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
Cometman,

I do not know the answer to your questions...

You can say THAT again . . . so why do you post this nonsense?

.at which point a negotiated agreement will be voted on by the respective memberships at SWA and AAI. If a stalemate develops (at the negotiating level or from a vote) the issue goes to arbitration. A single arbitrator decides the outcome...

The SLI agreement does NOT go out to a vote of the AirTran membership. I don't know about SWAPA's CB&L, but ALPA carriers don't conductg a membership vote on SLI.

It is being argued that Relative Seniority is the precedent that an arbitrator will use in making his decision. If this indeed is the outcome, than the AAI pilots will reap an unprecedented windfall...

Oh, Lord . . . . give me patience :rolleyes:

A "windfall", in regards to Allegheny-Mohawk CAB parlance, would be taking from one group and giving to another, like taking 800 AirTran captain seats away and giving them to SWA FO's who weren't likely to see an upgrade until Chelsea Clinton is president.

Simply paying the former AirTran pilots the SWA pay rates does not constitute a windfall. Neither does keeping both pilots at their same relative seat and bidding position. No one moves up, no one moves down.
 
You can say THAT again . . . so why do you post this nonsense?



The SLI agreement does NOT go out to a vote of the AirTran membership. I don't know about SWAPA's CB&L, but ALPA carriers don't conductg a membership vote on SLI.



Oh, Lord . . . . give me patience :rolleyes:

A "windfall", in regards to Allegheny-Mohawk CAB parlance, would be taking from one group and giving to another, like taking 800 AirTran captain seats away and giving them to SWA FO's who weren't likely to see an upgrade until Chelsea Clinton is president.

Simply paying the former AirTran pilots the SWA pay rates does not constitute a windfall. Neither does keeping both pilots at their same relative seat and bidding position. No one moves up, no one moves down.

You and others keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. Again, if relative seniority were the "fair and equitable" way to do an SLI the legislation would have mandated it. But it did not. Why do you think that is?
 
windfall: : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage

Ty, are you saying that (regardless of how long a SWA FO is on the property) if he/she upgrades as a result if this acquisition and any AT CP downgrades than the SWA FO receives a clear windfall. I restate: Even if the SWA pilot has been at SWA longer than the AT CP has been at AT, than that AT CP should move ahead of the SWA pilot?? This is not a windfall for the AT CP (see above definition)?
 
Ty, I posed a question to you (and AFCitrus and any AT fo) a page or two back. Please reference and respond.

Thank you
 
Thanks for the response. I thought I read that the Delta/Northwest merger had a panel of 3. Is that true? If so there must be an option to be decided by SWA/Airtran. Another thing I thought I read, I would have to recheck it though, the AAA (American Arbritration Association)said it can be done with either 3 or 1. Anybody else have information on this. Where are all the experts like the General. Maybe they are not really an expert?

We had a 3-person arbitration panel at DAL/NWA. I strongly suggest you all recommend the same to your leadership. While arbitrators are pretty experienced, and have seen all this before, and generally steer away from extremes, you never know what one person might be thinking. A 3-person panel will largely alleviate such wildcard issues.

Also, you need to determine right now that the SLI comes AFTER a signed, ratified, TA. Otherwise, no contract will EVER be ratified by any pilot group. Why? Because in the aftermath of a final arbitrated/negotiated SLI, only one person is happy--the new #1--and he's upset that it took so long to come to that conclusion! All the rest of the combined pilot group will automatically vote down any TA, no matter how good, just to express their displeasure with the SLI.

By the way, that is merely a factual observation of pilot behavior. You may wish we could rise above such, but everyone knows that we cannot.
 
Thanks for the response. I thought I read that the Delta/Northwest merger had a panel of 3. Is that true? If so there must be an option to be decided by SWA/Airtran. Another thing I thought I read, I would have to recheck it though, the AAA (American Arbritration Association)said it can be done with either 3 or 1. Anybody else have information on this. Where are all the experts like the General. Maybe they are not really an expert?


Hey PALS, I never said I was an expert, but I have gone through this obviously. Yes, there were 3 arbitrators for the DL/NWA merger SLI, and I think that was better than the single arbitrator for the USAir SLI. I don't know how that is determined, but it is an option. As far as voting goes, there is no voting for members. Your unions (SWAPA and ALPA) will negotiate for a single seniority list, and if that doesn't work, they will both file for arbitration. Don't expect a vote, since one side is bigger than the other, and that just wouldn't be fair. If I were an AT pilot, I would push for this to go to arbitration, since I don't think SWAPA would offer anything close to being fair (especially after the F9 staple idea). So, each side will try to negotiate something, with it likely going to arbitration later, after a joint contract is done, bringing up equal pay for everyone.

Regardless, I think ALL OF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. REALLY. A FINER BUNCH OF AIRMEN DO NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD COMPARED TO YOU FINE FOLKS. WOW. And if you have time today, please try to do something nice for someone or something, like letting a British tourist borrow your old retainer for his own teeth. They just don't get good dental care over there. See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Question for Ty Webb and AFCitrus,

Hypothetical situation: The SWA deal falls through, AirTran makes a successful bid for Virgin America.

2008 hire VA captain is placed on the AirTran captain list above a 2004 hire AirTran FO.

A 2007 hire VA captain is placed on the AirTran Captain list above a 1993 hire AirTran Captain.

Are y'all cool with this situation? Id like to hear an AirTran FOs perspective as well.

...crickets...
 
Hey PALS, I never said I was an expert, but I have gone through this obviously. Yes, there were 3 arbitrators for the DL/NWA merger SLI, and I think that was better than the single arbitrator for the USAir SLI. I don't know how that is determined, but it is an option. As far as voting goes, there is no voting for members. Your unions (SWAPA and ALPA) will negotiate for a single seniority list, and if that doesn't work, they will both file for arbitration. Don't expect a vote, since one side is bigger than the other, and that just wouldn't be fair. If I were an AT pilot, I would push for this to go to arbitration, since I don't think SWAPA would offer anything close to being fair (especially after the F9 staple idea). So, each side will try to negotiate something, with it likely going to arbitration later, after a joint contract is done, bringing up equal pay for everyone.

Regardless, I think ALL OF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. REALLY. A FINER BUNCH OF AIRMEN DO NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD COMPARED TO YOU FINE FOLKS. WOW. And if you have time today, please try to do something nice for someone or something, like letting a British tourist borrow your old retainer for his own teeth. They just don't get good dental care over there. See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

Thanks of the answer. I knew somebody would finally be able to answer my question. I am not involved in either airline but was curious. I would have to agree that going with one would not be a good choice. It would be like a criminal turning down a jury trail and let the judge rule. I would hate to put my life online with just one man's opion. Not that I have a dog in this fight but I would think SWA would want 3 and Airtran would want one. Airtran might be able to convince one guy they deserve this but trying to convince at least 2 of the 3 would be a little more of a problem.
 
Maybe AA will buy SW and bump
Every Captain who has been there
Less than 20 years back to the right
Seat.

Maybe then the SW guys would have
A better grasp of "reality""
 

Latest resources

Back
Top