National Seniority Protocol

[PCL_128]

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.

You're still not understanding how the process works. The language in the resolution that describes what you're talking about isn't finalized. That language goes to a "break-out" committee at the BOD that has nothing to do with the seniority committee that's discussed in that resolution. The BOD committee will look at that resolution and make any changes that they consider necessary. The BOD committee that does this will probably be pretty much evenly split between B-carrier and A-carrier pilots, possibly with a slight edge for the B-carrier pilots. They will be able to change the language for the seniority committee to require more reps from the regionals. It could also be changed from the BOD floor. That language that you're hung up on isn't binding on anybody yet, and it has nothing to do with the committee at the BOD that will edit the language.

 

[FightingIrish]

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

I understand that, but the resolution here says Executive Board Sept 9 and 10. Does that mean it is going to the EB first?

 

[PCL_128]

I understand that, but the resolution here says Executive Board Sept 9 and 10. Does that mean it is going to the EB first?

Yes, in this case the UAL MEC specifically decided to send it to the EB first. If the EB rejects it, then the UAL MEC would probably still have time to this placed on the BOD agenda, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see the EB pass a modified version of this resolution, which would change some of the language that we're arguing about here.

 

[Spicepilots]

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.

I find it interesting that PCL's argument is all about monetary expectations. If that is truely all that the NSL is about, we have a serious problem. If a 20 year UAL veteran is going to come to SKYW, at what level will he be paid? The SKYW 20 year rate? The UAL rate? What if he was on the 737 vs. the 747? If it's going to be what he was GETTING paid, why would SKYW be held accountable for allowing said pilot to continue to live the life to which he has become accustomed at another carrier which they had no control over?? Legally, that's impossible.

If it's not about how much money and more about just having A job, then it shouldn't matter what size airplane you fly. We all fly self-loading cargo, and I daresay we all know that at the end of the day, your job gets easier the further up the chain you go, so I fail to see your reasoning why length of service at a major is more valuable than a regional pilot's. Are we really still in the mindset that bigger iron makes you more of a "REAL" pilot? Yes, I'll concede that flying 300 passengers into Bejing or Mumbai involves a fair amount more risk and responsibility than taking 50 people from DEN to Rapid City, SD. The problem is, a furloughed UAL pilot at SKYW will be doing just that: DEN to RAP (over and over and over...) Why should he get paid more and have instant superseniority because of what he USED to do?

If inroads are really going to be made, we have to stop the wild assumption that the longer you've had your @ss in the seat, the better you are. This, of course, would never happen, because let's say we make pay based on hours flown rather than years of service (just as irrelevant). Thus, when I (no turbine PIC) get hired at DAL along with a guy who has 4000 hours of 121 turbine PIC, he gets paid commensurate with his experience and more than I do. Just like a seasoned cardiologist would get paid more than a kid fresh out of med school. The problem with that is, where is the incentive for DAL to hire the regional captain?? Sure, he's flown more hours without killing anyone and proven he has some level of command ability, but he's a drain on the bottom line. Of course, we all know a merit-based pay system would be completely impossible to impliment and would go over like a lead balloon anyway.

Seniority is everything. It dictates where you can be based, what equipment you can fly, and whether or not you get to see your kids on weekends and holidays. But if the option is to abrogate my seniority in my corner of the industry with the hollow promise that it establishes my place in line to one day maybe get hired at a carrier that might not even exist a few years from now... I'd rather leave the system as it is. This may just be impossible to fix, and UAL's attempts to do so now stink of desperate opportunism as their ship starts to go down in flames.

 

[GeekMaster]

Spicepilot,

The resolution is for establishing seniority, not longevity. No airline would EVER give in to paying for another airline's longevity. No NMB would EVER release a pilot group for self-help with other airline longevity on the table. And finally, no U.S. Government entity would stand for the national transportation system to be shut down due to labor strikes at that level. Even ALPA knows they won't acheive longevity protection.

 

[Spicepilots]

Spicepilot,

The resolution is for establishing seniority, not longevity. No airline would EVER give in to paying for another airline's longevity. No NMB would EVER release a pilot group for self-help with other airline longevity on the table. And finally, no U.S. Government entity would stand for the national transportation system to be shut down due to labor strikes at that level. Even ALPA knows they won't acheive longevity protection.

Then what's the point? What do we achieve if your seniority doesn't become portable when they establish the NSL?

 

[GeekMaster]

Then what's the point? What do we achieve if your seniority doesn't become portable when they establish the NSL?

Seniority would be portable. Remember seniority and longevity are two different things. You could have 10 years seniority and year one pay. The point would be that those UAL pilots would go to work for a regional with their seniority and upgrade immediately.....even taking captain seats off the street if the awards were available. They'd just be on year one captains payscale. (it does exist) The airline managements would love that.....year one captains pay.

 

[Flyby1206]

Seniority would be portable. Remember seniority and longevity are two different things. You could have 10 years seniority and year one pay. The point would be that those UAL pilots would go to work for a regional with their seniority and upgrade immediately.....even taking captain seats off the street if the awards were available. They'd just be on year one captains payscale. (it does exist) The airline managements would love that.....year one captains pay.

Would that work in reverse order as well? A 20 yr regional pilot going to a major and taking the first available upgrade?

 

[GeekMaster]

Would that work in reverse order as well? A 20 yr regional pilot going to a major and taking the first available upgrade?

That would all depend on what kind of details the "seniority committee" work out. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Those "benchmarks" mentioned almost certainly mean regional pilots would not receive very favorable treatment in seniority assignments.

 

[Flyby1206]

That would all depend on what kind of details the "seniority committee" work out. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Those "benchmarks" mentioned almost certainly mean regional pilots would not receive very favorable treatment in seniority assignments.

I would imagine this would be a catalyst for airline management to accelerate the shift of flying from majors to regionals. Why not downsize mainline flying and send those 20yr payscale pilots down to the regionals to start over at yr 1 pay.

I liked the idea of a universal start date (like Jan 1 2009) for a NSL to start and everyone being equal and starting to accrue seniority from that day forward. No it wouldnt be a quick fix, but usually the quick resolutions are the ones that come back to bite us later. Is this proposal from UAL so they can look out for themselves specifically? Or the industry as a whole?

 

[PCL_128]

Spicepilot,

The resolution is for establishing seniority, not longevity. No airline would EVER give in to paying for another airline's longevity. No NMB would EVER release a pilot group for self-help with other airline longevity on the table. And finally, no U.S. Government entity would stand for the national transportation system to be shut down due to labor strikes at that level. Even ALPA knows they won't acheive longevity protection.

You are wrong, my friend. ALPA has already been working on a longevity system that the regional MECs have all been discussing for making longevity portable. This has been in the works for about a year. Portable longevity would be negotiated into each contract. You claim that the NMB would never go for it, but that depends on who's NMB you're talking about. Yes, the McBush NMB never would, but an Obama NMB quite possibly would.

 

[GeekMaster]

I would imagine this would be a catalyst for airline management to accelerate the shift of flying from majors to regionals. Why not downsize mainline flying and send those 20yr payscale pilots down to the regionals to start over at yr 1 pay.

I liked the idea of a universal start date (like Jan 1 2009) for a NSL to start and everyone being equal and starting to accrue seniority from that day forward. No it wouldnt be a quick fix, but usually the quick resolutions are the ones that come back to bite us later. Is this proposal from UAL so they can look out for themselves specifically? Or the industry as a whole?

Even with a universal start date, you have to establish some kind of an exact order. Two pilots cannot have exactly the same seniority number. If a seat bid comes open somewhere, there has to be an exact number to determine exactly which pilot gets the seat. The debate is how to determine that exact order without totally screwing the regional pilots. The resolution itself references "career benchmarks" to do that (read-regional pilots haven't acheived the same career benchmark and therefore get less seniority credit). Also, the resolution spells out how the committee will be appointed to work out the seniority formula. In it's present form, regionals would have a decided minority on that committe and therefore unable to stand up for themselves.

UAL "claims" it's for the good of the industry, but make no mistake, it's job insurance for them.

 

[GeekMaster]

You are wrong, my friend. ALPA has already been working on a longevity system that the regional MECs have all been discussing for making longevity portable. This has been in the works for about a year. Portable longevity would be negotiated into each contract. You claim that the NMB would never go for it, but that depends on who's NMB you're talking about. Yes, the McBush NMB never would, but an Obama NMB quite possibly would.

I'd bet a month's pay I'm not wrong. No doubt ALPA might like it but you and everyone else knows that Airline Managements would fight to their last breath. You would basically be telling each airline that they have to pay higher labor cost due to the bad decisions and mismanagement of other airlines. That would actually be big enough to get laws changed....even under Obama.

 

[Flyby1206]

Seems like a thickening of the line between majors and regionals. An "Us vs Them" mindset isnt a way to run a Union in my opinion.

 

[Poahi]

ALPA has already been working on a longevity system ...Portable longevity would be negotiated into each contract.

That's why I say the only way for something like that to work is if ALPA leased pilots to the airlines. Then the internal issue of what each pilot would be paid (and domiciled) by ALPA would be settled within the Assciation and would certainly be a thorny isssue.

Are you suggesting the NMB would force this on the airlines? Why would the airlines go for something like that? And if UAL reduced their workforce dramatically, why wouldn't FedEX, Hawaiian and others attempt to decertify ALPA the next day?

I am all for stabilizing our careers, but many of the ideas I'm hearing are like one way check valves.

 

[GeekMaster]

That's why I say the only way for something like that to work is if ALPA leased pilots to the airlines. Then the internal issue of what each pilot would be paid (and domiciled) by ALPA would be settled within the Assciation and would certainly be a thorny isssue.

Are you suggesting the NMB would force this on the airlines? Why would the airlines go for something like that? And if UAL reduced their workforce dramatically, why wouldn't FedEX, Hawaiian and others attempt to decertify ALPA the next day?

I am all for stabilizing our careers, but many of the ideas I'm hearing are like one way check valves.

Yep! and that's why this resolution is going to fail and fail miserably. It won't even be well received by the other majors.

 

[Poahi]

This is just an observation, but I smell the sweet fragrance of irony. In order to protect the seniority the top at the majors' lists, they want to reclaim the seniority at the regionals they shed 15 years ago, except, of course, if it affects the seniority at the top of the majors' lists. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine ought to be the title of the resolution.

And no comment from UAL pilots?

 

[PCL_128]

Are you suggesting the NMB would force this on the airlines?

No, the NMB doesn't force anything on anyone. I'm saying that a more pro-labor NMB appointed by a Democrat would quite possibly allow a release into self-help over such an issue. That's not "forcing" the airlines to do anything, that's just allowing labor and management to work out their issues as intended by the RLA.

 

[GeekMaster]

No, the NMB doesn't force anything on anyone. I'm saying that a more pro-labor NMB appointed by a Democrat would quite possibly allow a release into self-help over such an issue. That's not "forcing" the airlines to do anything, that's just allowing labor and management to work out their issues as intended by the RLA.

I understand what you're saying but there is a significant problem here. A pilot group is asking it's airline to PAY for the sins and mismanagement of another airline against which it competes. In otherwords, if UAL goes TU, Delta will have to pay every new hire 10 to 20 year wages for the next few years. You want Congress to reform the RLA? That'll do it.

 

[PCL_128]

In otherwords, if UAL goes TU, Delta will have to pay every new hire 10 to 20 year wages for the next few years.

Every other airline would have to do the same, eliminating any competitive problems. All airlines would be stuck with the same system. Yes, DAL would be paying 12 year wages to all new hires, but so would CAL, ALA, etc...