The logic of relative seniority

[Cometman]

I second that!

I asked you this question yesterday but you have not answered it. Since you seem to be the most knowlegeable one can you answer this: Or if anybody else knows. Maybe the General knows. He seems to know everything.

I would assume that both sides have to get a transition agreement with their respective company before they start on the SLI. At what point do the both sides agree if it will be handled by 1 arbritraitor or a panel of 3? Is that a choice they have ? If so, if they disagree does it go to arbitration? It seems like it can be a never ending task.

Thanks

 

[madjack]

Cometman,

I do not know the answer to your questions...my best guess is that after a period of time/period of negotiating it will become clear to ALPA/SWAPA that a SLI agreement is forthcoming or not...at which point a negotiated agreement will be voted on by the respective memberships at SWA and AAI. If a stalemate develops (at the negotiating level or from a vote) the issue goes to arbitration. A single arbitrator decides the outcome...
It is being argued that Relative Seniority is the precedent that an arbitrator will use in making his decision. If this indeed is the outcome, than the AAI pilots will reap an unprecedented windfall...BUT, there will be unintened consequences after the AAI pilots finish climbing over the shoulders of their soon to be SWAPA brethren.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

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

If those AT captains would rather not commute and be based in PHX or LAS (ect.) and the SWA FO is willing to go to ATL, perhaps yes. If AT's are content to stay in ATL or SWA doesn't want to go there, then nope.

That same type thing has been playing out with NWA/DL and will soon be with the Pinnacle/Colgan/Mesaba integration. If you are wondering what will happen these are places to look to get a general idea. It isn't going to be a mirror of either as these aren't exactly the same situation but it will be similar.

 

[Cometman]

Cometman,

I do not know the answer to your questions...my best guess is that after a period of time/period of negotiating it will become clear to ALPA/SWAPA that a SLI agreement is forthcoming or not...at which point a negotiated agreement will be voted on by the respective memberships at SWA and AAI. If a stalemate develops (at the negotiating level or from a vote) the issue goes to arbitration. A single arbitrator decides the outcome...
It is being argued that Relative Seniority is the precedent that an arbitrator will use in making his decision. If this indeed is the outcome, than the AAI pilots will reap an unprecedented windfall...BUT, there will be unintened consequences after the AAI pilots finish climbing over the shoulders of their soon to be SWAPA brethren.

Thanks for the response. I thought I read that the Delta/Northwest merger had a panel of 3. Is that true? If so there must be an option to be decided by SWA/Airtran. Another thing I thought I read, I would have to recheck it though, the AAA (American Arbritration Association)said it can be done with either 3 or 1. Anybody else have information on this. Where are all the experts like the General. Maybe they are not really an expert?

 

[doh]

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.

Can you sell it to the arbitrator? That's really the only question that has to be answered.

 

[Ty Webb]

Cometman,

I do not know the answer to your questions...

You can say THAT again . . . so why do you post this nonsense?

.at which point a negotiated agreement will be voted on by the respective memberships at SWA and AAI. If a stalemate develops (at the negotiating level or from a vote) the issue goes to arbitration. A single arbitrator decides the outcome...

The SLI agreement does NOT go out to a vote of the AirTran membership. I don't know about SWAPA's CB&L, but ALPA carriers don't conductg a membership vote on SLI.

It is being argued that Relative Seniority is the precedent that an arbitrator will use in making his decision. If this indeed is the outcome, than the AAI pilots will reap an unprecedented windfall...

Oh, Lord . . . . give me patience

A "windfall", in regards to Allegheny-Mohawk CAB parlance, would be taking from one group and giving to another, like taking 800 AirTran captain seats away and giving them to SWA FO's who weren't likely to see an upgrade until Chelsea Clinton is president.

Simply paying the former AirTran pilots the SWA pay rates does not constitute a windfall. Neither does keeping both pilots at their same relative seat and bidding position. No one moves up, no one moves down.

 

[OK3]

deleted

 

[OK3]

You can say THAT again . . . so why do you post this nonsense?



The SLI agreement does NOT go out to a vote of the AirTran membership. I don't know about SWAPA's CB&L, but ALPA carriers don't conductg a membership vote on SLI.



Oh, Lord . . . . give me patience

A "windfall", in regards to Allegheny-Mohawk CAB parlance, would be taking from one group and giving to another, like taking 800 AirTran captain seats away and giving them to SWA FO's who weren't likely to see an upgrade until Chelsea Clinton is president.

Simply paying the former AirTran pilots the SWA pay rates does not constitute a windfall. Neither does keeping both pilots at their same relative seat and bidding position. No one moves up, no one moves down.

You and others keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. Again, if relative seniority were the "fair and equitable" way to do an SLI the legislation would have mandated it. But it did not. Why do you think that is?

 

[madjack]

windfall: : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage

Ty, are you saying that (regardless of how long a SWA FO is on the property) if he/she upgrades as a result if this acquisition and any AT CP downgrades than the SWA FO receives a clear windfall. I restate: Even if the SWA pilot has been at SWA longer than the AT CP has been at AT, than that AT CP should move ahead of the SWA pilot?? This is not a windfall for the AT CP (see above definition)?

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Ty, I posed a question to you (and AFCitrus and any AT fo) a page or two back. Please reference and respond.

Thank you

 

[JohnQ]

Thanks for the response. I thought I read that the Delta/Northwest merger had a panel of 3. Is that true? If so there must be an option to be decided by SWA/Airtran. Another thing I thought I read, I would have to recheck it though, the AAA (American Arbritration Association)said it can be done with either 3 or 1. Anybody else have information on this. Where are all the experts like the General. Maybe they are not really an expert?

We had a 3-person arbitration panel at DAL/NWA. I strongly suggest you all recommend the same to your leadership. While arbitrators are pretty experienced, and have seen all this before, and generally steer away from extremes, you never know what one person might be thinking. A 3-person panel will largely alleviate such wildcard issues.

Also, you need to determine right now that the SLI comes AFTER a signed, ratified, TA. Otherwise, no contract will EVER be ratified by any pilot group. Why? Because in the aftermath of a final arbitrated/negotiated SLI, only one person is happy--the new #1--and he's upset that it took so long to come to that conclusion! All the rest of the combined pilot group will automatically vote down any TA, no matter how good, just to express their displeasure with the SLI.

By the way, that is merely a factual observation of pilot behavior. You may wish we could rise above such, but everyone knows that we cannot.

 

[General Lee]

Thanks for the response. I thought I read that the Delta/Northwest merger had a panel of 3. Is that true? If so there must be an option to be decided by SWA/Airtran. Another thing I thought I read, I would have to recheck it though, the AAA (American Arbritration Association)said it can be done with either 3 or 1. Anybody else have information on this. Where are all the experts like the General. Maybe they are not really an expert?

Hey PALS, I never said I was an expert, but I have gone through this obviously. Yes, there were 3 arbitrators for the DL/NWA merger SLI, and I think that was better than the single arbitrator for the USAir SLI. I don't know how that is determined, but it is an option. As far as voting goes, there is no voting for members. Your unions (SWAPA and ALPA) will negotiate for a single seniority list, and if that doesn't work, they will both file for arbitration. Don't expect a vote, since one side is bigger than the other, and that just wouldn't be fair. If I were an AT pilot, I would push for this to go to arbitration, since I don't think SWAPA would offer anything close to being fair (especially after the F9 staple idea). So, each side will try to negotiate something, with it likely going to arbitration later, after a joint contract is done, bringing up equal pay for everyone.

Regardless, I think ALL OF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. REALLY. A FINER BUNCH OF AIRMEN DO NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD COMPARED TO YOU FINE FOLKS. WOW. And if you have time today, please try to do something nice for someone or something, like letting a British tourist borrow your old retainer for his own teeth. They just don't get good dental care over there. See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

Question for Ty Webb and AFCitrus,

Hypothetical situation: The SWA deal falls through, AirTran makes a successful bid for Virgin America.

2008 hire VA captain is placed on the AirTran captain list above a 2004 hire AirTran FO.

A 2007 hire VA captain is placed on the AirTran Captain list above a 1993 hire AirTran Captain.

Are y'all cool with this situation? Id like to hear an AirTran FOs perspective as well.

...crickets...

 

[Cometman]

Hey PALS, I never said I was an expert, but I have gone through this obviously. Yes, there were 3 arbitrators for the DL/NWA merger SLI, and I think that was better than the single arbitrator for the USAir SLI. I don't know how that is determined, but it is an option. As far as voting goes, there is no voting for members. Your unions (SWAPA and ALPA) will negotiate for a single seniority list, and if that doesn't work, they will both file for arbitration. Don't expect a vote, since one side is bigger than the other, and that just wouldn't be fair. If I were an AT pilot, I would push for this to go to arbitration, since I don't think SWAPA would offer anything close to being fair (especially after the F9 staple idea). So, each side will try to negotiate something, with it likely going to arbitration later, after a joint contract is done, bringing up equal pay for everyone.

Regardless, I think ALL OF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. REALLY. A FINER BUNCH OF AIRMEN DO NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD COMPARED TO YOU FINE FOLKS. WOW. And if you have time today, please try to do something nice for someone or something, like letting a British tourist borrow your old retainer for his own teeth. They just don't get good dental care over there. See ya!


Bye Bye--General Lee

Thanks of the answer. I knew somebody would finally be able to answer my question. I am not involved in either airline but was curious. I would have to agree that going with one would not be a good choice. It would be like a criminal turning down a jury trail and let the judge rule. I would hate to put my life online with just one man's opion. Not that I have a dog in this fight but I would think SWA would want 3 and Airtran would want one. Airtran might be able to convince one guy they deserve this but trying to convince at least 2 of the 3 would be a little more of a problem.

 

[kwick]

Maybe AA will buy SW and bump
Every Captain who has been there
Less than 20 years back to the right
Seat.

Maybe then the SW guys would have
A better grasp of "reality""