CNBC reports US Air / United in merger talks

[ToThePain]

TWA, you keep referring to the old ALPA merger. It has been changed to include longevity. In my personal opinion they did this asa a direct result of the nic. Not because they favor one group over the other but because it cost them 10 Million in dues money. ALPA is a business like any other, the bottom line dictates policy.


OLD
1.The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, 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.
　
NEW
e. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:
- Career expectations.
- Longevity.
- Status and category.

With all due respect I think you missed the intent of "longevity" when it was added as a consideration. Longetivity is not intended to be DOH but length of actual service at your respective airline. For instance, if you were hired at UAL in 1999, furloughed in 2001, recalled in 2007 and furloughed again in 2010, your "longetivity" or length of service would be 5 years, not 11 years that DOH would have given you. It is also only one consideration. The fact that your respective airline might be going out of business would also be a consideration. The fact that you are a few numbers from holding Captain at your respective airline (career expectations) might also be a factor. No one factor is designated as more important than another.

 

[eaglesview]

With all due respect I think you missed the intent of "longevity" when it was added as a consideration. Longetivity is not intended to be DOH but length of actual service at your respective airline. For instance, if you were hired at UAL in 1999, furloughed in 2001, recalled in 2007 and furloughed again in 2010, your "longetivity" or length of service would be 5 years, not 11 years that DOH would have given you. It is also only one consideration. The fact that your respective airline might be going out of business would also be a consideration. The fact that you are a few numbers from holding Captain at your respective airline (career expectations) might also be a factor. No one factor is designated as more important than another.

I understand longevity..DOH minus time away from the airline, usually due to furlough. I am perfectly ok with a system that uses longevity.

Career expectations are a joke. In the 80's USAir was the place to be, In the 90's when I got hired at UAL I was set for life, now we got Tilton. AWA pilots who are captains now still have the reality of Doug at the helm. Nobody knows how there career would have been without said merger. That is one reason longevity makes so much more sence.

 

[ToThePain]

I understand longevity..DOH minus time away from the airline, usually due to furlough. I am perfectly ok with a system that uses longevity.

Career expectations are a joke. In the 80's USAir was the place to be, In the 90's when I got hired at UAL I was set for life, now we got Tilton. AWA pilots who are captains now still have the reality of Doug at the helm. Nobody knows how there career would have been without said merger. That is one reason longevity makes so much more sence.

Career expectations are difficult to guage. For instance, I have 2 friends (hired late 2004) that were B737 captains at CAL before the 12% cut in domestic capacity. They are looking to be back in that position (with retirements alone) in the next year and a half. A merger with UAL would set that time period back several years. Near term projections on career expectations are easier to forecast, the longer term ones that are multiple years (more than 5 years) are a little more difficult to track.

 

[scoreboardII]

Southwest hired the rejects of the industry in the 80's all the way up to the late 90's.

You got that right, lucky they made it this far....

Another blast from the past clown act:

01-03-2007, 14:37 #15 YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend



Posts: 1,569
Civ/Mil: Civ
A/C Flown: J3 Cub
Ratings: PhD of airplanes
Total Time: 1.5


It has nothing to do with the employees, I think they are great people and are very lucky. The problem is the companies approach to business is absolute cost minimalism...Do not confuse this with profit maximization. In other words SWA analyzes routes for maximum capacity increase on a slim margin. It may be the best in terms of airlines but that's because of such controlled costs. This is called the Southwest effect. If an airline is charging 20 cents a mile, SWA will go into an area and charge 12 cents a mile.

The problem with this approach is that the model assumes exponential growth if you do not raise fares. Simply put SWA will have to raise fares considerably to remain profitable as other airlines match SW prices. This is why SWA load factors have remained consistent over the years. If SW is allowed to grow untamed this is a good thing for pilots, as they pay the best salaries now. However, such growth is physically impossible, which is why, I have said SW will be bankrupt by 2009 if it continues on its current course. They would need over 1000 737's by 2009 to avoid it. They could raise fares and risk the capacity drop if other airlines do not match. Fuel going up in price would also help SW.
__________________
"If you want to fall behind on your peers, aviation is the job for you!"

Sorry YPF, SWA is still cooking...

 

[eaglesview]

Career expectations are difficult to guage. For instance, I have 2 friends (hired late 2004) that were B737 captains at CAL before the 12% cut in domestic capacity. They are looking to be back in that position (with retirements alone) in the next year and a half. A merger with UAL would set that time period back several years. Near term projections on career expectations are easier to forecast, the longer term ones that are multiple years (more than 5 years) are a little more difficult to track.

You are EXACTLY correct. That is why career expectations is a complete farse. (spelling?) Anything that is subjective is not the way to figure out a SLI.

 

[ToThePain]

You are EXACTLY correct. That is why career expectations is a complete farse. (spelling?) Anything that is subjective is not the way to figure out a SLI.

I would say that my friends that are at the cusp of sitting Captain would say that their career expectations are NOT arbitrary but very easy to see and account for. That is why career expectations ares only a factor. Say, for example that CAL and UAL merge, UAL is about to go into another bankeruptcy while CAL is not, should career expectations not be considered. Should someone furloughed from a company (UAL) that has no recall in sight now benefit from a merger an placed in front of me (at CAL) based solely on the fact that the have longer service than me? I think this is why they look at all factors, and weigh on them accordingly.

 

[TWA Dude]

Wow alpa merger policy is great and works well. I can't see where ABCDor E applies to the merger.

You don't have to. That's why it went to arbitration.

 

[eaglesview]

That is why it is only a factor. Say, for example that CAL and UAL merge, UAL is about to go into another bankeruptcy while CAL is not, should career expectations not be considered. Should someone furloughed from a company (UAL) that has no recall in sight now benefit from a merger an placed in front of me (at CAL) based solely on the fact that the have longer service than me? I think this is why they look at all factors, and weigh on them accordingly.

You know something the rest of us don't??

Should the moment someone takes a snap shot of an airline condem those that happened to be out on the street at that moment to being junior to everyone, even a new hire. Their years of service means nothing??

 

[TWA Dude]

TWA, you keep referring to the old ALPA merger. It has been changed to include longevity.

I'm aware of that. Will it make a difference? Nicolau was made well aware of the demographic differences between the East and West. Clearly, his interpretation of career expectations drove his thinking.

ALPA is a business like any other, the bottom line dictates policy.

Finally something we can agree on. Having said that, do you think Prater was smart in the way he handled the Easties after the Nicolau Award was announced?

 

[TWA Dude]

Should the moment someone takes a snap shot of an airline condem those that happened to be out on the street at that moment to being junior to everyone, even a new hire.

How can you attribute career expectations to somebody not even employed by that airline?

Their years of service means nothing??

No, they do mean something, just not as much as you'd like. On the AA web site I can see I'll retire at AA with a seniority number around 400. What's that worth? Until I'm back on the property (if that's what I ultimately choose to do) it's worth zero.