National Seniority Protocol

[FightingIrish]

Doesn't it have to pass at the Executive Board level before it goes on the the BOD?

 

[PCL_128]

Doesn't it have to pass at the Executive Board level before it goes on the the BOD?

No, you can source a resolution from the MEC level or the EB or EC level.

 

[GeekMaster]

That's not how it works. UAL passed the original resolution at their MEC meeting, but their language isn't final at the BOD. It will be changed in committee and then open for change on the floor of the BOD in plenary session also. The final language will probably be changed quite a bit from what you see in the UAL resolution. The regional pilots can certainly "negotiate" for changes to the language before it is final. Hopefully some good regional reps will make it onto the committee that deals with this resolution at the BOD meeting next month.

I understand the negotiating process. I know the language can be changed during the process. The problem is that with the current language as written, the regionals would have minimal representation. (2-3 but no more than 5 of the 11 votes) Herein lies the problem. There is simply no way to get fair treatment when you don't have fair representation in an event where the majors' reps are interested in their own self preservation.

Furthermore, NONE OF THIS is probably going to matter anyway. If you think the regional guys would cry and whine over a major getting preferential seniority, just wait. Imagine Delta and Continental pilots trying to stomach several thousand unemployed senior UAL pilots coming in and keeping all of their first officers from acheiving upgrades. Scenario: You are a 9 year Delta F/O. The market is finally on the way back up after the liquidation of UAL and the DAL/NWA merger completion. Delta announces hiring 600 over the next year. 600 10+ year seniority UAL pilots say, "Thank you very much, I'll take those Captain slots".

Now sit back and enjoy the screaming......and not from the regional guys

 

[PCL_128]

I understand the negotiating process. I know the language can be changed during the process. The problem is that with the current language as written, the regionals would have minimal representation. (2-3 but no more than 5 of the 11 votes) Herein lies the problem. There is simply no way to get fair treatment when you don't have fair representation in an event where the majors' reps are interested in their own self preservation.

Again, the language that's in that resolution isn't really relevant. The committee that receives that resolution at the BOD will possibly have more B-carrier reps than legacy reps. Remember, the B-carriers have more members than the A-carriers now that AAA/AWA are gone. The language in the resolution that describes the composition of the seniority committee could be changed by the BOD committee that receives the resolution. In fact, the language could even be changed on the BOD floor. There's no reason to get hung up about the language in the current resolution.

 

[GeekMaster]

Again, the language that's in that resolution isn't really relevant. The committee that receives that resolution at the BOD will possibly have more B-carrier reps than legacy reps. Remember, the B-carriers have more members than the A-carriers now that AAA/AWA are gone. The language in the resolution that describes the composition of the seniority committee could be changed by the BOD committee that receives the resolution. In fact, the language could even be changed on the BOD floor. There's no reason to get hung up about the language in the current resolution.

The language is very clear on that. It says that EACH MEMBER of group A gets a rep plus Prater, that's 6. THEN it says each remaining group gets one rep per group for the remaining 5. It was then pointed out by Dointime that regionals don't represent a majority in all of those groups. So now we're down to 2 or 3 true reps for sure but no more than 5. Add to that a very real possibility that T Zerb could end up being one of those reps. Not very promising for fair representation.

 

[PCL_128]

The language is very clear on that. It says that EACH MEMBER of group A gets a rep plus Prater, that's 6. THEN it says each remaining group gets one rep per group for the remaining 5. It was then pointed out by Dointime that regionals don't represent a majority in all of those groups. So now we're down to 2 or 3 true reps for sure but no more than 5. Add to that a very real possibility that T Zerb could end up being one of those reps. Not very promising for fair representation.

You're still not understanding how the process works. The language in the resolution that describes what you're talking about isn't finalized. That language goes to a "break-out" committee at the BOD that has nothing to do with the seniority committee that's discussed in that resolution. The BOD committee will look at that resolution and make any changes that they consider necessary. The BOD committee that does this will probably be pretty much evenly split between B-carrier and A-carrier pilots, possibly with a slight edge for the B-carrier pilots. They will be able to change the language for the seniority committee to require more reps from the regionals. It could also be changed from the BOD floor. That language that you're hung up on isn't binding on anybody yet, and it has nothing to do with the committee at the BOD that will edit the language.

 

[FightingIrish]

No, you can source a resolution from the MEC level or the EB or EC level.

I understand that, but the resolution here says Executive Board Sept 9 and 10. Does that mean it is going to the EB first?

 

[PCL_128]

I understand that, but the resolution here says Executive Board Sept 9 and 10. Does that mean it is going to the EB first?

Yes, in this case the UAL MEC specifically decided to send it to the EB first. If the EB rejects it, then the UAL MEC would probably still have time to this placed on the BOD agenda, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see the EB pass a modified version of this resolution, which would change some of the language that we're arguing about here.

 

[Spicepilots]

It's a matter of career expectations, Joey. No matter how long you work at ASA, you'll never fly a 767 and make $200k per year. The NSL shouldn't provide you with an opportunity to bump the 13 year senior DAL FO from bidding to that 767 slot, because he did have expectations for that slot and income. I'm sorry Joey, but your regional years simply aren't worth as much in terms of career earnings. It's just a simple fact that a 20 year ASA career is worth far less than a 20 year Delta career. You want a windfall (again), and that's just unacceptable.

