Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Amen, BrotherI understand that everybody has an opinion about the SLI, but.....whatever you say on here will only upset somebody else and it will have absolutely no impact on the outcome, so quit upsetting your future coworkers. Why don't you let the people appointed to the MC deal with that issue and hope we can all come to an agreement that way,or....let the arbitrator decide.
We will all have to work together in the end and it would be sad if we were not professional enough to achieve that and preserve a good ( and fun...I will buy the first beer) working relationship.
Looking forward to working with you, no matter how we all get integrated.
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.
So do you think that SWA FOs should take the AT captain's seats and the AT captains should be downgraded to FOs?
If that is what seniority dictates, yes. So long as no one loses any pay. Outside of money, it really doesnt matter.