Airline Pilot Forums

I have come to the conclusion of what can satisfy any pilot group.

{http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Swingline-stapler.jpg/220px-Swingline-stapler.jpg}

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/41607_217419629945_6757400_n.jpgPersonally I prefer this one

Actually because of the unknowns of the relatively untested "federal merger law" if you staple a group that then declares it a full on merger and could possibly give that group a windfall chance at a full relative, particularly if they are a young company and particularly if they are non union, with no real way for the acquiring carrier to even cement an agreement anyway, this leaving the door open for "federal merger law" lawsuits.

Better in some cases to operate separately, phase out, and offer pref interviews while hiring to the bottom of your list. In some cases, it can be either that, or watch a 3 year pilot seniority jump 25 years. Which would you choose?

So in some cases, a staple is far too generous.

Actually because of the unknowns of the relatively untested "federal merger law" if you staple a group that then declares it a full on merger and could possibly give that group a windfall chance at a full relative, particularly if they are a young company and particularly if they are non union, with no real way for the acquiring carrier to even cement an agreement anyway, this leaving the door open for "federal merger law" lawsuits.

Better in some cases to operate separately, phase out, and offer pref interviews while hiring to the bottom of your list. In some cases, it can be either that, or watch a 3 year pilot seniority jump 25 years. Which would you choose?

So in some cases, a staple is far too generous.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

stop talking logically.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.


NSL?? Hell to the no.

NSL?? Hell to the no.

I don't understand why the AARP pilot group is so against this. Who cares if the older guys are put on a NSL. Get it done, and get it over with. If your legacy stays in business, and there are no mergers for your airline, you're safe. If your legacy goes belly up, you can be put in a proper place at another carrier.

Management has figured out how to whipsaw us to an entirely new dimension. Look at the post just above me, saying "offer preferential interviews and be put on the bottom of the list", essentially starting at year one pay.

Is there seriously any other industry that you can put a professional with 30 years of experience next to a guy with 5 years of experience in the same field and pay them both the same wage?

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

Nice utopian idea...but the same way a monopoly on airline service will never be allowed, a monopsony on the supply of labor to fly transport aircraft will never be allowed. It would be great to have ultimate bargaining power of every qualified pilot in the U.S. on the same list, bargaining for the same contract for all airlines and types of flying...but like i said, it'll never happen. May as well let that idea go and try to come up with a different solution.

We absolutely need to find a way to ensure our skills & experience are transferrable in case our airline goes TU, but a national seniority list just ain't gonna happ'n

Nice utopian idea...but the same way a monopoly on airline service will never be allowed, a monopsony on the supply of labor to fly transport aircraft will never be allowed. It would be great to have ultimate bargaining power of every qualified pilot in the U.S. on the same list, bargaining for the same contract for all airlines and types of flying...but like i said, it'll never happen. May as well let that idea go and try to come up with a different solution.

We absolutely need to find a way to ensure our skills & experience are transferrable in case our airline goes TU, but a national seniority list just ain't gonna happ'n

How is it a monopoly? A national seniority list would just allow an airline pilot a proper spot in a work force. The longevity pay wouldn't have to be the same, but the seniority issue can be taken care of, especially with all these mergers going on.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

100% agree

Actually because of the unknowns of the relatively untested "federal merger law" if you staple a group that then declares it a full on merger and could possibly give that group a windfall chance at a full relative, particularly if they are a young company and particularly if they are non union, with no real way for the acquiring carrier to even cement an agreement anyway, this leaving the door open for "federal merger law" lawsuits.

Better in some cases to operate separately, phase out, and offer pref interviews while hiring to the bottom of your list. In some cases, it can be either that, or watch a 3 year pilot seniority jump 25 years. Which would you choose?

So in some cases, a staple is far too generous.

Spoken just like a true SWA pilot. Any ex-ATA pilots want to chime in on the bullschit preferential interviews that you received?

