The logic of relative seniority

[General Lee]

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.

OK3, RESPECTFULLY, let me put this in perspective for you. TWO like sized companies that have similar histories, fleets, and future plans can be merged in perfectly one for one with relative seniority. Now, SWA and AT are not really exactly alike, the same size, or have similar history. BUT, that doesn't mean relative can't be done. Looking at the last couple arbitrated outcomes, if one carrier has a specific operation that is different than the other, then the list can be modified. USAIr East had widebodies flying to Europe from PHL and CLT, and AWA did not. So, Nicelau gave the top 500 spots to USAir East pilots, and then went relative from there to the bottom of the list. Delta and Northwest were about the same, history and game plan wise (both INTL and DOM carriers). But, Delta had more planes and NWA was going to dump some older ones--so the arbitrators did relative seniority, but the numbers were not one for one, more like 2 Delta pilots and then 1 NWA pilot--because of the difference in pilot numbers. Overall, DL and NWA pilots stayed within about 2% of where they were relative to their own original list.

Relative seniority is fair because it keeps you CLOSE to what you were doing before a merger. I still think SWA has been around a bit longer, and they will get the top couple or few hundred spots, but then after that, since both are LCCs, with narrowbodies, and similar plans while both bringing things to the table (slots, INTL ops, etc), it will be very close to relative plus or minus a couple % points. This will all be done AFTER you get a joint contract (same pay) to avoid a USAir/AWA disaster. If SWA merged with VA, the eventual list would favor SWA a lot more because SWA is older and VA is a lot smaller with less to offer, and not profitable . AT, OTOH, is a larger company, offers more, and is profitable (compared to VA).

I can understand (somewhat) your fear and anger. You are nervous about losing time for upgrade and that eventual huge payout. You might worry about losing your base, or being bumped somewhere you don't want to go. Some of those AT guys are very young in the left seat, and that means again a longer wait for you. But, that is what happens when you merge. Future upgrade time is NOT added into the mix by the arbitrators. In the DL/NWA merger, the NWA pilots stood to upgrade a lot faster than the DL pilots because most of the senior NWA pilots stayed at NWA during the BK because they kept their pensions. That did not happen at DL, where many Captains left before BK. That upgrade potential was not awarded to the NWA guys overall. That is just the way the arbitrators saw it. And, a staple just won't happen, and your leader now has a vested interest in making this happen, along with Wall St. Just remember one thing: PEACE AND LOVE BABY, PEACE AND LOVE.

Regardless, you guys are all FANTASTIC PEOPLE. REALLY, I can't believe I AM BEST FRIENDS WITH YOU GUYS! DAMN, I FEEL GREAT ABOUT THAT. And, if you have time this evening, try to PLEASE do something nice for someone or something. Try to feed a giraffe at the zoo a butterfingers candy bar. No, that sound it is making after you fed it is NOT a choking sound, rather it is laughing that you gave him such a treat. Remember, we all like candy! See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[TWA Dude]

Every merger is different. There's no single SLI method that applies to all. My opinion is a SLI should consider the following, in no particular order:

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

Sound familiar?

 

[michael707767]

All things being pretty equal, pay rates, benefits, work rules, retirement, etc, I think relative seniority is the way to go.

But you can't say the #1 guy at Virgin goes in equal to the #1 320 pilot at Delta. Nor can you say the #1 747 pilot at Kalitta goes in with the #1 747 pilot at UPS. You are not making a fair comparison.

As someone else said, no two mergers are the same, so you can't use a one size fits all method.

 

[Max Powers]

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.

Ok, I will bite on this one.......As an AirTran guy - if we go relative seniority I will lose out. Put yourself in my shoes. AirTran stays AirTran I upgrade to CPT in 2 years under the existing aircraft order structure. With relative seniority and a merge into SWA upgrade is a probably a decade off. As a AirTran CPT I would make more under the new AirTran CBA then as a SWA FO.

Using logic I think the only fair way is a relative seniority integration. We do bring a lot to the table and so do you! I hope we become a power house and we grow like weeds with upgrades all around.

 

[General Lee]

Ok, I will bite on this one.......As an AirTran guy - if we go relative seniority I will lose out. Put yourself in my shoes. AirTran stays AirTran I upgrade to CPT in 2 years under the existing aircraft order structure. With relative seniority and a merge into SWA upgrade is a probably a decade off. As a AirTran CPT I would make more under the new AirTran CBA then as a SWA FO.

Using logic I think the only fair way is a relative seniority integration. We do bring a lot to the table and so do you! I hope we become a power house and we grow like weeds with upgrades all around.

