The logic of relative seniority

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Ty, 30 pct on a 17 year old list is not the same as 30 pct on a 41 year old list.

The older the list, the slower the climb. You still have dues to pay brother.

 

[TWA Dude]

Seniority is about time in service. Period.

Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that when pilots are furloughed your seniority gets worse instead of better?

Seniority for pilots is nothing other than how many pilots are above and below you. What you describe is called longevity. Why it's so hard for some to differentiate the two is beyond me.

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty, 30 pct on a 17 year old list is not the same as 30 pct on a 41 year old list.

The older the list, the slower the climb. You still have dues to pay brother.

That logic works both ways, Hose.

So then, an FO at 58% on a list with flat growth doesn't mean the same as 58% on a list with rapid growth coming (AAI airframe orders = 37% growth by 2016).

 

[Cometman]

That logic works both ways, Hose.

So then, an FO at 58% on a list with flat growth doesn't mean the same as 58% on a list with rapid growth coming (AAI airframe orders = 37% growth by 2016).

You missed the whole point he was making. You really should stop while you were ahead. Every time you and Lear70 open your mouth you convince everybody you are --------. I am only in the eleventh grade and I can see through you. Good luck, you must think everybody is buying your stupid quotes.

 

[Dash Power]

Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that when pilots are furloughed your seniority gets worse instead of better?

Seniority for pilots is nothing other than how many pilots are above and below you. What you describe is called longevity. Why it's so hard for some to differentiate the two is beyond me.

No problem understanding this remarkably obvious point about seniority. My number is what drives my quality of life. And my number represents in the list how long I have earned that position. No matter if it is 3 months or 30 years. How many above me and below me is what gives me the power of my seniority number. Someone on the list I serve who has been here 7 years less than I but has a seniority number above me has more power for less time served. Which is absolutely unfair in this integration.

I really do not care about other seniority mergers or integrations, just this one.

 

[ackattacker]

I really do not care about other seniority mergers or integrations, just this one.

In this merger DOH is a windfall for SW pilots and relative seniority is a windfall for Airtran.

HOWEVER

Relative Seniority does not hurt the career expectations of a SW Pilot but DOH does hurt the career expectations of an Airtran pilot. Thus from my perspective, given those as the the only two choices, Relative Seniority is the *more fair* choice since I cannot get onboard with the idea of advancing one's own career at the expense of another.

 

[Lear70]

You missed the whole point he was making. You really should stop while you were ahead. Every time you and Lear70 open your mouth you convince everybody you are --------. I am only in the eleventh grade and I can see through you. Good luck, you must think everybody is buying your stupid quotes.

Really... and here I thought (and have been told by pilots from both sides via PM) that I was being pretty reasonable in simply saying that it should be fair, that a staple simply isn't going to be a tenable solution, and that no Captain should lose their seat.

And people wonder why more AirTran pilots aren't speaking out on here on this issue (and there are plenty lurking who used to post regularly) when they see what happens to those of us who do, even if our message is one of letting our respective Merger Committees find a MIDDLE GROUND SOLUTION (which is what I've advocated since day 1).

Under the circumstances, I'm not surprised the board is so devoid of our regular AAI posters these days, not because they agree or disagree with you, me, or any other poster on here, but simply because it's not worth the angst.

We're just going to let the MC's and, if necessary, the arbitrators work it out and move on. Best of luck, and smooth skies to you.

Regards,

 

[doh]

Good post. This is exactly how it should be done.

Ask any NWA, AAA pilot and they feel the same. The funny thing is that if it goes relative, the pilots with less time will get their DOH and the others get slotted in. It is a win win for the group with less years put in when relative is used. They still get DOH and get put ahead of pilots with more time invested. That is why one group will totally like that outcome. (Delta or AWA).

Putting workers with less time ahead is huge factor why we have all these discussions. Try using a relative method with some other work groups. They would not touch it, because they know how workers feel when they get put behind someone with less time.

We have AWA/AAA, CAL/United, Polar/Atlas and MEH/F9/RAH/Lynx all going no where. I guess we can add SWA/Airtran soon. All this because pilots abandoned the golden standard involved with Workgroups. DOH

M

Unless you did not have a job because you were on the street. Of course, you would exclude those people from the integration.
And of course, if you agreed to legally binding arbitration, and the arbitrator gave his ruling, which you agreed to be legally bound by, you would uphold your legal obligation to comply with that legally binding ruling. Wouldn't you?

 

[TWA Dude]

I really do not care about other seniority mergers or integrations, just this one.

You don't have to care about them but you should know that arbitrators certainly do. Every merger is different thus no single integration method can be considered fair.

 

[redflyer65]

Your right. The previous awards show these things..

1- When it's lopsided, there will be no windfall by one group.
2- QOL, pay and career expectations will be included.

In this scenerio, the absolute windfall gained by the Airtran pilots will be adjusted for with list integration. I'm guessing that 3yrs at AAI will be worth 1yr at SW. (No staple and no realitive integration)

I'm not buying that no AAI captain will lose his seat. In that scenerio a junior Airtran CA would be above a senior SW FO that's been here longer. Not sure that's gonna play out that way. Fences might help somewhat. I would say pay protection too but a junior AAI captain would get more money being a senior SW FO, along with a better schedule.

