The logic of relative seniority

[OK3]

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.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

First off, when the cycle returns to growth the momentum for a SLI will diminish...

However, what should be explored is portable longevity not seniorty.....

 

[luckytohaveajob]

The rant of a SWA FO pissed about not being able to staple trying to use logic to distract the masses.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

So how does portable longevity work?

Company A's 10 year pilot next to Company B's 10 year pilot?


What if Company A's 10 year pilot is a 2000 hire with 10 year longevity based on the fact he was a ramper or flight attendant with four years as a pilot? How should his 2000 date of hire be rectified with the 10 year Company B pilot who has been a pilot for 10 years?

What if one of the pilots was on a military leave for an extended period?

What if one of the pilots was furloughed and did not receive longevity during a multi-year furlough?

What if one company has pilots furloughed 10 years back compared to the other company who has new hires?

How is longevity realistically equal to a relative seniority situation? Neither one may be fair but the NMB seems to have used one of them twice now in the recent past.

 

[Bwipilot]

OK3: you make a ton of sense to me--but you're not going to win over any Airtran pilots since that will take away their dream integration.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So how does portable longevity work?

Company A's 10 year pilot next to Company B's 10 year pilot?


What if Company A's 10 year pilot is a 2000 hire with 10 year longevity based on the fact he was a ramper or flight attendant with four years as a pilot? How should his 2000 date of hire be rectified with the 10 year Company B pilot who has been a pilot for 10 years?

doesn't seem like a common situation, rather a detail..

What if one of the pilots was on a military leave for an extended period?

Doesn't accrue longevity.

What if one of the pilots was furloughed and did not receive longevity during a multi-year furlough?

Doesn't accrue longevity.

What if one company has pilots furloughed 10 years back compared to the other company who has new hires?

What if? You can think of many 'what ifs'. At what point do you realize that a union can't account for all contingencies of the market place.

How is longevity realistically equal to a relative seniority situation? Neither one may be fair but the NMB seems to have used one of them twice now in the recent past.

As I said... explore...

If a pilot is able to take his seniority with him, then pilots that are junior to him are asked to "pay for it"

Whereas with portable longevity, no pilot is expected to pay for another pilots gains. Rather the company pays the longevity pay rate. Its not perfect and when the hiring boom starts it will be forgotten (this SLI stuff). The trick is getting a company to pay for portable longevity.

 

[OK3]

The rant of a SWA FO pissed about not being able to staple trying to use logic to distract the masses.

Is there an argument there? Do you think the "masses" are incapable of using logic, or is it just you?

 

[Empennage]

Great point!!!

Otherwise it would be known as a windfall. Ref M-C.

 

[jonjuan]

OK3: you make a ton of sense to me--but you're not going to win over any Airtran pilots since that will take away their dream integration.

GuppyWN, wouldn't a better use of 10 beans have been a twelver of Guinness? :cartman:

 

[scoreboardII]

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.

What you say only holds true in a vacuum. You need to consider all factors effecting seniority to trully consider fair and equitable.

QOL

Pay

Upgrade

Etc...

 

[General Lee]

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.

OK3, RESPECTFULLY, let me put this in perspective for you. TWO like sized companies that have similar histories, fleets, and future plans can be merged in perfectly one for one with relative seniority. Now, SWA and AT are not really exactly alike, the same size, or have similar history. BUT, that doesn't mean relative can't be done. Looking at the last couple arbitrated outcomes, if one carrier has a specific operation that is different than the other, then the list can be modified. USAIr East had widebodies flying to Europe from PHL and CLT, and AWA did not. So, Nicelau gave the top 500 spots to USAir East pilots, and then went relative from there to the bottom of the list. Delta and Northwest were about the same, history and game plan wise (both INTL and DOM carriers). But, Delta had more planes and NWA was going to dump some older ones--so the arbitrators did relative seniority, but the numbers were not one for one, more like 2 Delta pilots and then 1 NWA pilot--because of the difference in pilot numbers. Overall, DL and NWA pilots stayed within about 2% of where they were relative to their own original list.

Relative seniority is fair because it keeps you CLOSE to what you were doing before a merger. I still think SWA has been around a bit longer, and they will get the top couple or few hundred spots, but then after that, since both are LCCs, with narrowbodies, and similar plans while both bringing things to the table (slots, INTL ops, etc), it will be very close to relative plus or minus a couple % points. This will all be done AFTER you get a joint contract (same pay) to avoid a USAir/AWA disaster. If SWA merged with VA, the eventual list would favor SWA a lot more because SWA is older and VA is a lot smaller with less to offer, and not profitable . AT, OTOH, is a larger company, offers more, and is profitable (compared to VA).

I can understand (somewhat) your fear and anger. You are nervous about losing time for upgrade and that eventual huge payout. You might worry about losing your base, or being bumped somewhere you don't want to go. Some of those AT guys are very young in the left seat, and that means again a longer wait for you. But, that is what happens when you merge. Future upgrade time is NOT added into the mix by the arbitrators. In the DL/NWA merger, the NWA pilots stood to upgrade a lot faster than the DL pilots because most of the senior NWA pilots stayed at NWA during the BK because they kept their pensions. That did not happen at DL, where many Captains left before BK. That upgrade potential was not awarded to the NWA guys overall. That is just the way the arbitrators saw it. And, a staple just won't happen, and your leader now has a vested interest in making this happen, along with Wall St. Just remember one thing: PEACE AND LOVE BABY, PEACE AND LOVE.

Regardless, you guys are all FANTASTIC PEOPLE. REALLY, I can't believe I AM BEST FRIENDS WITH YOU GUYS! DAMN, I FEEL GREAT ABOUT THAT. And, if you have time this evening, try to PLEASE do something nice for someone or something. Try to feed a giraffe at the zoo a butterfingers candy bar. No, that sound it is making after you fed it is NOT a choking sound, rather it is laughing that you gave him such a treat. Remember, we all like candy! See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[TWA Dude]

Every merger is different. There's no single SLI method that applies to all. My opinion is a SLI should consider the following, in no particular order:

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

Sound familiar?

 

[michael707767]

All things being pretty equal, pay rates, benefits, work rules, retirement, etc, I think relative seniority is the way to go.

But you can't say the #1 guy at Virgin goes in equal to the #1 320 pilot at Delta. Nor can you say the #1 747 pilot at Kalitta goes in with the #1 747 pilot at UPS. You are not making a fair comparison.

As someone else said, no two mergers are the same, so you can't use a one size fits all method.

 

[Max Powers]

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.

Ok, I will bite on this one.......As an AirTran guy - if we go relative seniority I will lose out. Put yourself in my shoes. AirTran stays AirTran I upgrade to CPT in 2 years under the existing aircraft order structure. With relative seniority and a merge into SWA upgrade is a probably a decade off. As a AirTran CPT I would make more under the new AirTran CBA then as a SWA FO.

Using logic I think the only fair way is a relative seniority integration. We do bring a lot to the table and so do you! I hope we become a power house and we grow like weeds with upgrades all around.

 

[General Lee]

Ok, I will bite on this one.......As an AirTran guy - if we go relative seniority I will lose out. Put yourself in my shoes. AirTran stays AirTran I upgrade to CPT in 2 years under the existing aircraft order structure. With relative seniority and a merge into SWA upgrade is a probably a decade off. As a AirTran CPT I would make more under the new AirTran CBA then as a SWA FO.

Using logic I think the only fair way is a relative seniority integration. We do bring a lot to the table and so do you! I hope we become a power house and we grow like weeds with upgrades all around.

Max,

Sounds like you have a good attitude, buddy. Let the arbitrators do it, and they are the perfect people to blame, along with the lawyers. Future upgrade doesn't really matter to the arbitrators, though. Many NWA pilots were looking forward to future upgrades because the majority of the almost age 60 crowd never left NWA because they kept the pensions during BK. That reasoning did not work with the arbitrators, though. It was still close to relative % wise.

When you guys do fully integrate and get paid the same, a lot more of you will be happy. It will be AWESOME. As far as growing like a weed though, I am still trying to figure out which other airports have the necessary slots and gates available for additional growth in this country. Can you think of any? DFW has some open gates in the old DL terminal, and AT tried but failed taking on AA. SWA also has Dallas Love. What else? SWA is already huge in DEN, PHX, MDW, OAK, MCO, TPA, and just started service to MKE, BOS, etc. I don't really know. I think your growth will be with larger planes---getting rid of older 733s and 735s and adding 738s really. You may add some Mexico or maybe some more Caribbean, but I can't think of any more large areas to exploit. CVG maybe? (not a lot of O&D traffic there). Maybe you have some ideas.

Regardless, YOU ALL ARE FANTASTIC, and I KNOW YOU WILL LOVE YOUR MERGER EVENTUALLY. Eventually, it will be AWESOME. And, if you have time today, try to do something nice for someone or something, like giving the ref at your son's soccer match a $20 bill and saying "You guys just don't make enough money and work so hard. My son's team is in blue..." See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee