Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F/A Seniorty With DL/NWA Merger?  
User currently offlineDelta11 From Germany, joined May 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6212 times:

Question, With DL having about 14,000 plus F/A's and NWA having 8,000 , what will the merger allow for Seniorty? How Senior is teh NWA F/A's compared to DL. Also with a merger will it be 1 to 1 or ??? ANy ideas?

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6187 times:

When responding to this question, could someone please describe the actual process? Does a 1:1 system mean that the lists are merged with the senior most DL FA getting the highest seniority in the merged list then the most senior NW FA getting spot #2 on the merged list and so on back and forth until the lists are merged fully.

Also let's say that DL's top 2 FA had 30 and 29 years of service respectively and the most senior NW FA has 28 years. Does this 1:1 merging described above result in the NW FA being ranked higher on the merged list than the #2 most senior DL FA before the merger?

What are the other alternatives that can or have been used?

Thanks,

Mike


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6126 times:



Quoting Pope (Reply 1):
When responding to this question, could someone please describe the actual process?

Yes please do. I've never understood how in a merger, not a buy out, the two lists aren't merged equally by length of service.


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6112 times:

Well, if they use the way they merged the lists when DL bought PA's Atlantic ops, I can give you a hint...

The union didn't come along with the PA flight attendants. There were about 16000 DL FA's at the time. The top 3000 DL FA's were protected. In other words, the most senior PA FA wound up as #3001 at DL. Conversely, the PA FA's were protected from winding up at the bottom of the list, by 3000 positions. So the most junior FA coming from PA was 3000 from the bottom, regardless of date of hire. The remainder were merged at roughly 1 PA to every 3 DL.

DL FA's would be crazy to vote in a union right now. AFA bylaws call for merger of seniority lists by date of hire when 2 AFA represented carriers merge. If a merged DL/NW can get rid of AFA, they'll likely protect their own again.


User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6014 times:

Not sure, but Im thinking NW has a lot of 35 plus F/As flying for them right now. I would venture to guess that NW's average F/A seniority is somewhere around 5 or more years higher than DLs. Any insight?

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6012 times:

Merger isnt the same as a buyout..if it is a true merger, then it should be by simple seniority date.

User currently offlineCV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5981 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 5):
Merger isnt the same as a buyout..if it is a true merger, then it should be by simple seniority date.

And should apply to ALL work groups.


User currently offlineNws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5984 times:

There is more than one way to merge the seniority list. The simplest, ad the one that pisses flight attendant off most, is "date of hire", you simple use date of hire for every flight attendant, so if NW flight attendants are more senior, then they get the best flights. The other common way, is weighted date of hire, this would make DL's seniormost flight attendant the same as NW, and then on down the line, but its not 1:1. I have no idea how this is going to work out, it will have to be worked out between management, unions, and employees.

User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5975 times:

I think if Delta management expect 8000 NWA FAs to just give up having union representation altogether they are going to have a huge problem on their hands, whether it is a merger or an accquisition. I know that when Delta bought Western the Western FAs came to DL without their union, but somehow I just can't se this happening with NWA as they are about as hard-cre union as it gets in the airline industry. It will be interesting to see what happens.

User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4896 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Date of Hire seniority integration could also be tricky since both DL and NW have FAs that came from previous mergers/acquisitions. For example, which Date of Hire would be used for a DL FA who was ex-PA? When DL acquired PA's European ops, a lot of very senior PA FAs who went over lost a lot of seniority (for bidding purposes) due to the 3000 protection and 1 for every 3 rule mentioned above because PA had far more senior FAs than DL at that time. So a 1964 hire at Pan Am essentially became a "1972 hire" for example when integrated into DL. Note however that this only applied to seniority for bidding purposes. I believe the ex-PA FAs retained their original Date of Hire seniority for other things like benefits or priority on the standby list, etc.