Whack, I don't think Gloopy is a SWA pilot...but whatever, we feel your hate.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

Some people make bad choices, and that shouldn't hurt the rest of us. I disagree.

Whack, I don't think Gloopy is a SWA pilot...but whatever, we feel your hate.

Gloopy is a DAL pilot.

Some people make bad choices, and that shouldn't hurt the rest of us. I disagree.

"Some people"? Did the TWA guys make bad choices? Or the PanAm guys? How about the over 1000 United guys who got furloughed, and are no probably all going to be junior to Continental guys who were hired after they were.

Typical America. We always look down on the people who get screwed by the system, and never want to help until we're in their position.

"Some people"? Did the TWA guys make bad choices? Or the PanAm guys? How about the over 1000 United guys who got furloughed, and are no probably all going to be junior to Continental guys who were hired after they were.

Typical America. We always look down on the people who get screwed by the system, and never want to help until we're in their position.

It looks like they did. Nobody is forced to work for a company. Sorry.

I don't understand why the AARP pilot group is so against this. Who cares if the older guys are put on a NSL. Get it done, and get it over with. If your legacy stays in business, and there are no mergers for your airline, you're safe. If your legacy goes belly up, you can be put in a proper place at another carrier.

Management has figured out how to whipsaw us to an entirely new dimension. Look at the post just above me, saying "offer preferential interviews and be put on the bottom of the list", essentially starting at year one pay.

Is there seriously any other industry that you can put a professional with 30 years of experience next to a guy with 5 years of experience in the same field and pay them both the same wage?

If you want to start a NSL starting with the next new hire, have at it. I don't want to have a bunch of AMR dudes(for example) bail from their predicament only to come in on top of me and push me back down the list. Or since we just signed a contract whereby our small narrowbody pay will be better than anything at a comparable carrier, how would it be fair for a UAL captain (for example) to come over to an immediate 45% pay increase over what he is currently making? uh, uh.. Not remotely interested in this garbage. The only way I might be interested would be if we had a national payscale, based on LONGEVITY.. and not equipment. Good luck with that approach though. 747 pilots are gods ya know.

And the AARP quip was totally out of line.

It looks like they did. Nobody is forced to work for a company. Sorry.

I disagree with your choice of the term "bad choices". In this context, I think the word "unfortunate choice" might be a better term. TWA.. Braniff... Pan Am.. Eastern... etc etc.. were all GREAT choices at the time, and due to circumstances out of their control, they became unfortunate choices. Even so, there were many pilots that had absolutely fabulous careers at those companies. But I agree with you that they made those choices and life dealt them an unfair hand. The rest of the world shouldn't be penalized based on that fortune. I would probably feel differently if I were on the other side of that fence, but I am not, and it is no less fair for me to feel this way than it is for somebody else to be lusting after my job.

It will NEVER happen, but anyway since we are on the NSL topic:

My thought on a NSL would be that just because you had a "more senior NSL number" doesn't mean that you could come in on top of anybody just because you "bid" that spot, I see it as IF the new airline decided to hire the pilot, they would be inserted where there NSL number would hold.

The airline would not sign off on it to begin with, and even if they somehow were convinced, they would still have to have control of their own hiring process to a degree.

I also agree with T, start it with the next round of hires at the RJ/commuter level and merely have the list beginning to form, it would be more to put in place a viable mechanism for the next generation of pilots, it would not do any good for a current ALPA pilot.

I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

NSL? No way. This has been beaten to death in discussion, but it will never pass nor should it for numerous reasons. But there are some things we can do. We can eliminate the pseudo-PFT B scales we have. No more "first year pay" (or in most cases 1st through at least 3rd and in some cases 5th year pay). There should be no sudden jumps in pay scales. A first year pilot should make a couple percent less than a second year pilot and so on, and I agree strongly with the 12 year longevity cap. We have got to end the insane disparity created anytime someone starts over by choice or necessity.

