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."

 

[St. Nic]

Relative seniority rewards the lessers of the airline industry (VA, Republic, AWA, etc.) at the expense of the experienced in the industry (AAA, UAL, CAL, DAL)

 

[General Lee]

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.

Hey PAL! Hope your day is going great. Anyway, when the DL/NWA merger occurred, oil was getting close to $130 a barrel (bad timing), but the main objective was to get the NWA payrates per hour up closer to the DL rates, and that was done. The DL pilots did get some shares of stock in the newer company, and I think a 4% raise immediately, and a total of a 17% raise over 4 years. The FNWA pilots got a huge pay raise hourly, and then the ones who moved up to larger aircraft got an even larger total raise. But, the DL pilots did not really get a huge windfall pay wise, and I wouldn't expect the SWA pilot to get one either, maybe a few % points up per hour, etc. The AT guys will get the lion's share of the new pay, but you will ALL WIN BECUASE YOUR COMPANY WILL BE BIGGER AND STRONGER, and you can also bid ATL someday if you want. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME FOR YOU.

Regardless, ALL OF YOU ARE FANTASTIC, and IT IS EXCITING TO JUST THINK ABOUT SEEING AN ORANGE and PURPLE 717 taxiing around. THAT WILL BE FANTASTIC LOOKING. If you have time today, try to do something nice for someone or something. If you see a midget or short person walking around, maybe ask him/her if their favorite movie was Alice and Wonderland, and ask him/her to sing the lollypop song. That always cracked me up! See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DougCorp-9]

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.

So do you think that SWA FOs should take the AT captain's seats and the AT captains should be downgraded to FOs?

 

[UAL'01]

I 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.

 

[75M]

I 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.

Amen, Brother

 

[ASADFW7]

All this speculation is just that. One option for SWA is dropping in a rate for aircraft below 122 seats that matches current Airtran rates to ensure fair and equitable is brought over for the B717 pilots. We wouldn't want them to get a big pay raise now would we?

 

[GuppyWN]

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.

I haven't read the thread yet but I can tell you that this opinion is not goiing to be popular. I am in my happy place now that I cannot control the outcome but your post makes a lot of sense to me. Prolly as much as the relative discussion agrees with my future SWA brothers.

Gup

 

[Just thinking]

"One option for SWA is dropping in a rate for aircraft below 122 seats that matches current Airtran rates to ensure fair and equitable is brought over for the B717 pilots. We wouldn't want them to get a big pay raise now would we?"............

Or you could take the pay rates and divide it by the current seats that are in your inventory and pay the 300/500/700 folks accordingly... When you get the 800's you can recompute those numbers to ensure that you get exact equity amongst all airframes. Maybe after they reconfigure the 717 it could have 120-125 seats and the pay would be more than the 500's?????

The gains in your current pay scale were earned by Southwest pilots that had been on property for many years and made the company into what it is today. They stuck with the organization when they were sneered at by the other carriers and were ridiculed for their pay rates. Through many years of hard work and effort the company has become a well run machine with a great working relationship with it's employees. The pay rates that you currently have were negotiated in good faith through subsequent contracts. The most senior of the Southwest pilots could take the same attitude towards any Southwest pilot who came on the property in the past ten years..... what have they really suffered to gain such a great contract? Those "new guys" did not build the airline with Herb at the helm. Those old farts did the work and the negotiating and you have gained from their efforts.

I do not know where all this will fall when it hits the floor. I will let the unions hash it out or hand their case to the arbitrator. I am looking forward to working for a company that values the pilot group. I am looking forward to a company that has some vision. I am looking forward to a collective effort (from all employee groups) to see a company become something different in the aviation industry. My work ethic will not change one bit. Southwest will gain an outstanding pilot group. Looking forward to working WITH you.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

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.

 

[Skyboy722]

If that is what seniority dictates, yes. So long as no one loses any pay. Outside of money, it really doesnt matter.

EXACTLY. Beyond pay, that fourth stripe is purely ego. If an AT captain takes a pay RAISE to be a SW FO, then any complaint is purely ego-driven.