User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5860 times:

I guess the integration of seniority lists is going to be very contentious. I know the AA/TW was very advantageous to AA crews, with most of those integrated into the list scheduled for retirement fairly soon after integration, and that was the best case scenario.

I hope for everyone this turns out well and whatever way they do it people will be able to bid for the same trips they can currently bid for now. I don't know, perhaps the list could be divided by domicile with agreed terms for moving between domiciles, at least there would not be a big influx of movement, one way or another. The bidding is going to be the most contentious issue, and something innovative needs to be done.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineQQflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2275 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5834 times:

It is hard to say or speculate what will happen since Senator Claire McCaskill drafted a law that protects airline workers in the event of a merger. The provision, which was attached to the 2007 omnibus spending bill, was signed into law in December. Here's a snippit from her website about the law:

"The provision would ensure a merger process by which airline employee seniority lists can be integrated in a fair manner. If a dispute occurs, the parties can engage in binding arbitration. This provision would make it harder for one airline or union to add the employees of another airline or union to the bottom of the seniority list."

It's hard to imagine a dispute from one side or the other wouldn't occur, unless the integration was truly equitable. Getting both sides to agree to what is "equitable" is next to impossible. Past mergers are not affected by the new law, but all future ones will be. Which means we're entering a new era of airline employee integrations that will likely be decided by federal arbitrators rather than unions or management.

For more on the law visit: http://mccaskill.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=289277&



The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Delta11 (Thread starter):
Also with a merger will it be 1 to 1 or ??? ANy ideas?

Strict DOH is what NWAFA's are ask campaigning for. And it would be in Richard Anderson's best interest(if he wants this merger to go abit more smoothly) to have both labor groups seniorities respected. Now I know not everyone is oing to be happy with what comes down the pike, but DOH is the best way to start. Now Delta could do what they did with WALFA's which was give the top 300 WALFA's their date of hire seniority, and then go to a 2 to 1 ratio, where for every 1 WALFA, 2 DALFA's go ahead of them until halfway down, where it goes 3 to 1 and you get the drift. the ratio system is fine for pilots becuase of different equipment and such, but for FA's, it's nothing more than stapling. The argument of Pandora's Box would be reasonable back in 1986, but with current technology, seniority date protection is not at all difficult.

Now we(NWAFA's) are trying to organise DALFA's. We have several people from NWA who are working with the Delta group to get the election started. If Delta FA's do vote in AFA, we will merge Date of Hire which is the only fair option for both sides. If DALFA'S reject AFA, then an election would be triggered again, but with both sides voting for a combined consensus.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 3):
DL FA's would be crazy to vote in a union right now. AFA bylaws call for merger of seniority lists by date of hire when 2 AFA represented carriers merge. If

Wouldn't that be a shame. The nerve of those NW FA's wanting their seniorities protected. What you fail to see is that there is an equation that many fail to see. When you peice the WALFA's and PAFA's(both former AFA labor groups) coupled with the NWAFA's, the chances of AFA getting if they don't get in with DALFA's alone, is pretty good.

Quoting Nws2002 (Reply 7):
The simplest, ad the one that pisses flight attendant off most, is "date of hire", you simple use date of hire for every flight attendant, so if NW flight attendants are more senior, then they get the best flights.

That's not quite true. The most senior NWFA was hired in 1951, but Delta has many FA's that are at comparable to those of us here at NWA. Both carriers went through periods where both sides didn't hire for extended lengths of time. NWA in fact has had more labor strikes and hiring freezes than Delta, so Delta may have some seniority advantages over us at certain years on the seniority scale.

Quoting Panamair (Reply 9):
Date of Hire seniority integration could also be tricky since both DL and NW have FAs that came from previous mergers/acquisitions.

That is possible, becuase us at NWA base our seniorty based on the day we reported to training. I reported to training in 6/97(which is my seniority date), and my DOH is 8/97. I would fall back to 8/97 for my DOH seniority, not 6/97. But that is ok with me. But as for the Western and PanAm FA's getting their original seniorities back is another question. All the FA's from NWA's aquisitions got their original dates of hire.

