NWA to Joint NWA/DAL agreement - flowback resolution.

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
confidential source said:
This NWA LOA was incorporated into the Delta JPWA (joint contract). It is binding on all DCI carriers operating jets of 51+ seats after the date of the agreement.

LETTER 2006-10
(Feeder Carrier Hiring)
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
between
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.
and
THE AIR LINE PILOTS
in the service of
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.
as represented by
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
This Letter of Agreement is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by and between Northwest Airlines, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) and the Air Line Pilots in the service of Northwest Airlines, Inc. as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (hereinafter referred to as “ALPA”).
WHEREAS, the Company and ALPA have agreed to certain modifications (the “Modifications”) of the NWA/ALPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “ALPA Agreement”) in furtherance of the Company’s effort to successfully restructure through the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process; and
WHEREAS, all such Modifications embodied in this Letter of Agreement and others to be executed on the same date as this Letter of Agreement, will, when executed, resulted in a revised ALPA Agreement (the “ALPA Restructuring Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Modifications embodied in this Letter of Agreement pertain to the agreement of the parties to provide for employment opportunities for laid off Company pilots at Feeder Carriers (as that term is defined in Section 1 B.7.c.(1) of the ALPA Restructuring Agreement) and employment opportunities at the Company for certain pilots of certain Feeder Carriers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the undersigned parties do hereby agree as follows:
A. Definitions.
1. “Participating Feeder Carrier” means a Domestic Air Carrier that is a Feeder Carrier (both as defined in Section 1 B.7.a. and Section 1 B.7.c.(1) of the Agreement) that has contracted with the Company to operate Qualifying Aircraft.
a. “Category 1 Participating Feeder Carrier” means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is an Affiliate of the Company.
b. “Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier” means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is not an Affiliate of the Company and that operates Qualifying Aircraft that are owned, financed, leased, or sub-leased by the Company (not including the AVRO85 replacements at Mesaba Airlines).
c. “Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier” means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is not an Affiliate of the Company and that operates Qualifying Aircraft that are not owned, financed, leased or sub-leased by the Company.
2. “Qualifying Aircraft” means a 51-76 seat aircraft as defined in Section 1.B. 7.c.(1) of the ALPA Restructuring Agreement.
3. “Eligible Furloughed Pilot” means a pilot whose name appears on the Feeder Carrier Opportunity List.
4. “New Position” means a (Captain or First Officer) position on a Qualifying Aircraft that is created at a Category 1 or Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier as a result of a Participating Feeder Carrier’s taking delivery of, or announcing firm delivery of, Qualifying Aircraft after the effective date of the ALPA Restructuring Agreement. The number of New Positions at a Participating Feeder Carrier shall be determined without regard to whether pilots employed by the Participating Feeder Carrier are furloughed or remain on furlough.
5. “New Hire Position” means a New Pilot position at a Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier.
6. “Backfill Position” means a position (Captain or First Officer) on a Qualifying Aircraft at a Participating Feeder Carrier that becomes open when an Eligible Furloughed Pilot vacates that position.
7. “Feeder Carrier Opportunity List” means the list maintained by the NWA MEC Membership Committee after review by all Participating Feeder Carriers pursuant to the terms of this Letter of Agreement.
B. Offers of Opportunity (Filling of Vacancies)
1. A Category 1 Participating Feeder Carrier shall make 100% of New Positions (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Positions available to Eligible Furloughed Pilots.
2. A Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier shall make 50% of New Positions (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Positions available to Eligible Furloughed Pilots, subject to conditions and restrictions that provide for efficient and timely processing and hiring of such Eligible Furloughed Pilots.
3. The Company will provide enhanced opportunities for a laid off Company pilot to obtain pilot employment at a Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier. As part of the negotiation of a new ASA agreement, or to amend an existing ASA agreement with a Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier, the Human Resources Departments of the Company and such Feeder Carrier will develop a mutually acceptable program that will serve to provide laid off Company pilots who meet all other pilot hiring criteria defined by such Feeder Carrier with “additional weighting” relative to other pilot candidates not already employed by such Feeder Carrier. Nothing in this program will guarantee that any laid off Company pilot will be hired ahead of other candidates who are not laid off Company pilots.
C. This Letter of Agreement shall become effective on the date set forth in Paragraph O. of Restructuring Letter of Agreement Number 1 (Letter 2006-01), and shall run concurrently with the NWA/ALPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, including any status quo period under the Railway Labor Act.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have signed this Letter of Agreement this 31st day of July, 2006.

For AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Duane E. Woerth President
NWA MEC Chairman
Chairman Negotiating Committee (Northwest)
Member Negotiating Committee (Northwest)
Member Negotiating Committee (Northwest)

For NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.
Vice President Labor Relations
Vice President Flight Operations/SOC
Director Flight Administration

So, DCI comrades. . .where do you sit?

Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3.

Nevertheless, here comes the further downward pressure from the top.

Save our jobs, push everyone else down.

I suppose we can just be happy Age 65 will hit AT SOME POINT in the future.
 
Okay, I can see this as a "flow back," but I'm lost in the legalise on how a "flow up" work work from the DCI carriers. Would seem Compass, XJ and Comair are Cat 1, Pinnacle is a Cat 3 for ATL (we own the -900s), but a Cat 2 for MEM, DTW and MSP (Delta owns the -200s). So are we a "Cat 2.5?"
 
Okay, I can see this as a "flow back," but I'm lost in the legalise on how a "flow up" work work from the DCI carriers. Would seem Compass, XJ and Comair are Cat 1, Pinnacle is a Cat 3 for ATL (we own the -900s), but a Cat 2 for MEM, DTW and MSP (Delta owns the -200s). So are we a "Cat 2.5?"

Pinnacle = Cat 3. DAL owns the 50 seaters. This only pertains to the 51+ seat aircraft which you guys own. Get rid of the ex Mesa birds as fast as you can:buck:.
 
So basically, every single DCI carrier (well, except the CAT 3 guys) just lost control of their seniority list in exchange for absolutely nothing in exchange.

Let me be the first to say you guys just got ######. Bad.
 
So basically, every single DCI carrier (well, except the CAT 3 guys) just lost control of their seniority list in exchange for absolutely nothing in exchange.

Let me be the first to say you guys just got ######. Bad.

Keep in mind that the company, not the pilots or union, (if there is one,) controls the seniority list, and Surreal didn't post the whole story. ASA and Comair are apparently exempted from this due to the Ford/Cooksey settlement.
 
Keep in mind that the company, not the pilots or union, (if there is one,) controls the seniority list, and Surreal didn't post the whole story. ASA and Comair are apparently exempted from this due to the Ford/Cooksey settlement.

I didn't post the whole story because I wasn't aware that there was another side of the story.

I'd love to hear what the rest of the story is though.

My local leadership has been pretty quiet on what exactly this resolution means when it is placed within the Delta JPWA. We get told they're merely volunteers, and provide us with little information to base any decisions off of. Which, I'm sorry I don't have the whole story, because no matter who I goto, I don't get the whole damn story - just that - It won't affect us.

Well, why the hell not?

If you have some time, I wouldn't mind actually getting the rest of the story that I'm without.

edit at 2000: Now that I know what the Ford/Cooksey settlement is, Cptnchia, would you care to expound on how exactly Comair and ASA are exempt from this resolution should it find its way into the New Delta PWA?
 
Pinnacle = Cat 3. DAL owns the 50 seaters. This only pertains to the 51+ seat aircraft which you guys own. Get rid of the ex Mesa birds as fast as you can:buck:.

Yeah, missed the definition of "qualifying aircraft" on the first read through. I think you guys already got one of the POS Mesa birds. Maybe two. Have fun with those. :)

The way I read this, if a pilot is furloughed from mainline, they can get a CAPTAIN slot at a Cat 1 or Cat 2 carrier? THAT'S gonna tick some people off.
 
Yeah, missed the definition of "qualifying aircraft" on the first read through. I think you guys already got one of the POS Mesa birds. Maybe two. Have fun with those. :)

The way I read this, if a pilot is furloughed from mainline, they can get a CAPTAIN slot at a Cat 1 or Cat 2 carrier? THAT'S gonna tick some people off.

I Just want a break down of what airlines are under CAT 1 and CAT 2.
 
I Just want a break down of what airlines are under CAT 1 and CAT 2.

Cat 1's easy: wholly owned. Compass, XJ and Comair.

Cat 2 is a bit more complicated since I don't know who owns their own 51+ seat aircraft other than Pinnacle. Basically, if you're flying airplanes owned or leased by Delta, you're Cat 2. If you own the leases, you're Cat 3.
 
edit at 2000: Now that I know what the Ford/Cooksey settlement is, Cptnchia, would you care to expound on how exactly Comair and ASA are exempt from this resolution should it find its way into the New Delta PWA?

Because it violates the settlement agreement. Since only Comair and ASA were parties to the lawsuit, only they are exempt. At least according to some DALPA higher ups.
 
I would be very surprised if Ford/Cooksey exempts them from being party to this agreement. The Ford/Cooksey settlement did the following:

1. ALPA paid a fraction of the plaintiffs' legal costs
2. ALPA agreed to modify the Admin Manual to require mainline and feeder carriers to have talks prior to any scope negotiations that would affect the other party

To the best of my knowledge, those are the only items in the settlement, and neither should exempt ASA or CMR. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
 
I would be very surprised if Ford/Cooksey exempts them from being party to this agreement. The Ford/Cooksey settlement did the following:

1. ALPA paid a fraction of the plaintiffs' legal costs
2. ALPA agreed to modify the Admin Manual to require mainline and feeder carriers to have talks prior to any scope negotiations that would affect the other party

To the best of my knowledge, those are the only items in the settlement, and neither should exempt ASA or CMR. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

I think that falls under #2. If I read what you wrote correctly, then the DALPA MEC should have had talks requarding this LOA before it was included in the new joint agreement. I think that's why DALPA leaders are saying that Comair and ASA are exempt, due to the fact that there were no meetings between DCI MEC's and DALPA MEC on this LOA. The DCI MEC's other than Mesaba and Compass are just now learning about this LOA.
But there is one ray of sunshine for the DCI carriers and that is that the LOA doesn't count the current 51-76 seat aircraft already distributed to DCI regionals including the ones coming from the factory, since they were already earmarked to go to Mesaba, Comair and Mesa, before the LOA was included. Now if Delta were to offer new aircraft to any DCI carriers..then those who took those new aircraft would be subject to the LOA.

Can anyone from Mesaba chime in as to if the -900's are replacements for the Avro's? If they are then they are not subject to the LOA, per A1b of the LOA.
 
Can anyone from Mesaba chime in as to if the -900's are replacements for the Avro's? If they are then they are not subject to the LOA, per A1b of the LOA.


Not at XJ, but watched the whole bankruptcy charade pretty closely. I don't think the ever mentioned the -900s being Avro replacements. They were a new "growth" vehicle. The Avros were shed in a "cost savings" move. I'm honestly not sure if XJ or NWA owned the Avros. My gut instinct is NWA since they're (or were) control freaks. Although reading the LOA, it would seem Delta defines them as such. Odd thing is, they mention "Avro85 repleacement" under Cat 2, which XJ is obviously a Cat 1 carrier.

As far as this being a "scope" issue, one could argue that it doesn't apply since it doesn't limit or expand any number of airframes being flown or negatively affect job security. No jobs would be lost at the regionals since it only applies to "new" or "vacated" positions.
 
...doesn't limit or expand any number of airframes being flown or negatively affect job security. No jobs would be lost at the regionals since it only applies to "new" or "vacated" positions.

You're right, it doesn't limit or expand.

What it does is, should any "new" or "vacated" positions open up, those on furlough status would stay on furlough status and Delta furloughed pilots would have first chance at getting a job back, while everyone else who was at the company before hand is still out on the street.

If that's not negatively affecting job security. . .what is?
 
You're right, it doesn't limit or expand.

What it does is, should any "new" or "vacated" positions open up, those on furlough status would stay on furlough status and Delta furloughed pilots would have first chance at getting a job back, while everyone else who was at the company before hand is still out on the street.

If that's not negatively affecting job security. . .what is?

I can see that, too. I wonder if there's gonna be some sort of legal clarification or are we in for yet another Delta court fiasco.....
 
This language, if carried into the final Delta JPWA will certainly revive the RJDC individuals.

Whatever the merits of the initial RJDC lawsuit, RJDC v2.0 (so long as it addresses this language) will hopefully put an end to this type of BS.
 
This language, if carried into the final Delta JPWA will certainly revive the RJDC individuals.

Whatever the merits of the initial RJDC lawsuit, RJDC v2.0 (so long as it addresses this language) will hopefully put an end to this type of BS.


This is one of the reasons why you won't see Comair or ASA included. As long as DALPA doesn't press the issue with them, the fetid corpse of the RJDC remains buried. That is the deal struck with Ford/Cooksey. You're ASA, you should be happy.

As an aside, the final language of the JPWA already exists.
 
Plus it only applies to future airplanes, and if I remember correctly DL is already at its maximum limit of 70+ seat airplanes.

As for job security, it all depends on the perspective that you look at it. Surreal, from your standpoint it could stagnate the list at a regional, so you think its bad. From the major airline standpoint, its a better security for the DC9 FO that just got his job shipped to Feeders R US.

I think its time for that southpark clip

[yt]Q2fGl9587X8[/yt]
 
As for job security, it all depends on the perspective that you look at it. Surreal, from your standpoint it could stagnate the list at a regional, so you think its bad. From the major airline standpoint, its a better security for the DC9 FO that just got his job shipped to Feeders R US.

Believe it or not, I'm not that short sighted.

But yes, it is all about perspective. The same perspective that created the first RJDC issues is the same perspective and power grab that will ignore RJDC v2.0.
 
This language, if carried into the final Delta JPWA will certainly revive the RJDC individuals.

Whatever the merits of the initial RJDC lawsuit, RJDC v2.0 (so long as it addresses this language) will hopefully put an end to this type of BS.

Just say no to RJDC. :banghead:
 
Back
Top