quite
21 convinced in connection with the Republic merger
22 that a date of hire list was not a fair and
equitable list and that a ratioed list was a fair
2 and equitable list; correct?
3 A We made that proposal, yes. We made that
4 exact argument.
5 Q Not only did you make the argument. I
6 trust you believed the argument as well?
7 A I think it's safe to say that concerning
8 me personally, in the 1986 proceeding as a brand-new
9 guy in the merger world, yes, I was what I rather
10 judgmentally call a true believer. I believed in
11 the approach we were taking

What did the Redbooks want with the Republic pilots at the time? A lot of the greenbooks were senior:

Q And it is correct, just to circle back,
15 that at the time of the seniority integration, it
16 was the red book pilots that had been pressing for a
17 ratioed solution?
18 A The former Northwest pilots proposed a
19 ratioed solution in front of Mr. Roberts, yes

Then our lawyer made the 744 Captain read a portion of an article that the other negotiator wrote:

A You want me to read it out loud?
4 Q Please.
5 A The third paragraph reads as follows, and
6 I quote: "If you have a limited time frame to
7 prepare, we would urge you to concentrate first on
8 the various cases involving Continental and to do so
9 in chronological order. Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic
11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


And lastly, our lawyer debates with your lawyer and states:

He didn't testify on direct about the
20 Northwest Trump shuttle integration.
21 MR. F: No, that's right he didn't.
22 But I asked him questions about other mergers,
including this one, without objection. He was
2 chairman of the merger committee. He is an
3 experienced seniority integration expert, and it
4 seems to me that we ought to have no doubt about
5 what other seniority integrations occurred or what
6 proposed to be occurred at Northwest

CHAIRMAN BLOCH: Well, I take it your
8 point is to show that it's a ratio approach.
9 MR. F: Exactly, yes


Bye Bye--General Lee
That took a lot of work.......very nice. and what was the end result of that merger arbitration.................................

Date of hire, with fences.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
That took a lot of work.......very nice. and what was the end result of that merger arbitration.................................

Date of hire, with fences.
Yes, the Roberts award did that. And the latest precedent, the Nicelau award, did not. Even your retired NWA negotiator stated in the article that:


Then for contrast, we would
10 suggest reviewing the Northwest/Republic

11 arbitrator's work to see how not to do it."


Remember how the guy on the stand did NOT want to read that? He did anyway. And finding those quotes didn't take too long. It was all around pg 838 in the testimony for 10-20.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 

nwaredtail

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Posts
622
Total Time
9000+
Yes, the Roberts award did that. And the latest precedent, the Nicelau award, did not.
Comparing similar, "equal" airlines to AAA and AWA will not happen. Even Nicalau stated that date of hire would have given a huge windfall to AAA. His award will not and is not the precedent. Sorry......
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Comparing similar, "equal" airlines to AAA and AWA will not happen. Even Nicalau stated that date of hire would have given a huge windfall to AAA. His award will not and is not the precedent. Sorry......
Really? You think so. AAA was the failing airline, yet still got the top 500 spots. AAA and AWA were fairly close in size, but the small difference allowed AAA to dump ALPA. I don't know where you are getting your info (other than NAPLA), but it will very much be looked at. And your own people on the stand (remember all the stuff I just put here for your viewing pleasure?) say that they should have used ratios, and the Roberts award was NOT the way to go. You can go ahead and disagree with them too. DOH has not been used since the new ALPA merger policy was enacted, and the arbitrators have to follow the policy. Your argument was the same one USAir East had, and we all know how that came out. You say Nicelau stated DOH would have given AAA a windfalll. Between our two proposals, if our's is implemented, we as a group move up 2%, thanks to putting your bottom 400 on the bottom. If your proposal is implemented, we Deltoids all MOVE BACK 14%. Windfall, eh? Do you think if you throw in something crazy, you MAY still get something in the middle? Nope. Not gonna happen.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 

NuGuy

Ex-Commuter
Joined
May 30, 2003
Posts
2,375
Total Time
10000
Congratulations, you are as ignorant of ALPA merger policy as your expert witnesses. I can list at least one ALPA seniority list integration that was ratioed by jobs brought to the merger since 1991, can you name one that went DOH?
FDJ,

Yes, actually. The Piedmont/Allegheny merger was DOH with fences (for bases), and that happened in 2004.

Actually, it's a very good precedent. Although they were both regionals, they were basically thought of as equals (hmmm, I remember that being brought up recently), but had some differences in demographics.

Nu
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
FDJ,

Yes, actually. The Piedmont/Allegheny merger was DOH with fences (for bases), and that happened in 2004.

Actually, it's a very good precedent. Although they were both regionals, they were basically thought of as equals (hmmm, I remember that being brought up recently), but had some differences in demographics.

Nu
It was a good precedent, compared to the Nicelau award? Hey, you should go with that then.....and make sure you don't re-read any of your NWA testimony that stated you should go with ratios anyway....Do you think the USAir East guys also knew anything about the Piedmont/Allegheny arbitration? Do you think they used it? Your current lawyer was their lawyer too, you know? How did that all work out?

Also, before you stated Eddie came to MSP and stated not much would happen, initially. As ACL65 pointed out, that mainly has to do with your ground guys and mechanics union not allowing our DGS guys to push back or fix planes. Well, when those guys have a vote here in about 6 months, we'll see if the union stays or goes. Then, there will be some movement. We still have "confidential" business plans that were shown in the arbitration, and we'll see how it goes.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Top