The logic of relative seniority

[Cometman]

Why not exaggerate a little more and use an airline of 2 pilots started yesterday at 12 PM being acquired by Delta at 1 PM? LOL.....

You could say that but I was just trying to make a point. If it is not the right thing to do under that case then maybe it is not the right thing to do with AT and SWA. I agree under this case it really sounds unfair. So, if it is unfair under this case then it would be unfair under the AT and SWA case.

 

[jonjuan]

So, let me see if I understand what this means. If a new airline started today and hired 10 pilots. Five are Captains and 5 are first officers. Then in 3 years Delta bought them and had to merge the lists. The number one guy at the new airline would then get relative seniority and get put into the Delta list? I guess since he was in the top 1% at his airline he would be in the top 1% of the merged list?

In you're scenario, if Delta felt the need to buy this small pilot company, then they obviously feel that they are getting something of significant value. That value WILL translate to equivalent seniority, now stay with me here-not LONGEVITY. A competent arbitrator will keep emotions out of it and keep relativity intact. No one gains at the expense of the other.

 

[jonjuan]

You could say that but I was just trying to make a point. If it is not the right thing to do under that case then maybe it is not the right thing to do with AT and SWA. I agree under this case it really sounds unfair. So, if it is unfair under this case then it would be unfair under the AT and SWA case.

It's unfair, using your term, to make a Captain an FO and will not happen-watch.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Put down the beer or get a brain implant.

SWA was not able to buy what Air Tran is bring to the table. The SWA Cinderella syndrome.

Actually Lucky, it was wine that I was drinking and I was typing fast trying to get out the door.

I think you are confusing the corporations with the pilot groups. SWA corp made an offer on 150 some'odd planes, and all outstanding shares of AAI. With the transaction comes gates, routes, presence in new locations etc. It did not make sense for SWA(corp) to make such an expansion without also eliminating a competitor. So I suppose you are partially correct in saying "SWA was not able to buy what Air Tran (corporation) is bring(ing) to the table..." But make no mistake, it was not because SWA could not afford it.

An integration of pilot groups is between two unions, different legal entities entirely from the involved corporations. The two unions possess nothing more than the contracts that they were able to negotiate with their respective employers. This is what they bring to "the table". The unions possess no aircraft, no routes, no gates, and as such will not be able to use them as bargaining chips.

Does it make sense for a 1994 hire to go in front of a 1971 hire? That is not up to me to answer, but I wish it were.

Once again, It is my belief that when is all said and done, we will find an agreement that is beneficial to both groups. It is imperative to do so, because in the end, we will be a unified group. The only thing specifically prevented by law is a "windfall". I do not see either side being awarded one.

Concerning your opening quip, my advice is to try not to get so emotional. Its just as unbecoming from behind a keyboard as it is in real life.

 

[ultrarunner]

Any reason not to expect this SLI to go to binding-arbitration? And if so, then the precedence has been set to simply not agree with the arbitration award. And then you've got a USAir/AmericaWest abortion all over again.

 

[Cometman]

In you're scenario, if Delta felt the need to buy this small pilot company, then they obviously feel that they are getting something of significant value. That value WILL translate to equivalent seniority, now stay with me here-not LONGEVITY. A competent arbitrator will keep emotions out of it and keep relativity intact. No one gains at the expense of the other.

So, the new guy would be a Captain in the top 1% if you use Relative Seniority. That is the point I was trying to make. It might be overstatement but it means the same. If it is fair for At/SWA and DL/NW then it is fair for this case. It doesn't sound fair when you have a case elike this.

 

[Full of LUV]

Any reason not to expect this SLI to go to binding-arbitration? And if so, then the precedence has been set to simply not agree with the arbitration award. And then you've got a USAir/AmericaWest abortion all over again.

Hence why you need a JCBA first that rewards both sides for playing nice at the SLI arbitrators table. Funny how everyone assumes only AAI will get a pay bump to make this transaction seamless, SWAPA needs to take advantage of their leverage.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Any reason not to expect this SLI to go to binding-arbitration? And if so, then the precedence has been set to simply not agree with the arbitration award. And then you've got a USAir/AmericaWest abortion all over again.

If both sides are reasonable, arbitration is absolutely avoidable.

 

[OK3]

Why not exaggerate a little more and use an airline of 2 pilots started yesterday at 12 PM being acquired by Delta at 1 PM? LOL.....

It is not an exaggeration really. it is device to show that the logic of relative seniority does not *always* make sense. Sometimes it does, and that is why in my first post I said that this logic assumes all pilot jobs are equal. We all know this is not the case. What an arbitrator will decide is whether or not a SWA job is equal to an Airtran job, pre acquisition.

General Lee, what you said makes sense for that merger I think there are some significant differences between your merger and our acquisition. A/M and B/M do not really set a particular way to integrate lists, only a mechanism. Why do you think that is? I think it is because the authors realized that all mergers/acquisitions are different. If the authors of the legislation thought relative was the only fair way they would have mandated it; but they did not.

I am not an expert on arbitration but I *think* the arbitrator is not bound by precedent like a judge would be. Other arbitrations may be a guide, but to think the one that will likely decide this issue will go in lock step with the others is a mistake.

I am not trying to be a jerk, the pilots of Airtran are just fighting for the best deal they can get and so are the pilots of SWA. When it is over we will all get along. I have no desire to live out the US Air/ AW disaster and either do any of the guys I know.

 

[jonjuan]

So, the new guy would be a Captain in the top 1% if you use Relative Seniority. That is the point I was trying to make. It might be overstatement but it means the same. If it is fair for At/SWA and DL/NW then it is fair for this case. It doesn't sound fair when you have a case elike this.

1% is 1% is 1%. Einstein wrote about in his Theory of Relativity.
How many times in your life has your Dad said, "Son, life ain't fair.". ??? Gary is your Dad and he just told you this. How is it fair that these top CAs get to have free lap dances for another 5 years? Again, it is what it is (another favorite Dad saying and I'll bet the arbitrator is a Dad.).

How about this? "Dad, it's just not fair that your new wifes son gets to move in with us and he gets the same allowance I get and does the same c h o r e s that I do. He also gets the same new car that I do-it just ain't fair."
Dad retorts with a chuckle, "Son, life just ain't fair. It is what it is. Now where's that new step-Mom of yours. You need to help her with her homework."