The logic of relative seniority

[Ty Webb]

Here's a good thread from October.

 

[St. Nic]

This thread is dead- like the farce of "relative" seniority...

 

[xanderman]

What every swinging d!ck has to realize here is that no matter what you think you deserve or are owed or expected your career will end up very different. Get over it! If you haven't realized that yet then you are truly ignorant... I do love the whole "I expected to retire number 3!" BS though. Hell I was supposed to inherit a million dollars from my uncle too! What a bunch of ******************** stains.

 

[Metrojet]

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.

Mich707767 -

First you say "all things being equal - relative seniority is the way to go" - and then in the very next sentence you dispute that? Well what do you really mean then?

Metrojet

 

[doh]

I believe he is saying if two SWAs merged (similar pay, fleet size, etc) then you could expect relative seniority. All things would be about equal. If there are differences, you will see those reflected in the arbitrator's decision. Here, there are differences, so you will get something in-between relative seniority and staple.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Hose:

It's not apples-apples . . . VA is not a profitable carrier; it is still a very risky proposition career-wise. AirTran has a decade of profitability, a half-billion in the bank, 50 aircraft on order, and hiring 22 a month. Regardless, if it is relative seniority, not one AT pilot would move up or down, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

Arguing this stuff isn't going to get us anywhere . . . it seems like it is likely to make things worse for all, not better, so I am going to sit back, decompress, and let the MC's and perhaps Arbitrator work it out. There's really not much we can all do . . . . there's really no sense debating it. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I like to think that I am too, so let's just let our committee folks do their best and agree to accept the final list.

Regards,
Ty

Ty,

Turns out Virgin IS a profitable carrier. If fact they plan to double in the next 18 months. What do you say about my "hypothetical" now? Just curious. Reminder: 2008 number one behind your '93 number 1? Early 2010 captains keeping their seat in front of ALL of your 2006(?) F.O.s?

Fair? Equatable?

Curious...

 

[Ty Webb]

One quarter with an operating profit doesn't make VA a valid comparison. Sorry. If you were talking about Spirit or JEt Blue it would be a more valid comparison.

 

[Lear70]

Is that a threat? What "unintended consequences" do you envision?

Monitors, How far does something like this go before its considered threatening?

It's not personal. It has to be personal before it's considered "threatening".

It's also one of those relative things. I read his comment and hear references to "the destruction of the Southwest culture and angst for decades to come" if the SLI favors AAI pilots too heavily to the detriment of the SWA pilots.

Either way, I didn't see it as a personal attack or threat, just a generic "be careful what you wish for" statement. If it deteriorates into a personal attack (it's rare on here, but it happens), then we step in.

Hope that answers your question.

/mod

 

[Lear70]

Watch the scab reference, ladies and gentlemen. Open discussion of that is not allowed on this forum for legal liability reasons.

Have a question about it? Send someone a PM. (not me, I get too many PM's as it is and can't answer that kind of a question since I'm a mod).

/mod

 

[400ADude]

Watch the scab reference, ladies and gentlemen. Open discussion of that is not allowed on this forum for legal liability reasons.

Have a question about it? Send someone a PM. (not me, I get too many PM's as it is and can't answer that kind of a question since I'm a mod).

/mod

From the Forum Rules Mr Lear 70 guy:

NO SCAB LISTS or links to scab lists may be placed on these forums. No calling a member/non-member a scab. Violators will be permanently banned at first offense if or when the Websitemaster/moderators feel deemed.

You can discuss it according to the rules, just don't post a link to the list or call somebody one.

Show me your reference. The above quote I gave came from the person who manages/owns this site.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

This thread is dead- much like my career...

There, fixed it.

 

[Lear70]

From the Forum Rules Mr Lear 70 guy:

NO SCAB LISTS or links to scab lists may be placed on these forums. No calling a member/non-member a scab. Violators will be permanently banned at first offense if or when the Websitemaster/moderators feel deemed.

You can discuss it according to the rules, just don't post a link to the list or call somebody one.

Show me your reference. The above quote I gave came from the person who manages/owns this site.

The mods also have the authority to moderate other items as they see fit, unless overridden by the webmaster.

A good example would be the limits we've placed on discussing UAir/AWA, CAL/UAL, or SWA/AAI issues in NON-related threads. It's not a website ToS, but it's a rule WE have put in place to keep things from getting out of hand, make the topics STAY on topic (as much as is possible here, which is pretty difficult), and overall make the board more enjoyable to read.

Starting a Scab discussion serves no purpose, and listing the number of scabs at AirTran, both online and/or in the training department, leads people to start asking WHO they are, since the number is so small, and we're just NOT going down that road, since calling any SPECIFIC person a Scab is not allowed.

If you don't like that decision, feel free to email the website owner. I'm not going to discuss the decision further or retract it. It's not an issue of whether I agree with their decision (my record on that issue before I became a mod speaks for itself), it's that keeping it from even being DISCUSSED is the easiest and best way to try to decide which posts go too far and which don't.

/mod

 

[St. Nic]

There, fixed it.

Back to your RJ!

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Back to your RJ!

Back to your furlough!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Lonestar]

Airtran pilots finally got their golden tickets and will quickly make up for lost time (I.E. poor wages, poor QOL). No way in heck a southwest fo will be able to leapfrog an airtran captain. It'll be WWIII.

It's amazing how quickly a lottery winning attitude turns to entitlement...

"Wheah my check at?!"

 

[Whataburger]

Lear...

Why can't skabs be discussed?

 

[Ty Webb]

Why can't skabs be discussed?

That seems to be pretty uniform across the message boards. Not sure about PPRUNE, that may be the exception, since they mostly focus on foreign carriers.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

One quarter with an operating profit doesn't make VA a valid comparison. Sorry. If you were talking about Spirit or JEt Blue it would be a more valid comparison.

Nice spin Ty. VA is a privately held company and does not publish public financial reports, so their true profitability is anyone's guess. What has been made public is the fact that they plan to more than double in 18 months. Uncommon for an unprofitable company. Their upgrade is currently at 1 yearish, yours at about 5.

The differential in pay, benefits, pilot group size, years in business, and future growth plans between AAI and VA, are in similar proportion to SWA and AAI.

My analogy, albeit hypothetical, is very valid.

Now please, answer the question.

Is AAI/VA relative seniority fair and equatable?

Further spin and question dodging indicates to everyone that you do not think that it is fair, but just dont want to say as much. (For the record, I dont think relative would be fair between AAI and VA.)

 

[Lear70]

Why can't skabs be discussed?

It's long been a rule that calling someone a scab or posting a name that is on any such "list" or posting a link to the "list" is not allowed here for legal reasons.

When I started moderating, I took it a step farther and simply said "We're not starting down the road of a thread where it begins innocently enough, then people's names are being thrown out there, people are posting links to the list, etc and it takes us a day or two to get to taking it down."

It's just easier to nip any discussion about it in the bud. We all know how we all feel about it, some of us more vehemently than others. We all know there are some still at AirTran. No reason to discuss it past that, really. There's nothing stopping people from PM'ing about it, that's a private discussion, but not in public debate.

400ADude suspended (again) for 30 days for clearly violating the JUST DISCUSSED rules on discussing Scabs. I came close to banning him permanently, but it's Christmas, and I'm hoping a month to cool his heels will give him a new attitude when he comes back.

/mod

 

[Hamburger]

You're say 35% (or 65%, or 85%) up the list at the previous company and you end up 35% (or 65%, or 85%) up the list at the new company. Done.

It's not that difficult.

The 'windfall' that everyone is so obsessed about..............You received that the day you were hired by a company that was either strong enough to purchase/merge with another or a company what was attractive enough to be bought/merged with another.
It's all a roll of the dice. Both sides of a merger got lucky and neither of you are special in any way beyond you didn't put all your chips on Braniff (or Eastern, or ATA, or Aloha, or Pan Am, or TWA, etc......) Deal with it.