I find it interesting that PCL's argument is all about monetary expectations. If that is truely all that the NSL is about, we have a serious problem. If a 20 year UAL veteran is going to come to SKYW, at what level will he be paid? The SKYW 20 year rate? The UAL rate? What if he was on the 737 vs. the 747? If it's going to be what he was GETTING paid, why would SKYW be held accountable for allowing said pilot to continue to live the life to which he has become accustomed at another carrier which they had no control over?? Legally, that's impossible.

If it's not about how much money and more about just having A job, then it shouldn't matter what size airplane you fly. We all fly self-loading cargo, and I daresay we all know that at the end of the day, your job gets easier the further up the chain you go, so I fail to see your reasoning why length of service at a major is more valuable than a regional pilot's. Are we really still in the mindset that bigger iron makes you more of a "REAL" pilot? Yes, I'll concede that flying 300 passengers into Bejing or Mumbai involves a fair amount more risk and responsibility than taking 50 people from DEN to Rapid City, SD. The problem is, a furloughed UAL pilot at SKYW will be doing just that: DEN to RAP (over and over and over...) Why should he get paid more and have instant superseniority because of what he USED to do?

If inroads are really going to be made, we have to stop the wild assumption that the longer you've had your @ss in the seat, the better you are. This, of course, would never happen, because let's say we make pay based on hours flown rather than years of service (just as irrelevant). Thus, when I (no turbine PIC) get hired at DAL along with a guy who has 4000 hours of 121 turbine PIC, he gets paid commensurate with his experience and more than I do. Just like a seasoned cardiologist would get paid more than a kid fresh out of med school. The problem with that is, where is the incentive for DAL to hire the regional captain?? Sure, he's flown more hours without killing anyone and proven he has some level of command ability, but he's a drain on the bottom line. Of course, we all know a merit-based pay system would be completely impossible to impliment and would go over like a lead balloon anyway.

Seniority is everything. It dictates where you can be based, what equipment you can fly, and whether or not you get to see your kids on weekends and holidays. But if the option is to abrogate my seniority in my corner of the industry with the hollow promise that it establishes my place in line to one day maybe get hired at a carrier that might not even exist a few years from now... I'd rather leave the system as it is. This may just be impossible to fix, and UAL's attempts to do so now stink of desperate opportunism as their ship starts to go down in flames.

 

[GeekMaster]

Spicepilot,

The resolution is for establishing seniority, not longevity. No airline would EVER give in to paying for another airline's longevity. No NMB would EVER release a pilot group for self-help with other airline longevity on the table. And finally, no U.S. Government entity would stand for the national transportation system to be shut down due to labor strikes at that level. Even ALPA knows they won't acheive longevity protection.

 

[Spicepilots]

Spicepilot,

The resolution is for establishing seniority, not longevity. No airline would EVER give in to paying for another airline's longevity. No NMB would EVER release a pilot group for self-help with other airline longevity on the table. And finally, no U.S. Government entity would stand for the national transportation system to be shut down due to labor strikes at that level. Even ALPA knows they won't acheive longevity protection.

Then what's the point? What do we achieve if your seniority doesn't become portable when they establish the NSL?

 

[GeekMaster]

Then what's the point? What do we achieve if your seniority doesn't become portable when they establish the NSL?

Seniority would be portable. Remember seniority and longevity are two different things. You could have 10 years seniority and year one pay. The point would be that those UAL pilots would go to work for a regional with their seniority and upgrade immediately.....even taking captain seats off the street if the awards were available. They'd just be on year one captains payscale. (it does exist) The airline managements would love that.....year one captains pay.

 

[Flyby1206]

Seniority would be portable. Remember seniority and longevity are two different things. You could have 10 years seniority and year one pay. The point would be that those UAL pilots would go to work for a regional with their seniority and upgrade immediately.....even taking captain seats off the street if the awards were available. They'd just be on year one captains payscale. (it does exist) The airline managements would love that.....year one captains pay.

Would that work in reverse order as well? A 20 yr regional pilot going to a major and taking the first available upgrade?

 

[GeekMaster]

Would that work in reverse order as well? A 20 yr regional pilot going to a major and taking the first available upgrade?

That would all depend on what kind of details the "seniority committee" work out. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Those "benchmarks" mentioned almost certainly mean regional pilots would not receive very favorable treatment in seniority assignments.

 

[Flyby1206]

That would all depend on what kind of details the "seniority committee" work out. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Those "benchmarks" mentioned almost certainly mean regional pilots would not receive very favorable treatment in seniority assignments.

I would imagine this would be a catalyst for airline management to accelerate the shift of flying from majors to regionals. Why not downsize mainline flying and send those 20yr payscale pilots down to the regionals to start over at yr 1 pay.

I liked the idea of a universal start date (like Jan 1 2009) for a NSL to start and everyone being equal and starting to accrue seniority from that day forward. No it wouldnt be a quick fix, but usually the quick resolutions are the ones that come back to bite us later. Is this proposal from UAL so they can look out for themselves specifically? Or the industry as a whole?