UA "national seniority list"

[waveflyer]

And hear comes Joey to try- once again- to get a job at a major w/o actually going through the process-
it's one of the many kinks to iron out- I'd say go DOH by your major airline hire date- then by doh at your regional-- mental masturbation at it's best.... Ahhhh-

don't let idiots and pride derail something that is a good idea-

 

[b707guy]

A lot of interesting thoughts and ideas running around here, but the only way a national list could work is if ALL airlines merged into one single company. How can I expect to move from company A to company B and retain my pay rate from company A when company B is part of a totally different segment of the industry? How can company B budget for their own future? As Momma posted a while back, why would company B even choose to hire me?

 

[DrunkIrishman]

A NSL would create some real negatives both in the short-term and the long-term. If airline A is doing well while airline B is not, then there would be a number of pilots wanting to go to airline A...quite possibly senior to existing airline A pilots waiting for an upgrade at their successful airline. Now a group of more senior airline B pilots get those upgrades "off the street."

That is just one scenario that could be the result of a NSL. BTW, When the comparison is made to plumbers having a NSL, it ignores the fact that there are 100 times more employers of plumbers than there are airlines.

 

[Caveman]

My point was how does ALPA get a company to hire a higher seniority pilot at a higher payscale when they could just as easy hire a new guy? Sure they could get the person interviewed due to his/her seniority but wouldn't the company go with their best interest and hire the cheap guy?

What I would like to see is a standardized payscale based on equipment that removes seniority from the equation. Make longevity/seniority a minor issue relegated to vacations and line bidding.

Example: a national payscale for 737s being $120/hr for FOs and $200/hr for captains. Longevity would provide more vacation days/higher 401 contributions, upgrade, line and vacation bidding. Companies could pay more but the baseline would be set. Unions could negotiate for more also.

This way, if my airline goes out of business and I was a 737 pilot making $120 hr, I could go to another outfit and fly 737s for $120/hr. Benefits and upgrade would be in line with what each individual union negotiates.

Seniority needs to be removed from the pay equation if we want to avoid starting over each time an airline goes under.

I think you are closer to a workable solution than anybody else. A national pay scale would take the golden handcuffs off of everybody. You would be free to look for any job that improves your QOL without having to take a huge paycut to get it. The main consideration for employment would be which company is going to treat you the best and which company best fits your own unique situation. Work rules, benefits and domiciles become the driving factors instead of dollars.

Congress could dictate via the RLA a national pay scale for each type of equipment. If you fly a 737 you will get x amount of dollars whether you fly for SWA or Billy Bobs Vacation Charters. Where you stand for bidding within your company will be based on DOH at that company. If you choose to leave for greener pastures you risk your company seniority but you won't lose your income.

If every company is paying the same rate no one company will have a substantial labor cost advantage. Each company will have to use benefits, retirement and their own unique culture to attract and keep quality employees. It also solves the problem of why a company would want to hire someone on a 10 year pay level when they could just as easily hire someone on a new hire scale. If we are paid based on equipment and not longevity we are free to move and airlines have no reason not to hire experienced pilots. Bidding seniority, QOL and benefits would control everything.

The rate dictated by the RLA (or another suitable agency) would be periodically reviewed and some sort of annual COLA would apply. Any company would be free to pay more than the standardized rate to entice pilots to stay/work for that airline. My guess is that except for high cost of living areas like NYC most would pay the standardized rate and use work rules, domiciles and benefits to entice pilots to work for them. Imagine that, they would have to treat us nice to keep us or we could walk without any significant financial consequences to us. We would no longer be financially tied to any employer.

I also agree with Splert. Any attempt at a NSL is so fraught with complications it is unworkable. A minimum wage is not only doable there is also precedence. If congress can legally establish a national minimum wage for all employees it should also be able to establish a legally enforceable minimum wage for airline pilots.

In the event of a merger relative seniority would determine bidding seniority and DOH would determine vacation accrual, retirement benefits, etc. That's not a perfect solution because QOL is largely based on bidding seniority. I don't see any mechanism that will perfectly address this and keep everyone happy. Anybody with a lick of sense would see the DAL/NWA model as an excellent example of how to do it. I won't comment on any other recent attempts because I don't want to open that can of worms.

 

[reepicheep]

The problem is in a year or two things are going to look different. Hiring will pick up steam, and then retirements will start to kick in, and we'll be back where we were in the late 90's - the "I CHOSE to come to ABC Airlines, why should I have to sacrifice for somebody who chose wrongly" type of mentality.

 

[Fubijaakr]

A NSL would create some real negatives both in the short-term and the long-term. If airline A is doing well while airline B is not, then there would be a number of pilots wanting to go to airline A...quite possibly senior to existing airline A pilots waiting for an upgrade at their successful airline. Now a group of more senior airline B pilots get those upgrades "off the street."

Wrong. An NSL would only apply in the case of a merger/acquisition. If you want to voluntarily change airlines, you maintain your NSL number, but you go to the bottom of the airline list you voluntarily jump to.

 

[IAHERJ]

Wrong. An NSL would only apply in the case of a merger/acquisition. If you want to voluntarily change airlines, you maintain your NSL number, but you go to the bottom of the airline list you voluntarily jump to.

Well I think that is basically the only intent of the movement on the part of the UAL MEC anyway. This is a self serving idea coming from the same group that wanted no part of a NSL a few decades ago.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Well I think that is basically the only intent of the movement on the part of the UAL MEC anyway. This is a self serving idea coming from the same group that wanted no part of a NSL a few decades ago.

Of course it is. What is amazing is that it was the UAL MEC that honchoed deleting "DOH" from the ALPA merger/frag policy the first time they tried to merge with USAir.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[michael707767]

Wrong. An NSL would only apply in the case of a merger/acquisition. If you want to voluntarily change airlines, you maintain your NSL number, but you go to the bottom of the airline list you voluntarily jump to.

Then what? Your new airline merges with someone and you jump ahead of all the pilots at your new airline via your NSL number?

 

[michael707767]

...says the Delta pilot. I bet more than half of the members of ALPA support it. Within ALPA, probably only the Delta and FedEx pilots would oppose it...maybe CAL pilots too..The rest will most likely support it.

Hmm, then maybe the Delta, Fedex and CAL pilots walk right out the door and form a new union. Something we should do anyway.