Quoting QQflyboy (Reply 11):
Getting both sides to agree to what is "equitable" is next to impossible.

But hat is equitable? Both carriers sent out memos that each company would not enter into a merger unless it was advantageous for both shareholders and employees. But that could mean anything.

[Edited 2008-02-18 11:29:42]

[Edited 2008-02-18 11:32:10]


Made from jets!
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9328 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5791 times:



Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 8):



I think if Delta management expect 8000 NWA FAs to just give up having union representation altogether they are going to have a huge problem on their hands, whether it is a merger or an accquisition. I know that when Delta bought Western the Western FAs came to DL without their union, but somehow I just can't se this happening with NWA as they are about as hard-cre union as it gets in the airline industry. It will be interesting to see what happens.

They don't have a choice.
When they take the Delta name the most they can get is a re-vote once the company is completely merged. The NWAFA don't have a choice wether they keep the union when they come to DL.



yep.
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5781 times:



Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 3):
DL FA's would be crazy to vote in a union right now. AFA bylaws call for merger of seniority lists by date of hire when 2 AFA represented carriers merge. If a merged DL/NW can get rid of AFA, they'll likely protect their own again.

Last I heard, they had enough votes but that has happened in the past many many times.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
Wouldn't that be a shame. The nerve of those NW FA's wanting their seniorities protected. What you fail to see is that there is an equation that many fail to see. When you peice the WALFA's and PAFA's(both former AFA labor groups) coupled with the NWAFA's, the chances of AFA getting if they don't get in with DALFA's alone, is pretty good.

Same argument can be said about DL FA's wanting to protect theirs...

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
But hat is equitable? Both carriers sent out memos that each company would not enter into a merger unless it was advantageous for both shareholders and employees. But that could mean anything.

There you go Big grin



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 14):
Same argument can be said about DL FA's wanting to protect theirs...

Well, since most people outside of the airline industry probably think it's reasonable that the surviving-named carrier staple the FA's from the other carrier. But Delta has a history of bumping seniority, so our concerns are raised in anticipation of what moves Delta may attempt.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineNWAESC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3386 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

Here's some good info. I'm sure Jetjack or another NWA F/A can chime in as well.

Note: This is/was shamelessly stolen from a poster on another site. Frankly, I was too lazy to type all this out on my own...All credit to "North by Northwest" over there.



"Here's the deal on the pending merger. Delta is not that much larger than Northwest. Federal Railroad Labor laws dictate that if a merger occurs (and this is a merger of equals hence the "stock swap" no matter what name goes on the plane) if one entity is Union or of a different Union (or NO Union as is Delta) all contracts prevail...until an election is held. An election (there may be an instance that requires 35% in favor of, such as what just happened at Delta with over 55% voting for an election).

Once it has been established that a Union representation is requested the Vote must be by 50% PLUS 1 for it to win. Based on that, NWA AFA plus the percentage of Delta FA who would vote in favor of...would guarantee a win for Union representation.

Now, on the senority issue. NWA AFA has scop language in their contract which must be adhered to by NWA and the resulting company of the combo. That guarantees our DOH on any senority list at a carrier operated by NW pilots or former NW pilots under a merged company.

Non Union Delta FA's have a promise and a legally NON binding piece of paper "promising" fair and equitable integration, that does not mean DOH. We are guaranteed nothing LESS...legally. That is not the case with a Non union carrier.


Here's more:

Here's some info from our merger experts: NWAFA contact remains in place UNTIL an election.

