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

The logic of relative seniority

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

OK3

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Posts
73
When people propose a SLI that is based on a straight relative seniority they are effectively proposing that all airline pilot jobs flying similar equipment are the same. Therefore the first pilot hired at Virgin America flying the A-320 series can say he has the same quality job as the #1 A-320 pilot at Delta. Because they fly the same equipment this must be true. Using this logic any other factors relating to the quality of employment are not considered. It doesn’t matter that the Delta pilot makes considerably more money that the VA pilot, or that the work rules are much more favorable, retirement is better, or even the much more stable nature of the job at Delta. In non-industry terms, a county court judge and a Supreme Court justice are really the same because they are both judges.

In addition to the stated relative seniority fairness benchmark, under this logic a Captain seat is sacred and must be preserved. It makes no difference if a CA at Airline A makes less that an FO at airline B. Using this logic, the ultimate goal of any pilot is not to make the most money for the least work days, but is to have a fourth stripe on his shirt. Therefore any pilot entering the profession should go to the airline that will get his that stripe as early as possible. Work conditions and pay are irrelevant. A CA at a regional has a better job than an FO at a major, by nature of the fact that he is a CA. A UPS 747 CA has the same job as a Kalitta 747 CA. Using this logic, pay is not a consideration only seat position. In non-industry terms, the CEO of “Bill and Ted’s excellent hot dog stand” is really the same and should be paid the same as the CEO of General Electric because they are both CEOs.

Is this really what the relative seniority people think is “fair and equitable”? I am not and will not propose a particular SLI. Posters have repeatedly stated that relative seniority is the only “fair” way to do an SLI, and I am questioning the logic behind this. Fire away, but please use your mind and don’t try to pick on the specific examples I used. They are intended to be generic in order to tease out the logic behind the assertion.
 
First off, when the cycle returns to growth the momentum for a SLI will diminish...

However, what should be explored is portable longevity not seniorty.....
 
So how does portable longevity work?

Company A's 10 year pilot next to Company B's 10 year pilot?


What if Company A's 10 year pilot is a 2000 hire with 10 year longevity based on the fact he was a ramper or flight attendant with four years as a pilot? How should his 2000 date of hire be rectified with the 10 year Company B pilot who has been a pilot for 10 years?

What if one of the pilots was on a military leave for an extended period?

What if one of the pilots was furloughed and did not receive longevity during a multi-year furlough?

What if one company has pilots furloughed 10 years back compared to the other company who has new hires?

How is longevity realistically equal to a relative seniority situation? Neither one may be fair but the NMB seems to have used one of them twice now in the recent past.
 
OK3: you make a ton of sense to me--but you're not going to win over any Airtran pilots since that will take away their dream integration.
 
So how does portable longevity work?

Company A's 10 year pilot next to Company B's 10 year pilot?


What if Company A's 10 year pilot is a 2000 hire with 10 year longevity based on the fact he was a ramper or flight attendant with four years as a pilot? How should his 2000 date of hire be rectified with the 10 year Company B pilot who has been a pilot for 10 years?
doesn't seem like a common situation, rather a detail..

What if one of the pilots was on a military leave for an extended period?
Doesn't accrue longevity.
What if one of the pilots was furloughed and did not receive longevity during a multi-year furlough?
Doesn't accrue longevity.


What if one company has pilots furloughed 10 years back compared to the other company who has new hires?
What if? You can think of many 'what ifs'. At what point do you realize that a union can't account for all contingencies of the market place.

How is longevity realistically equal to a relative seniority situation? Neither one may be fair but the NMB seems to have used one of them twice now in the recent past.

As I said... explore...

If a pilot is able to take his seniority with him, then pilots that are junior to him are asked to "pay for it"

Whereas with portable longevity, no pilot is expected to pay for another pilots gains. Rather the company pays the longevity pay rate. Its not perfect and when the hiring boom starts it will be forgotten (this SLI stuff). The trick is getting a company to pay for portable longevity.
 
Last edited:
OK3: you make a ton of sense to me--but you're not going to win over any Airtran pilots since that will take away their dream integration.

GuppyWN, wouldn't a better use of 10 beans have been a twelver of Guinness? :cartman:
 
a SLI that is based on a straight relative seniority they are effectively proposing that all airline pilot jobs flying similar equipment are the same.
What you say only holds true in a vacuum. You need to consider all factors effecting seniority to trully consider fair and equitable.

QOL

Pay

Upgrade

Etc...
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top