National Seniority Protocol

[DoinTime]

I disagree.

That is ridiculous.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It's a matter of career expectations, Joey. No matter how long you work at ASA, you'll never fly a 767 and make $200k per year. The NSL shouldn't provide you with an opportunity to bump the 13 year senior DAL FO from bidding to that 767 slot, because he did have expectations for that slot and income. I'm sorry Joey, but your regional years simply aren't worth as much in terms of career earnings. It's just a simple fact that a 20 year ASA career is worth far less than a 20 year Delta career. You want a windfall (again), and that's just unacceptable.

1. Career expectations are in the eye of the beholder....Career expectations makes for messy integrations....NWA/Republic, AA/TWA, AAA/AWA, and probably DAL/NWA.....Too subjective.....

When I hired on at ASA my career expectations at ASA were never to fly a jet....looks like that is going to change....

2. There are ASA pilots making $130K a year....many Delta pilots don't make that....We can go down a W2 merger policy if you want.....Shall we do that?

3. You said "The NSL shouldn't provide you with an opportunity to bump the 13 year senior DAL FO from bidding to that 767 slot, because he did have expectations for that slot and income."

The NSL shouldn't provide a 7 year DAL FO the opportunity to bump a 9 year ASA Captain....Did the 7 year DAL FO have the expectation to be an ASA captain? After all we are talking expectations....correct? Did any mainline pilot ever expect to bump a regional pilot back and become an RJ captain again? Expectations?


4. You said "I'm sorry Joey, but your regional years simply aren't worth as much in terms of career earnings."

Career earnings now.....OK should a UAL pilot be on the same footing as a FDX pilot....After all a FDX pilot has higher career earnings potential....How about a UAL pilot vs. a DAL pilot....Who has the higher career earnings? Slippery slope and subject to change....

Are ASA/CMR/PDT years worth more than Gulfstream years? Are DAL years worth more than Airtran years? Hmmm.....

5. You said "It's just a simple fact that a 20 year ASA career is worth far less than a 20 year Delta career"

The way things are currently going.....A 20 year ASA career may very well be worth more than a United 20 year career.....An ASA 20 year career is currently worth more than a 20 year USAirways career.....Using your logic, a 20 year ASA pilot can go ahead of a 20 year USAirways pilot.....I don't think that is right....but that is your logic...

6. You said "You want a windfall (again), and that's just unacceptable."

You are the one advocating a windfall for mainline pilots......Where does a 20 year USAirways FO making less than a 20 year ASA Capt. go in your pecking order?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Double post.

 

[PCL_128]

That is ridiculous.

Why? The 18-year NWA pilot has been making more money than a PCL Captain for most of his career. Now he's expected to get bumped under the PCL pilot if his company goes under? That defeats the purpose of an NSL. Someone that has made the decision to be a Pinnacle lifer does so with the knowledge that they will never make more than about $105k per year (under the current agreement), even as a checkairman. But you would expect a 20-year UAL Captain to have to bid under a 21-year PCL Captain if UAL goes tits up? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Why? The 18-year NWA pilot has been making more money than a PCL Captain for most of his career. Now he's expected to get bumped under the PCL pilot if his company goes under? That defeats the purpose of an NSL. Someone that has made the decision to be a Pinnacle lifer does so with the knowledge that they will never make more than about $105k per year (under the current agreement), even as a checkairman. But you would expect a 20-year UAL Captain to have to bid under a 21-year PCL Captain if UAL goes tits up? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

So your advocating a W2 type merger? We can go that way if you want......

 

[PCL_128]

So your advocating a W2 type merger? We can go that way if you want......

Not really. There are problems with that also. As I said, I would support a ratio that slightly reduces credit for regional years. If the 0.75 for 1 method was used, for example, then that would still leave you with 10 years of portable seniority. Not bad, and a hell of a lot better than nothing. I know it bruises your ego, Joey, but you know it would be in your best interest to have such a system in place.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Not really. There are problems with that also. As I said, I would support a ratio that slightly reduces credit for regional years. If the 0.75 for 1 method was used, for example, then that would still leave you with 10 years of portable seniority. Not bad, and a hell of a lot better than nothing. I know it bruises your ego, Joey, but you know it would be in your best interest to have such a system in place.

Sorry....I say no system then....Let's just go our separate ways.......Works for me.....

Why .75 for 1? How about the 20 year USairways FO? Is he the same as a FDX pilot? How about an Air Tran vs. Delta pilot? Who defines "career expectations"? 10 years doesn't get me very far with the USAirways/AWA pilots......nor the United pilots....I say let them apply at the bottom if we can't go 1 for 1......The ALPA Apartheid needs to stop.....

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry....I say no system then....Let's just go our separate ways.......Works for me.....

I would wager that a majority of the pilots at your carrier would disagree. But of course, it's always just about Joey.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I would wager that a majority of the pilots at your carrier would disagree. But of course, it's always just about Joey.

20-30% of all regionals are "lifers".....They control the union at the local level......50% don't care and don't participate at all....they just want PIC time so they can become a real pilot.....That leaves about 20-30% of regional pilots that think like you....

You will need to get the "lifers" on board at the regional level if you want this plan to go forward.....The choice is there.....The "lifers" are ready to go either way.....either together or separate.....

 

[PCL_128]

20-30% of all regionals are "lifers".....They control the union at the local level.

That may be true at some carriers, but not at all. I can only think of two lifers that sat on the MEC at Pinnacle during my tenure. Two out of six voting members doesn't a majority make.

 

[JoeMerchant]

That may be true at some carriers, but not at all. I can only think of two lifers that sat on the MEC at Pinnacle during my tenure. Two out of six voting members doesn't a majority make.

I never said the "lifers" were a majority....but they are a majority of those who get involved at the regional level.....The real majority just don't get involved one way or the other....They just want to stay below the radar screen and get 1000 hours of PIC time and leave.....They don't control anything....

Again....you have to get the "lifers" on board if you are going to get the support of a regional MEC.....

 

[DoinTime]

Someone that has made the decision to be a Pinnacle lifer does so with the knowledge that they will never make more than about $105k per year (under the current agreement), even as a checkairman.

The decision to be a lifer is not always one that can be made and being a lifer does NOT make you a "loser." Medical condition, FAA trouble, or getting into the career later in life (or a protracted industry slowdown) can all lead to an involuntary lifer status.

Good lifestyles and income can be had in the senior ranks at regionals. For someone who isn't young, mobile, and able to take significant risk the jump to major is a hazardous one (as the current round of furloughs shows). Compared to those who left regionals and went to some of the majors just prior to 9/11 the lifers have made way more money, have had a significantly better lifestyles and unmatched job security.

 

[Poahi]

GeekMaster,

Why do you think UAL is doing this? Is it a hail Mary pass? Is there a plan here? What are we missing?

 

[GeekMaster]

GeekMaster,

Why do you think UAL is doing this? Is it a hail Mary pass? Is there a plan here? What are we missing?

I said in an earlier post, the UAL MEC is doing this as a Last Will and Testament for their pilot group. The problem is they're trying to give away something that doesn't belong to them.

As for Joe, Rez and PCL: It's not for us to negotiate the correct version. UAL wrote it and they put the language in there. If it fails and someone else submits a different version, then you might have something.

If you're trying to figure out a fair way, try this one.

Catagory A consists of the majors
Catagory B is the regionals (and others)

A national list in each catagory is kept and time served in each catagory is kept separate. That way if a pilot starts his career at a regional and stays there 6 years, then goes to UAL for 4 years and gets furloughed, he can go back to the regionals and reclaim his 6 years seniority. If UAL goes TU and a super senior 747 capt with 20+ years has 4 years of regional experience under his belt, he can go back with 4 years.

On the other side, if a regional pilot does 8 years and goes to a major, he still starts at the bottom, just like now, on his seniority. He keeps his 8 years as insurance at the regionals.

The problem with a system like this is there is no "net" for the guys who go straight to the majors from the military or elsewhere. They would have no regional seniority. That won't sell. The only solution to that would involve heavy comprimise on both parties and would involve some kind of a "reverse rig". I don't know exactly what would be fair but say a 1:3 rig was in place. Then, a 9 year UAL guy would have 3 years of regional seniority. That would harm "some" of the regional guys and also present the problem of the exregional guys continuing to advance their regional seniority at a 1 to 3 rate.

