The logic of relative seniority

[General Lee]

Hey General, serious question:

What is the story with the NWA hires that had class canceled on them in 2008? I hear there are about 80 or so swimming in a pool? What is the Delta plan for them after they finish hiring all the lucky sperm clubbers?


Thanks!

I don't really know what will happen with them. That is above my pay grade. Maybe FDJ2 might know.

Have a great day!!

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Metro752]

Alright, thanks!

You have a super special day too! Sweet dreams!

 

[Ty Webb]

Cool with it means the hypothetical situation seems fair to you. You'd be ok with an 08 hire Virgin CA being senior to an 04 hire AT FO. You'd be ok with 07 hire Va capt senior to 93 hire AT Capt.

I take it that this is how Ty and Af feel. If so, that's fine and we'll agree to disagree. I'm just trying to make sure I understand them properly.

Hose:

It's not apples-apples . . . VA is not a profitable carrier; it is still a very risky proposition career-wise. AirTran has a decade of profitability, a half-billion in the bank, 50 aircraft on order, and hiring 22 a month. Regardless, if it is relative seniority, not one AT pilot would move up or down, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

Arguing this stuff isn't going to get us anywhere . . . it seems like it is likely to make things worse for all, not better, so I am going to sit back, decompress, and let the MC's and perhaps Arbitrator work it out. There's really not much we can all do . . . . there's really no sense debating it. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I like to think that I am too, so let's just let our committee folks do their best and agree to accept the final list.

Regards,
Ty

 

[75M]

As far as the Virgin scenario goes, I'd be cool with it. I wouldn't move up, or move down. They (the Virgin guys) took a chance and it paid off. Just like the SENIOR SWA pilots took a chance and it paid off (for them).

The great pay and benefits at SWA are the result of those who BUILT the company (as opposed to those that were hired more recently and feel entitled).

I went throught the TWA/AA debacle and I've heard it all before. Pilots who were hired at a successful airline (when it was on the backside of the growth curve) feel slighted that they have not achieved the same advancement as those who worked to build said airline. As a result, they try to take out their frustration by stealing the seats of the new guys...Nice.

I cannot overstate how nice the words"Allegeny/Mohawk" sound.

Quoted by MadJack:

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.

Is that a threat? What "unintended consequences" do you envision?

Monitors, How far does something like this go before its considered threatening?

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Hose:

It's not apples-apples . . . VA is not a profitable carrier; it is still a very risky proposition career-wise. AirTran has a decade of profitability, a half-billion in the bank, 50 aircraft on order, and hiring 22 a month. Regardless, if it is relative seniority, not one AT pilot would move up or down, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

Arguing this stuff isn't going to get us anywhere . . . it seems like it is likely to make things worse for all, not better, so I am going to sit back, decompress, and let the MC's and perhaps Arbitrator work it out. There's really not much we can all do . . . . there's really no sense debating it. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I like to think that I am too, so let's just let our committee folks do their best and agree to accept the final list.

Regards,
Ty

Ty,

Thanks for the reply. I agree, it does no good to further debate my VA/AirTran analogy, but I think you get my point. I think this pairing can be a great benefit to all of us if we are all fair minded. Lets let our groups work. Besides, "I told that Kraut a ********************ing thousand times, I DONT ROLL ON SHABBOS!!!"

 

[Ty Webb]

Here's a good thread from October.

 

[St. Nic]

This thread is dead- like the farce of "relative" seniority...

 

[xanderman]

What every swinging d!ck has to realize here is that no matter what you think you deserve or are owed or expected your career will end up very different. Get over it! If you haven't realized that yet then you are truly ignorant... I do love the whole "I expected to retire number 3!" BS though. Hell I was supposed to inherit a million dollars from my uncle too! What a bunch of ******************** stains.

 

[Metrojet]

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.

Mich707767 -

First you say "all things being equal - relative seniority is the way to go" - and then in the very next sentence you dispute that? Well what do you really mean then?

Metrojet

 

[doh]

I believe he is saying if two SWAs merged (similar pay, fleet size, etc) then you could expect relative seniority. All things would be about equal. If there are differences, you will see those reflected in the arbitrator's decision. Here, there are differences, so you will get something in-between relative seniority and staple.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

Hose:

It's not apples-apples . . . VA is not a profitable carrier; it is still a very risky proposition career-wise. AirTran has a decade of profitability, a half-billion in the bank, 50 aircraft on order, and hiring 22 a month. Regardless, if it is relative seniority, not one AT pilot would move up or down, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

Arguing this stuff isn't going to get us anywhere . . . it seems like it is likely to make things worse for all, not better, so I am going to sit back, decompress, and let the MC's and perhaps Arbitrator work it out. There's really not much we can all do . . . . there's really no sense debating it. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I like to think that I am too, so let's just let our committee folks do their best and agree to accept the final list.

Regards,
Ty

Ty,

Turns out Virgin IS a profitable carrier. If fact they plan to double in the next 18 months. What do you say about my "hypothetical" now? Just curious. Reminder: 2008 number one behind your '93 number 1? Early 2010 captains keeping their seat in front of ALL of your 2006(?) F.O.s?

Fair? Equatable?

Curious...

 

[Ty Webb]

One quarter with an operating profit doesn't make VA a valid comparison. Sorry. If you were talking about Spirit or JEt Blue it would be a more valid comparison.

 

[Lear70]

Is that a threat? What "unintended consequences" do you envision?

Monitors, How far does something like this go before its considered threatening?

It's not personal. It has to be personal before it's considered "threatening".

It's also one of those relative things. I read his comment and hear references to "the destruction of the Southwest culture and angst for decades to come" if the SLI favors AAI pilots too heavily to the detriment of the SWA pilots.

Either way, I didn't see it as a personal attack or threat, just a generic "be careful what you wish for" statement. If it deteriorates into a personal attack (it's rare on here, but it happens), then we step in.

Hope that answers your question.

/mod

 

[Lear70]

Watch the scab reference, ladies and gentlemen. Open discussion of that is not allowed on this forum for legal liability reasons.

Have a question about it? Send someone a PM. (not me, I get too many PM's as it is and can't answer that kind of a question since I'm a mod).

/mod

 

[400ADude]

Watch the scab reference, ladies and gentlemen. Open discussion of that is not allowed on this forum for legal liability reasons.

Have a question about it? Send someone a PM. (not me, I get too many PM's as it is and can't answer that kind of a question since I'm a mod).

/mod

From the Forum Rules Mr Lear 70 guy:

NO SCAB LISTS or links to scab lists may be placed on these forums. No calling a member/non-member a scab. Violators will be permanently banned at first offense if or when the Websitemaster/moderators feel deemed.

You can discuss it according to the rules, just don't post a link to the list or call somebody one.

Show me your reference. The above quote I gave came from the person who manages/owns this site.