I'd easily give up a CA seat to make more money and have a better schedule.

 

[MCDU]

Unless you did not have a job because you were on the street. Of course, you would exclude those people from the integration.
And of course, if you agreed to legally binding arbitration, and the arbitrator gave his ruling, which you agreed to be legally bound by, you would uphold your legal obligation to comply with that legally binding ruling. Wouldn't you?

It is not legally binding. It was an internal ALPA proposal. Alpa needed an Arbitrator, since it can not get groups to agree on a SLI. You need to do your home work.It was a private matter within ALPA. It was a proposal that failed under ALPA. Even ALPA admits it was a proposal and they even tried to get AWA to change their minds at a meeting in WYE River since it needed both groups to agree on a joint contract that would have implemented the list.

Now, you have furloughed West pilots DOH 2005 that would go ahead of East Captains DOH 1988. The Nic was a private arbitration. The courts will decide and show who is right. Everything the West has predicted has gone wrong. You can not piss of the majority. Especially making a 2005 hire that was there for 3 weeks go ahead of former Capt who got hired in 1988. Nic was a train wreck.

M

 

[Dash Power]

In this merger DOH is a windfall for SW pilots and relative seniority is a windfall for Airtran.

HOWEVER

Relative Seniority does not hurt the career expectations of a SW Pilot but DOH does hurt the career expectations of an Airtran pilot. Thus from my perspective, given those as the the only two choices, Relative Seniority is the *more fair* choice since I cannot get onboard with the idea of advancing one's own career at the expense of another.

DOH is not a windfall for SWA pilots. A staple would be. The two windfalls are relative seniority for AT pilots and a staple for SWA pilots. Therefore somewhere in the middle is what quantitatively can be expected.

Relative seniority is not fair to the SWA pilots simply because of the investment of time.That time represents sweat equity. Even DOH is not fair to the more junior pilots of SWA because of your said career expectations.

The huge pay and QOL benefits will be considered by an arbitrator. So will the 95% strike vote. So will the higher level of job security. This is much more complicated than just relative seniority.

My educated guess is that the middle will have fences with pay and benefit considerations for which side of the fence AT pilots choose to be on. When the fence is jumped or brought down a 10 year AT pilot will be placed where a 10 year SWA pilot sits on seniority. There will be some good seat protection language with limitations and requirements.

My guess it to be good business from GK's point of view that the longer he can compensate AT pilots with AT wages and benefits, the better the bottom line. Gary can do very well with a longer time to merge certificates than to do so quickly.

It would help everyone to remember who exactly is buying whom and who will ultimately have control of these two airlines in just a few months. That whom is Gary Kelly. And Gary's responsibility is to the stockholders, not the AT pilots.

 

[Lonestar]

With that scenario, you take a pilot who was bidding in the top 10% of their F/O's seat, getting ready to upgrade in the next 6-12 months, and throw them on the BACK end of a seniority list, tell them they're not going to upgrade for a decade, if they're LUCKY, and they just lost their Quality of Life, too?

A blended use of Relative Seniority plus Date of Hire plus some kind of ratio that attempts to preserve seats, upgrade expectations, and bidding position for Quality of Life seems to be the way most of these should go to avoid angst. However, no matter what, someone's always going to be ****** off. History has certainly taught us that.

Hey Lear 70, I could swear I addressed these comments with a post Sat night but strangely I don't see it here now. Maybe I just forgot to hit post reply. Please allow me to take exception to your thinking.

The senior FO from your example will make more money, and see a huge increase in QOL, regardless of the seat he sits in. Remember, our most junior rsv line gets 15 days off, and the avg line gets 17 off. Your junior captain will get 10!

Further, every one of your FOs will be LUCKY just to be at SWA (a sentiment I hear they expressed over and over at the Roundup in ATL).

If you think that just because you expected to upgrade in x number of years before the ACQUISITION, that number must still be the case now, you will all be very dissappointed. The benefits in every aspect of your contract will more than compensate for any additional time before upgrade.

You refer to the upgrade to captain as if that, solely, is your FOs' career goal. Didn't most of your FOs leave a captain seat to come to AT for something better (Pay, benefits, QOL)? There is absolutely more to your career expectations that just getting to the left seat and the career path of nearly every AT FO proves that. I'm sure the hundreds of your pilots who tried, unsuccessfully, to get hired at SWA further prove that point.

Having AT FOs upgrading with less years of service than SWA FOs is a great example of 'A WINDFALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER GROUP"! In fact, any SLI proposal that delays the upgrade of SWA FOs (the left seat at SWA is absolutely our expectation) for AT upgrades will be a 'WINDFALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER GROUP'!

 

[vv100]

Hey Richard, thanks for the confirmation BTW, word is you interviewed twice at SWA.

Care to comment?

 

[RedDogC130]

Maybe at airtran they have is written somewhere, because here at swa it is not. Where does it say you will upgrade at a certain point like in 6-12 months? Nothing is a guarantee...things change, economies crash...age 65 passes, which can delay upgrades...hell when I got here they were at the 6-7 year upgrade which went to 12-15 in the blink of an eye. So now things change at airtran...but please show me where you were garanteed your upgrade at a certain point?