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

Seniority by Date of Hire

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
Register   Log in
I agree, but I think there should be fences to protect current seat position and domicile.

Why some people beleive that their time invested in an airline is worth any more than anybody else's is beyond me.
 
kwick said:
I agree, but I think there should be fences to protect current seat position and domicile.

Why some people beleive that their time invested in an airline is worth any more than anybody else's is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I agree.. for a certain time period.
 
Seniority will be based on years of fighting and backstabbing, arbitration and litigation. That's what happens when millions are at stake. It's unfortunate but here we are...
 
So, let's say Continental and ExpressJet merge. Both have captains with 20+ years. Does the $97 an hour RJ captain with twenty years go above the $138 an hour 737 captain with three years? Windfall anyone?
 
kwick said:
Why some people beleive that their time invested in an airline is worth any more than anybody else's is beyond me.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Why anyone would think time at their airline means anything in how they should be integrated into our list is beyond me. I don't care how long you have been at an airline. Doesn't mean anything.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
So, let's say Continental and ExpressJet merge. Both have captains with 20+ years. Does the $97 an hour RJ captain with twenty years go above the $138 an hour 737 captain with three years? Windfall anyone?
Click to expand...

You are not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing Apples to grapes!

With an Apple to Apple Merge >> Seniorty should be "Date of hire"
 
raj,

I know exactly how that feels... I was in that pilot group that got kicked to the street...

I guess you didn't get the sarcasm in my first post.

I'm just a "Kmart pilot". Always will be....
 
DOH- what a joke! Ok rajboy, you're a senior 747 capt. at relatively new, all-747 airline "A" and you merge with an all 737 airline "B" that was established say, 5 years before your airline. Each fleet has the same # of airplanes. Lets say airline B hired for 5 years and stopped. Lets say your 747 pay is twice as much as airline B 737 capt and 3 times as much as airline B 737 F/O...got it..?---guess what, by DOH you will be junior to the MOST junior 737 COPILOT at "B" who was making 1/3 your salary--but that's OK because YOU will now be a 737 capt. making half as much as you were pre-merger. Now you can holler fences all you want...you can run but you can't hide..unless the fences are career-long, which kind of defeats the purpose of the merger a little bit, I would think....in fact, career long fences would effectively, and in fact, -be no "merger" at all of two seniority lists. Rajboy, can you "kind of" maybe see--just a little bit... how it might be slightly..too good of a deal for bottom copilot "B" and just... maybe...an ever so tiny bad deal for you, 747 capt. "A"?
 
licorice said:
DOH- what a joke! Ok rajboy, you're a senior 747 capt. at relatively new, all-747 airline "A" and you merge with an all 737 airline "B" that was established say, 5 years before your airline. Each fleet has the same # of airplanes. Lets say airline B hired for 5 years and stopped. Lets say your 747 pay is twice as much as airline B 737 capt and 3 times as much as airline B 737 F/O...got it..?---guess what, by DOH you will be junior to the MOST junior 737 COPILOT at "B" who was making 1/3 your salary--but that's OK because YOU will now be a 737 capt. making half as much as you were pre-merger. Now you can holler fences all you want...you can run but you can't hide..unless the fences are career-long, which kind of defeats the purpose of the merger a little bit, I would think....in fact, career long fences would effectively, and in fact, -be no "merger" at all of two seniority lists. Rajboy, can you "kind of" maybe see--just a little bit... how it might be slightly..too good of a deal for bottom copilot "B" and just... maybe...an ever so tiny bad deal for you, 747 capt. "A"?
Click to expand...


Ok. I can certainly see your point. Tell me how you feel about the way the USAIR deal went down? (East vs West) deal? I'm not a USAIR guy but I know a lot of those guys.
 
Why should CAL and Expressjet not be date of hire with fences? Do you think that flying a bigger plane makes you a better pilot? If you have date of hire with fences and a trickle type bidding process there is no immediate windfall. This is the heart of all problems within Alpa, we all fly for a living, and I make more money flying an Rj than some do flying a 747. In this case size does not matter!!!
 
rajflyboy said:
Ok. I can certainly see your point. Tell me how you feel about the way the USAIR deal went down? (East vs West) deal? I'm not a USAIR guy but I know a lot of those guys.
Click to expand...

I'll jump in on this one. I think the USAir deal was pretty fair. I would have given the East pilots a little more consideration for future retirements, but not a whole lot. And I certainly would not have put any furloughed pilots ahead of any actively flying West pilots.
 
outtahere said:
Why should CAL and Expressjet not be date of hire with fences? Do you think that flying a bigger plane makes you a better pilot? If you have date of hire with fences and a trickle type bidding process there is no immediate windfall. This is the heart of all problems within Alpa, we all fly for a living, and I make more money flying an Rj than some do flying a 747. In this case size does not matter!!!
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? No immediate windfall? A windfall is a windfall, whether it happens now or twenty years down the road. In this example, to put an XJet pilot ahead of a CAL pilot, you may as well have just hired someone off the street and put them ahead of the CAL pilot. The affect on his career is the same.
 
The point of the exercise with CAL and XJT has nothing to do with size of airplane but, with size of paycheck and career expectations.

Here is another one. SWA merges with United. A five year captain at SWA makes more than a 747 captain at UAL. A three year SWA copilot makes more than a A320 captain at UAL. How do you merge that list?

Where that example gets even more fun is that UAL will be furoughing guys back to 1999 hires. Add that to the mix. So, almost all furloughs would be from SWA.

It was said that "Thats how it should always be when two union pilot groups merge! Period !" So, with my CAL/XJT example it is not apples to grapes using your own logic.
 
So why is Delta and Northwest merger any different? If you put a Delta guy ahead of a Northwest guy is the effect not the same? Let me guess "but we are MAJOR airline pilots". The fact of the matter is we are all in this together, and just like a Delta guy doesn't want an Rj pilot to jump in his seat neither would I like to have a MD88 pilot jump into my left seat. So, IF, a merger of a major and a regional were to happen there should be fences, but not only that, the regional pilots senority should count as much as the major guys senority. Ask fins to tell you the sequence of events that transpired when Delta bought ASA and Comair. Those actions by Alpa put us where we are today, no question.
 
And I certainly would not have put any furloughed pilots ahead of any actively flying West pilots.[/quote]



The NIC award would put the upcoming west furloughees ahead of active East pilots. Even though all the flying is being cut out West.
Anyway, the Nic is dead and does not have to be accepted by the company. It is a bargaining position of ALPA. With ALPA gone so is the NIC. Trust me. Its dead. It will be DOH with fences and protections to your flying. No one with a 2005 hire date will be able to bid ahead of a 1988 DOH in East bases.

M
 
Last edited:
MCDU said:
And I certainly would not have put any furloughed pilots ahead of any actively flying West pilots.
Click to expand...



The NIC award would put the upcoming west furloughees ahead of active East pilots. Even though all the flying is being cut out West.
Anyway, the Nic is dead and does not have to be accepted by the company. It is a bargaining position of ALPA. With ALPA gone so is the NIC. Trust me. Its dead. It will be DOH with fences and protections to your flying. No one with a 2005 hire date will be able to bid ahead of a 1988 DOH in East bases.

M[/quote]

Thumbs up to the "East" guys
 
rajflyboy said:
Thats how it should always be when two union pilot groups merge! Period !
Click to expand...

Raj;
The good guys at AWA agreed, it should have been a date of hire of September 27, 2005 for our counter parts. The arbitrator ruled otherwise with a final and binding list. Oh well........Final is Final, and Binding is Binding.

That is a good thing with the ALPA Merger policy (and now the new legislation). It makes the parties attempt to negotiate a fair list, and failing that they go through mediation....then to binding arbitration. Date of Hire used to be in the ALPA bylaws, but was legislated out some 15-16 years ago.

Best of luck.
 
Last edited:
cactusboy53 said:
Raj;
The good guys at AWA agreed, it should have been a date of hire of September 27, 2005 for our counter parts. The arbitrator ruled otherwise with a final and binding list. Oh well........Final is Final, and Binding is Binding.
Click to expand...

And you are on the "Lucky Side" of things!
 
rajflyboy said:
Ok. I can certainly see your point. Tell me how you feel about the way the USAIR deal went down? (East vs West) deal? I'm not a USAIR guy but I know a lot of those guys.
Click to expand...
That is a tough one, alright. But ask this: The bottom guy at USAir had approx. 15 yrs. active service before having been recalled 3 mos. prior to the merger...but he was still the bottom guy who "brought a job" to the merger. Did he have a rightful or reasonable expectation to catapult from theBOTTOM of his (USAir) list to where he would be vs. DOH at AMWEST...?...approx. 50% on the list and possibly a capt. position?--that would be a windfall for him and that is not allowed under ALPA merger policy. To go from the bottom to 50% overnight is a windfall, no matter when you were hired or what your length of service is! Now, the bottom AMWEST guy paired next to him (the USAir guy above) was a 3 mos. new hire and guess what he got...?...the bottom....no controversy there. So I don't know, neither bottom guy had any expectations of being anywhere but near the bottom of their respective seniority lists. To say that the bottom USAir guy "deserved" more based on DOH....I don't know.. I don't think so...DOES HE DESERVE A BETTER (or windfall) POSITION BECAUSE OF AIRPLANES, ROUTES ETC. THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS PILOT GROUP NOR HIS COMPANY BROUGHT TO THE MERGER?-namely, the AMWEST airplanes and routes? Each airline brought roughly equivalent assets (except for international widebody, which was accounted for) to the merger...each should fly equivalent positions after the merger...
 
licorice said:
That is a tough one, alright. But ask this: The bottom guy at USAir had approx. 15 yrs. active service before having been recalled 3 mos. prior to the merger...but he was still the bottom guy who "brought a job" to the merger. Did he have a rightful or reasonable expectation to catapult from theBOTTOM of his (USAir) list to where he would be vs. DOH at AMWEST...?...approx. 50% on the list and possibly a capt. position?--that would be a windfall for him and that is not allowed under ALPA merger policy. To go from the bottom to 50% overnight is a windfall, no matter when you were hired or what your length of service is! Now, the bottom AMWEST guy paired next to him (the USAir guy above) was a 3 mos. new hire and guess what he got...?...the bottom....no controversy there. So I don't know, neither bottom guy had any expectations of being anywhere but near the bottom of their respective seniority lists. To say that the bottom USAir guy "deserved" more based on DOH....I don't know.. I don't think so...DOES HE DESERVE A BETTER (or windfall) POSITION BECAUSE OF AIRPLANES, ROUTES ETC. THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS PILOT GROUP NOR HIS COMPANY BROUGHT TO THE MERGER?-namely, the AMWEST airplanes and routes? Each airline brought roughly equivalent assets (except for international widebody, which was accounted for) to the merger...each should fly equivalent positions after the merger...
Click to expand...

15 Year guy that was Recalled! Exactly My Point. This guy put 15 years of his life into USAIR and just because he was furloughed a New Hire at AWA should be senior to him? Get Real !!

USAIR had already made the tuff furloughs to try to be profitable. Their pilots gave up cold hard cash too. DOH is the way to go with this USAIR AWA deal.

There is no more AWA. Its all US Airways. Its one company. There should be one sensible seniority list.
 
Last edited:
The bottom East guy was just the bottom guy for a short snap shot in 2005. It was not like he got hired in 1988 and was at the bottom his whole career like Dave Odell.

The 1988 DOH had almost 2000 pilots below them in 2001 and they are now are all line holders in 2008. Times change but not your DOH.

Good tread by the way.
I hope becket chimes in. He is my fav 2005 AWA New hire.

M
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom