Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SLI Arbitration/Negotiation Deadline Still 11/20

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Fly4hire

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
861
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:
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:
 
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?
 
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 ?
 
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:
 
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
 
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"
 
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:
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.
 
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:

Latest resources

Back
Top