There IS NO PERFECT SOLUTION!! Straight DOH with any 121 carrier will never fly with our major airline brethren.

 

[PCL_128]

As for Joe, Rez and PCL: It's not for us to negotiate the correct version. UAL wrote it and they put the language in there. If it fails and someone else submits a different version, then you might have something.

That's not how it works. UAL passed the original resolution at their MEC meeting, but their language isn't final at the BOD. It will be changed in committee and then open for change on the floor of the BOD in plenary session also. The final language will probably be changed quite a bit from what you see in the UAL resolution. The regional pilots can certainly "negotiate" for changes to the language before it is final. Hopefully some good regional reps will make it onto the committee that deals with this resolution at the BOD meeting next month.

 

[FightingIrish]

Doesn't it have to pass at the Executive Board level before it goes on the the BOD?

 

[PCL_128]

Doesn't it have to pass at the Executive Board level before it goes on the the BOD?

No, you can source a resolution from the MEC level or the EB or EC level.

 

[GeekMaster]

That's not how it works. UAL passed the original resolution at their MEC meeting, but their language isn't final at the BOD. It will be changed in committee and then open for change on the floor of the BOD in plenary session also. The final language will probably be changed quite a bit from what you see in the UAL resolution. The regional pilots can certainly "negotiate" for changes to the language before it is final. Hopefully some good regional reps will make it onto the committee that deals with this resolution at the BOD meeting next month.

I understand the negotiating process. I know the language can be changed during the process. The problem is that with the current language as written, the regionals would have minimal representation. (2-3 but no more than 5 of the 11 votes) Herein lies the problem. There is simply no way to get fair treatment when you don't have fair representation in an event where the majors' reps are interested in their own self preservation.

Furthermore, NONE OF THIS is probably going to matter anyway. If you think the regional guys would cry and whine over a major getting preferential seniority, just wait. Imagine Delta and Continental pilots trying to stomach several thousand unemployed senior UAL pilots coming in and keeping all of their first officers from acheiving upgrades. Scenario: You are a 9 year Delta F/O. The market is finally on the way back up after the liquidation of UAL and the DAL/NWA merger completion. Delta announces hiring 600 over the next year. 600 10+ year seniority UAL pilots say, "Thank you very much, I'll take those Captain slots".

Now sit back and enjoy the screaming......and not from the regional guys

 

[PCL_128]

I understand the negotiating process. I know the language can be changed during the process. The problem is that with the current language as written, the regionals would have minimal representation. (2-3 but no more than 5 of the 11 votes) Herein lies the problem. There is simply no way to get fair treatment when you don't have fair representation in an event where the majors' reps are interested in their own self preservation.

Again, the language that's in that resolution isn't really relevant. The committee that receives that resolution at the BOD will possibly have more B-carrier reps than legacy reps. Remember, the B-carriers have more members than the A-carriers now that AAA/AWA are gone. The language in the resolution that describes the composition of the seniority committee could be changed by the BOD committee that receives the resolution. In fact, the language could even be changed on the BOD floor. There's no reason to get hung up about the language in the current resolution.

 

[GeekMaster]

Again, the language that's in that resolution isn't really relevant. The committee that receives that resolution at the BOD will possibly have more B-carrier reps than legacy reps. Remember, the B-carriers have more members than the A-carriers now that AAA/AWA are gone. The language in the resolution that describes the composition of the seniority committee could be changed by the BOD committee that receives the resolution. In fact, the language could even be changed on the BOD floor. There's no reason to get hung up about the language in the current resolution.

The language is very clear on that. It says that EACH MEMBER of group A gets a rep plus Prater, that's 6. THEN it says each remaining group gets one rep per group for the remaining 5. It was then pointed out by Dointime that regionals don't represent a majority in all of those groups. So now we're down to 2 or 3 true reps for sure but no more than 5. Add to that a very real possibility that T Zerb could end up being one of those reps. Not very promising for fair representation.