Should Delta & Northwest officially announce a merger, the following things will likely happen:

1. AFA/NW Flight Attendant representatives should meet with DL/NW Company representatives to be sure that DL/NW continues to enforce our current Agreement (including Section 1-merger protocol/labor protective provisions [LPPs]). AFA should be securing a successor document immediately from DL/NW stating they will abide by the NW Flight Attendant Agreement; especially Section 1 and our LPP language.
Scope Information: Read more
Successorship Information: Read more
LPP Information: Read more.
2. AFA/NW Flight Attendant representatives should meet to discuss Fence and Trackage Agreements with DL/NW to protect NW flying from being flown on the DL side UNTIL a merged seniority list is issued by an arbitrator (there is no need for an arbitration if the DL Flight Attendant seniority committee and the NW Flight Attendant seniority committee reach an agreement which satisfies BOTH sides as to how the combined list should be integrated - however, this is a long shot). NW & DL Flight Attendants will select from their respective groups those that will represent them for the purpose of fair and equitable integration. How this process will work will depend on
1. AFA - should they win the representational election
-or-
2. DL management - should AFA lose the election.
3. AFA/NW Flight Attendant representatives should immediately request that all NW/DL Flight Attendants be trained on each other's equipment which is beneficial when a Trackage Agreement is reached. Trackage allows those routes which belonged to the carrier at the time of the merger to be flown by that group even if on each other's equipment. A NW/DL Flight Attendant cannot fly together until a merged list but we could fly each other's equipment on our own routes with DL/NW pilots. Remember it is the route that is protected, not the airplane.


If the election results in a YES Vote, i.e., DL and NW Flight Attendants vote to have AFA as their union.

AFA is the union. Remember, the merger protocols mentioned above are still proceeding during the representational vote process.

* AFA/NW/DL Flight Attendant representatives continue to meet with DL/NW Company representatives to continue discussions regarding Fence and Trackage Agreements (as mentioned above), running the two operations separately UNTIL there is an integrated seniority list, and the discussion that both sides will work under their existing contracts until there is an integrated seniority list.
* AFA/NW Flight Attendant representatives meet to merge both the NW and DL contracts for all DL Flight Attendants (which now include the NW Flight Attendants). This process should take the best of both Agreements and combine them into ONE Agreement. Remember, both sides have good and bad things in their Agreement. We don't want to exclude any concept based on who has it. We need the BEST of BOTH.

If the election results in a NO Vote, i.e., DL and NW Flight Attendants vote no to having AFA as their union. There would be NO UNION

The process which started at the announcement of the merger (successor document/seniority integration by means of arbitration) will continue regardless of the outcome of the voting.

* DL/NW Flight Attendant representatives on seniority committees will continue to try to reach an acceptable Agreement by both sides to integrate the two seniority lists. If these seniority committees do not reach an acceptable integration process there will still be an arbitration over this issue because of the NW FLight Attendants contractual LPPs and the LPPs DL gave the DL Flight Attendants prior to the merger. Time limits for this integration process will be dictated by DL management. "



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9328 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5632 times:



Quoting NWAESC (Reply 16):
"Here's the deal on the pending merger. Delta is not that much larger than Northwest. Federal Railroad Labor laws dictate that if a merger occurs (and this is a merger of equals hence the "stock swap" no matter what name goes on the plane) if one entity is Union or of a different Union (or NO Union as is Delta) all contracts prevail...until an election is held. An election (there may be an instance that requires 35% in favor of, such as what just happened at Delta with over 55% voting for an election).

hahaha thats funny yea DL has 16,000 FA's and NW has 8,000 but thats only 2x larger  Yeah sure
and the report i saw said around 15% want a Union not 55%

fact is the DL FA's have a select few that want a Unpin. They vote almost once a year and the AFA gets around 10% of the FA's on there side. They might get 15% this time if there lucky.



yep.
User currently offlineNWADTWFA From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 162 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5546 times:

NWAESC thank you for posting that information and saving me from having to respond and write all that information myself.

I may not know about ALL the logistics when it comes to mergers, but I do know our contract language and I do understand how it works. What you posted is spot on.

