OK3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Posts
- 73
When people propose a SLI that is based on a straight relative seniority they are effectively proposing that all airline pilot jobs flying similar equipment are the same. Therefore the first pilot hired at Virgin America flying the A-320 series can say he has the same quality job as the #1 A-320 pilot at Delta. Because they fly the same equipment this must be true. Using this logic any other factors relating to the quality of employment are not considered. It doesn’t matter that the Delta pilot makes considerably more money that the VA pilot, or that the work rules are much more favorable, retirement is better, or even the much more stable nature of the job at Delta. In non-industry terms, a county court judge and a Supreme Court justice are really the same because they are both judges.
In addition to the stated relative seniority fairness benchmark, under this logic a Captain seat is sacred and must be preserved. It makes no difference if a CA at Airline A makes less that an FO at airline B. Using this logic, the ultimate goal of any pilot is not to make the most money for the least work days, but is to have a fourth stripe on his shirt. Therefore any pilot entering the profession should go to the airline that will get his that stripe as early as possible. Work conditions and pay are irrelevant. A CA at a regional has a better job than an FO at a major, by nature of the fact that he is a CA. A UPS 747 CA has the same job as a Kalitta 747 CA. Using this logic, pay is not a consideration only seat position. In non-industry terms, the CEO of “Bill and Ted’s excellent hot dog stand” is really the same and should be paid the same as the CEO of General Electric because they are both CEOs.
Is this really what the relative seniority people think is “fair and equitable”? I am not and will not propose a particular SLI. Posters have repeatedly stated that relative seniority is the only “fair” way to do an SLI, and I am questioning the logic behind this. Fire away, but please use your mind and don’t try to pick on the specific examples I used. They are intended to be generic in order to tease out the logic behind the assertion.
In addition to the stated relative seniority fairness benchmark, under this logic a Captain seat is sacred and must be preserved. It makes no difference if a CA at Airline A makes less that an FO at airline B. Using this logic, the ultimate goal of any pilot is not to make the most money for the least work days, but is to have a fourth stripe on his shirt. Therefore any pilot entering the profession should go to the airline that will get his that stripe as early as possible. Work conditions and pay are irrelevant. A CA at a regional has a better job than an FO at a major, by nature of the fact that he is a CA. A UPS 747 CA has the same job as a Kalitta 747 CA. Using this logic, pay is not a consideration only seat position. In non-industry terms, the CEO of “Bill and Ted’s excellent hot dog stand” is really the same and should be paid the same as the CEO of General Electric because they are both CEOs.
Is this really what the relative seniority people think is “fair and equitable”? I am not and will not propose a particular SLI. Posters have repeatedly stated that relative seniority is the only “fair” way to do an SLI, and I am questioning the logic behind this. Fire away, but please use your mind and don’t try to pick on the specific examples I used. They are intended to be generic in order to tease out the logic behind the assertion.
