In that case (where a merger never took place) PCL's argument is that the Midwest pilots should have gotten less than DOH (by way of relative seniority) because AT was the younger, faster growing airline. His argument was the same with SW/AT because, again, AT was the younger faster growing airline with quicker promotion. In both cases he was working for the younger, faster growing airline so why wouldn't he want that....who wouldn't in the same position?
Relative seniority always favors the faster growing airline at that moment with the quicker upgrade at the moment. I see his argument, I just don't agree with it. He makes the argument that SW's superior compensation, contract and job security was contractual and therefore could change at a moment's notice so it was not a factor in an integration. At the same time he is assuming that AT's faster growth and upgrades were somehow a situation that would NOT change at a moment's notice and were relevant and should be considered to reflect career expectations. He seems to overlook the fact that while SW's pay and benefits remained untouched through 2008 and 2009 (and no pilot was furloughed) AT went from hiring and upgrading to furloughing and downgrading in an instant. If anything growth and fast promotion is a more temporary and fickle thing than contract quality because it can change drastically very abruptly.
I don't blame PCL and he, along with everybody else, is entitled to his own opinion but fair is a relative term and it all depends on where you stand. I think people on both sides oversimplify the issue, every case is different from others and this would have been an interesting arbitration. I have my own opinion on what an arbitrated list would have looked like and whether it would have ever actually been implemented but it doesn't matter now, it's over and the list is the list for now and forever.