The NWA FA's scope language will be the strongest guiding post with respect to seniority integration and the flight attendants. Our language will actually provide protection to the Delta flight attendants as well.

To address a few statements...NWA and Delta do not have equal amounts of flight attendants. What they might have is a proportional ratio. Delta has approximately 13,000 (but is hard to verify because Delta does not have to provide a seniority list; although they might I do not know) and NWA has approximately 8000 flight attendants. I can tell you that 13,000 is not equal to 8,000, but it certainly is 2 times either. Let's deal with the facts and the truth here.

As NWAESC reposted first thing to happen in the MERGER (and it is a merger with name retention), is that Delta would have to sign off and recognized the NWA FA scope language with respect to seniority integration and LPP's.

Next things is to create a fence and trackage.

Move forward with merger and Union vote only if Delta Flight Attendants reject AFA's current bid with the NMB. The wisest for everyone all ways around is to vote in AFA (it doesn't matter if you love or hate 'em). This in essence would open our contract and carry the benefits from our contract forward and allow AFA to add other things to the contract.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 17):
If the election results in a NO Vote, i.e., DL and NW Flight Attendants vote no to having AFA as their union. There would be NO UNION

I do not believe that it can be as cut and dry as saying, 8000 of plus 35% of 13,000 equals union representation. There are many many NWA flight attendant who are already discussing and saying that they will not vote for a union for hundred of various reasons from pay issues to feeling lied to the very close vote on the last contract. Flight attendants can be emotional voters (for example some my seniority at Delta makes almost $6 more an hour than I do). Do I make an emotional decision or a rational one. Right now my rational and logical side says that I DO NOT WANT to be without a contract. Especially in light of the scope protections for our international flying. NWA FA's own positions on every aircraft that takes off with our pilots except those that leave Tokyo and fly south and west with in certain longitude and latitude.

And finally, here is a break down of NWA Flight Attendants seniority based on year that was emailed to be by a friend so I am trusting that it is accurate:

YEAR           SEN#            TOTAL
76 631-741 110
77 742-883 141
78 889-1057 168
79 1058-1462 404
80 1463-1563 100
81 1564-1665 101
82 1666-1687 21
83 1688-2237 549
84 1793-1966 173
85 1967-2454 487
86 2455-2759 304
87 2760-2856 96
88 2857-3222 365
89 3223-3847 624
90 3848-4501 653
91 4502-4702 200
92 4703-5110 407
93 5111 1
94 5112 1
95 5113-5300 187
96 5301-5780 479
97 5781-6051 270
98 6052-6374 322
99 6375-6660 285
2000 6661-6938 277
01 6939-7026 87
2007 7027-7930 903

If anyone from Delta has similar information it would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

NWADTWFA


User currently offlineQQflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2275 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5501 times:



Quoting NWADTWFA (Reply 18):
The NWA FA's scope language will be the strongest guiding post with respect to seniority integration and the flight attendants. Our language will actually provide protection to the Delta flight attendants as well.



Quoting NWAESC (Reply 16):
Now, on the senority issue. NWA AFA has scop language in their contract which must be adhered to by NWA and the resulting company of the combo. That guarantees our DOH on any senority list at a carrier operated by NW pilots or former NW pilots under a merged company.

Non Union Delta FA's have a promise and a legally NON binding piece of paper "promising" fair and equitable integration, that does not mean DOH. We are guaranteed nothing LESS...legally. That is not the case with a Non union carrier.

This is how it used to work. If you read my post above, Senator McCaskill's legislation changes that now. Of course, the scope clause can be the guide post for determining seniority, but the DL F/As will most certainly object, in which case, under the new law, a federal arbitrator will decide seniority integration and it will be binding. Sen. McCaskill legislated away our right to negotiate on this topic.



The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5401 times:



Quoting NWADTWFA (Reply 18):
The wisest for everyone all ways around is to vote in AFA (it doesn't matter if you love or hate 'em).

