Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Airtran Pilots, Don't buy that new house yet..

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
DOH and Keep your seats!!!! Someone is smoking crack when they use this and "fair and equitable" in the same sentence. How is it fair and equitable when an AT guy will keep his seat, get a huge raise, and get about a 4-5 year bump in seniority. That is not reality. So when we make these long and hart felt appealing post, let's make sure they include a dose of reality next time!
 
I find it funny how guys on both sides are getting wrapped around the axle over something (SLI) that hasn't even happened yet. Let the process work itself out and then we can all biitch about how our MECs screwed us. Then, like everyone else has been saying, first round is on me. Cheers.
 
DOH and Keep your seats!!!! Someone is smoking crack when they use this and "fair and equitable" in the same sentence. How is it fair and equitable when an AT guy will keep his seat, get a huge raise, and get about a 4-5 year bump in seniority. That is not reality. So when we make these long and hart felt appealing post, let's make sure they include a dose of reality next time!

If you kept the same relative senority as you had before, then out of curiosity, how would it hurt you?
 
Last edited:
If you kept the same relative senority as you had before, then out of curiosity, how would it hurt you?

Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?
 
Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?

I understand how your point can breed some resentment however I still don't see how it would impact your career progression or bidding with a ratio integration. An arbitrator will not only look at pay but also career progression to which an argument can be made for a six year AirTran FO that will no longer be upgrading but will have to wait an additional six years to get to the left seat. I understand he will be making more money but pay is only one variable out of many that an arbitrator will factor in.

BTW, not that it matters, unless a lot of your senior pilots want to move to Georgia but the number one guy at AirTran as well as many senior pilots live in Atlanta.
 
Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?

You do realize that DOH has nothing to do with seniority don't you? You don't bid a line, base , vacation or anything else based on your DOH. DOH only affects your longevity for pay, pass privileges, ect. Longevity and seniority are not interrelated.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top