Max,

Sounds like you have a good attitude, buddy. Let the arbitrators do it, and they are the perfect people to blame, along with the lawyers. Future upgrade doesn't really matter to the arbitrators, though. Many NWA pilots were looking forward to future upgrades because the majority of the almost age 60 crowd never left NWA because they kept the pensions during BK. That reasoning did not work with the arbitrators, though. It was still close to relative % wise.

When you guys do fully integrate and get paid the same, a lot more of you will be happy. It will be AWESOME. As far as growing like a weed though, I am still trying to figure out which other airports have the necessary slots and gates available for additional growth in this country. Can you think of any? DFW has some open gates in the old DL terminal, and AT tried but failed taking on AA. SWA also has Dallas Love. What else? SWA is already huge in DEN, PHX, MDW, OAK, MCO, TPA, and just started service to MKE, BOS, etc. I don't really know. I think your growth will be with larger planes---getting rid of older 733s and 735s and adding 738s really. You may add some Mexico or maybe some more Caribbean, but I can't think of any more large areas to exploit. CVG maybe? (not a lot of O&D traffic there). Maybe you have some ideas.

Regardless, YOU ALL ARE FANTASTIC, and I KNOW YOU WILL LOVE YOUR MERGER EVENTUALLY. Eventually, it will be AWESOME. And, if you have time today, try to do something nice for someone or something, like giving the ref at your son's soccer match a $20 bill and saying "You guys just don't make enough money and work so hard. My son's team is in blue..." See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[nwaredtail]

Overall, DL and NWA pilots stayed within about 2% of where they were relative to their own original list.

On day one of the merger, then over the next 15 years DAL pilots gain between 10-15% due to NWA retirements that would not have happened at DAL, while NWA pilots lose between 2-20%. Those damn facts again huh? Full story please.

Relative seniority is fair because it keeps you CLOSE to what you were doing before a merger.

Just a bonus if you get to move up at someone else's expense along the way.

In the DL/NWA merger, the NWA pilots stood to upgrade a lot faster than the DL pilots because most of the senior NWA pilots stayed at NWA during the BK because they kept their pensions. That did not happen at DL, where many Captains left before BK. That upgrade potential was not awarded to the NWA guys overall.

Bullcrap, the DAL guys moved up plenty due to the DAL guys leaving pre and during BK. Now they get the added bonus of moving up more due to the NWA retirements.

How about you give me your seniority number and I will run your numbers before and after the merger and I will show everyone what I am talking about? Until then, STFU! What a frickin jag

 

[Scope out RJ's]

On day one of the merger, then over the next 15 years DAL pilots gain between 10-15% due to NWA retirements that would not have happened at DAL, while NWA pilots lose between 2-20%. Those damn facts again huh? Full story please.

Just a bonus if you get to move up at someone else's expense along the way.



Bullcrap, the DAL guys moved up plenty due to the DAL guys leaving pre and during BK. Now they get the added bonus of moving up more due to the NWA retirements.

How about you give me your seniority number and I will run your numbers before and after the merger and I will show everyone what I am talking about? Until then, STFU! What a frickin jag

:crying::crying::crying:

STFU you crybaby!

 

[Empennage]

Lot of class on this board, especially from all those with no dog in the fight.

Yet what really matters is ...

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

....and you keep ignoring it (at least OK3 read this).

 

[manflex srs rwy]

I think a major problem with relative seniority is that it only protects where you are right now.

Take a 40 year old junior UAL pilot (me). I am not particularly young to be a pilot, but at UA I am still one of the youngest guys on the property. Someday, in spite of our current stagnation, I would be in the top 100 pilots at this company, no growth necessary - just the inevitable march of retirements.

Now we are merging with a company that has hired plenty in the last decade. Going by a straight relative seniority merge, I would be placed junior to about 1000 pilots that are younger than me (and hired up to nine years after me).

Sure my existing junior NB copilot seniority is protected (yay!) but my future flying capt on a WB is severely maimed, if not killed outright.

That is what is wrong with relative seniority, IMHO.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Ok, I will bite on this one.......As an AirTran guy - if we go relative seniority I will lose out. Put yourself in my shoes. AirTran stays AirTran I upgrade to CPT in 2 years under the existing aircraft order structure. With relative seniority and a merge into SWA upgrade is a probably a decade off. As a AirTran CPT I would make more under the new AirTran CBA then as a SWA FO.

Using logic I think the only fair way is a relative seniority integration. We do bring a lot to the table and so do you! I hope we become a power house and we grow like weeds with upgrades all around.

With all due respect, All a pilot group brings to "the table" is their contract.
Year 5 SWA FO is Higher than Yr 5 AT Capt. And thats before even before rigs. I dont see how you lose money. That being said, I believe something will be found that will benefit everyone.