Wisest? O, sage, enlighten me! (sarcasm, don't really) I've had my dealings with unions and IMO the only ones who really make out are the union leaders and cronies (they're the ones who know contracts).

Quoting NWADTWFA (Reply 18):
There are many many NWA flight attendant who are already discussing and saying that they will not vote for a union for hundred of various reasons from pay issues to feeling lied to the very close vote on the last contract. Flight attendants can be emotional voters (for example some my seniority at Delta makes almost $6 more an hour than I do). Do I make an emotional decision or a rational one. Right now my rational and logical side says that I DO NOT WANT to be without a contract.

In whose opinion is it rational? A union representative, perhaps? And as for flight attendants being emotional.....just because they don't vote for a union? Please, try that reverse logic on someone less experienced. The only rational decision is to NOT vote for a union. This, from someone who got SCREWED by their 'union'. Just the term 'union' makes me puke!

I M O A union will poisin the camaraderie that exists at Delta. We are quite happy and not in any need of a union.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5365 times:



Quoting Panamair (Reply 9):
So a 1964 hire at Pan Am essentially became a "1972 hire" for example when integrated into DL

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl  If there is even still one of those on board, what a way to lower meals served and bring up the amount of alcohol served! lol


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11554 posts, RR: 61
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Well, labor integration will be just one of the many challenges that will face a prospective Delta-Northwest merger, or any airline merger for that matter. It will be particularly interesting to watch in this case, and in the case of the flight attendants, especially, since NW has AFA on the property and Delta - at least as of now - has no FA union.

It is obvious where the lines will fall. NW AFA is going to want DOH, as they know their FAs are probably far more senior, of average, and they know that they have their contract in force with NW at present that guarantees them DOH in any chance of control transaction. (However, as QQ's posts illustrate, that agreement may not be worth the paper its printed on if Delta's FAs object, which they of course will.) From the Delta side, there is no way they are going to just happily go along with blanked DOH for everyone without some sort of a fight, as they know what NW AFA does - NW's FAs are likely more senior. However, on the flip side, NW AFA will probably never willingly go along with anything but DOH, as NWAESC's post clearly illuminates/articulates.

The only compromise I could possibly see them working out is some sort of a fence arrangement, but that would be costly, complex, and divisive. But, alas, I see no other alternative if NW AFA demands strict DOH, and Delta's FAs insist otherwise. Perhaps the hypothetical (at least as of now) combined company could give everyone strict DOH, as long as they say on their side of the fence - i.e., Delta (ATL/CVG/SLC/JFK/BOS/LAX) vs Northwest (DTW/MSP/MEM/BOS/JFK/LAX/SFO/SEA/HNL). But, there too, there are problems. What happens in places where their FA domiciles overlap, like LAX and JFK? Would NW's New York-based FAs still only be permitted to bid lines routing through DTW/MSP/MEM? Would Delta's LAX-based FAs not be allowed to fly LAX-NRT?

It's complicated and difficult, and there's absolutely no easy solution, which is why this has the potential to be quite a headache for the combined company's management.

Quoting QQflyboy (Reply 19):
Sen. McCaskill legislated away our right to negotiate on this topic.

Funny, isn't it? Considering how Claire seems to be acting as if she has cornered the market on being "labor's best friend" by getting this bill on the books.

[Edited 2008-02-18 15:31:44]

User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5231 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 14):

Last I heard, they had enough votes but that has happened in the past many many times.

Not exactly.... They have enough signatures to force another election. Very often, FA's will sign the card just to get the pro-union crewmember out of their galley. They might not support the union, but its easier to "go along to get along", rather than be singled out by the union rep.

Luckily, representation elections are conducted by secret ballot (tho' the unions would like to change this). The union needs a very strong "yes" turnout, because not voting at all is effectively a "no" vote.


User currently offlineAddi375 From France, joined Jun 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

Do it like AF KL all the way.
One governing board and the two companies operate separate
All the DL folks do there things from their bases.
All the NW folks do there things for their bases.

Places where DL is strong, DL does everything, and likewise places where NW is stronger brand, they do things and then the shared cities are just that shared....or is my view to simplistic?



Walmart prices with Bloomies service...........
25 Jetjack74 : Yes it is. But a fence for FA's makes zero sense. Fences are constructed purely for pilots to stop the arbitrary booting off of certian aircraft flow
26 Chgoflyer : Arent the NWA f/a represented by the Teamsters?
27 Jetjack74 : No, we voted out the International Brotherhood of Teamsters(IBT) in favour of the Professional Flight Attendants Association(PFAA) in 2003. Under the
28 DeltaL1011man : lets see EA(gone final nail was the strike) TW(yea there union sure saved there asses) and the now NW MX union(well now exNW MX) year after year you
29 USAFDO : I am hearing all kinds of talk about the "pilots getting a seat at the table". Why is it that nothing is being said, for example about the already uni
30 DeltaL1011man : 1) DALPA has a non-voting member of the BOD 2) DL's FA's are not Union so there isn't much they can do. (note this is on the Delta side i don't know
31 FlyASAGuy2005 : That's very interesting in that that seems to be human nature! "Ok, i'll sign!" (now thinking in head) "Get out of my hair!"
32 Breaker1011 : At the end of the day, your point is interesting, as there are more ground airport service agents (inside, outside, and reservations) than either the
33 Jetjack74 : Actually, the Eastern Mechanics union accomplished what NW mechanics couldn't which was to shut down the airline. Depending on what your feelings are
34 Breaker1011 : Very interesting, I haven't heard that before regarding protection from complaints. But, it goes a long way to explain the customer-facing behavior I
35 Jetjack74 : Could be a different culture. I don't know. But my comforts rest in a set contract. I don't want bribes, I want a contract. Because the compnay can t
36 Post contains images DeltaL1011man : No! my dad is in the CWA and if the AFA is half as bad run run away fast Delta!!!! Ok here is my question for you now. If you shut the airline down w
37 Breaker1011 : I know the type of entity you speak of, trust me. I think of it this way - for 80+ years, DL has stayed largely non-union. Organizations come in to t
38 Post contains images Ocracoke : Was there only one flight attendant hired in both 1993 and 1994? Must have made for a small class those years! HUH? If you have 15,000 flight attenda
39 Goaliemn : there will be a vote. That will decide it. Does the merged company have to abide by a contract they didn't sign? Could the companies maintain seperat
40 QQflyboy : My negotiated contract has specific provisions to protect my seniority in th event of a merger/buyout. I don't like the federal government telling me
41 Pope : Yes. That's the difference between a merger and an asset purchase. In a merger, the surviving entity has successor liability for the obligations of t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USAirways Proposes Merger With DL Part 2 posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:08:22 by LawnDart
DL/NW Merger Effects On GRB,TVC,MBS, Etc...? posted Sun Feb 17 2008 20:43:19 by Maiznblu_757
DL-NW Merger: Fleet Outcome posted Thu Feb 7 2008 06:52:00 by DL767captain
Pardus/Bethune Say DL/NWA Too Messy posted Fri Jan 11 2008 06:08:56 by Lowecur
DL/NWA Buzz..what Hub City Will Be Casualty? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 06:44:37 by Lowecur
Help With DL Registrations? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 19:30:50 by WesternA318
What's Up With DL's Nonstop LAX-ANC? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 11:10:47 by AA737-823
Dalpa Opposes DL+UA Merger posted Tue Nov 20 2007 16:10:59 by SLCUT2777
What Would A Possible DL/NW Merger Look Like? posted Fri Oct 19 2007 23:00:40 by Jrlander
MIA-MCO With DL In The '80s posted Fri Sep 7 2007 10:19:06 by LY777