Second, have a national hiring list. You can include the military once certain hour limits have been met (tailored for military and even separated for the significant differences in fighters versus tankers, etc). Management can hire whoever they want, but they have to come from that list. That way if your carrier is threatened with liquidation if you don't sign whatever POS contract or agree to an 1113 raping, your "start over" mark will be not too far off today's USAir Captain pay. ALPA/CAPA/APA/SWAPA/ETC will then be free to oppose these idiotic "survival by any means necessary" contracts which are really only about longevity survival because no one can afford to start over.

And it isn't just the AARP crowd that is against a NSL. You will never, ever, have a policy that lets you go anywhere, fly anything, get time in anything, camp out there for 20+ years then slide on over to DL/FEDEX/UPS/UAL as a 777/whale/380 captain. That is insane and will never, ever work.

Spoken just like a true SWA pilot. Any ex-ATA pilots want to chime in on the bullschit preferential interviews that you received?

I know you're still upset about not getting full relative. I actually thought your scope could have forced the issue, but it either didn't or no one wanted to take the chance. In any case, I thought there were a lot more similarities between SW and AT than many other existing possibilities in the industry.

For example, if someone buys an uber junior company like Kalitta, JetBlue or Virgin America, does anyone really think a Captain at any of those places, sometimes with as little as 2 years longevity, is going to just seniority jump up to 20-30 years, in some cases with a dramatic, earth shattering difference in pay, just so we can all bow unconditionally at the "full relative is the gold standard all the time no matter what, no exceptions" altar? That's simply not reasonable by any stretch of the immagination.

There are many factors that would weigh in on an SLI. You can't just pick the one metric that best force multiplies your position only and claim that is the only way, and then expect the other side to sign on the dotted line without an equal effort to maximize their position.

IMO the "federal merger law" in many ways makes things worse for smaller carriers, particularly non union ones. Since there is no real way to get a legally binding agreement with a bunch of individuals with differeinc opinons on what is "fair" you will always have lawsuits leaning on the merger law, as long as it is considered a merger. That is why, if at all possible, in those unique cases you have to do everything you can to make sure its not a merger in the first place. To whatever extent that may suck for non union pilots with little longevity, it would suck ten times as much for pilots at an older company.

Full relative is no more a gold standard, or an unquestioned right, as anything else is. You get what you negotiate, and if you negotiate to blindly trust your management, you can't expect other pilots to step up and gift you seniority rights that you never negotiated for yourself. And you certainlly can't expect to sit back and let congress do it for you.

"Some people"? Did the TWA guys make bad choices? Or the PanAm guys? How about the over 1000 United guys who got furloughed, and are no probably all going to be junior to Continental guys who were hired after they were.

Typical America. We always look down on the people who get screwed by the system, and never want to help until we're in their position.

I'm in favor of helping with agressive preferential hiring and eliminating "first year pay", etc. Bring pilots in situations like that over to healthy carriers with extreme predjudice and set the compensation model so that even when you're brand new on the bottom you make a livable wage. But an NSL is not the answer.

It will NEVER happen, but anyway since we are on the NSL topic:

My thought on a NSL would be that just because you had a "more senior NSL number" doesn't mean that you could come in on top of anybody just because you "bid" that spot, I see it as IF the new airline decided to hire the pilot, they would be inserted where there NSL number would hold.

The airline would not sign off on it to begin with, and even if they somehow were convinced, they would still have to have control of their own hiring process to a degree.

I also agree with T, start it with the next round of hires at the RJ/commuter level and merely have the list beginning to form, it would be more to put in place a viable mechanism for the next generation of pilots, it would not do any good for a current ALPA pilot.

Before we even waste a soggy bar napkin trying to sketch out the details of something like that, we need to reign in scope at all carriers first. The airline with the best scope hasn't furloughed in 40 years and has been consistently profitable. That is not an accident.

Before we even waste a soggy bar napkin trying to sketch out the details of something like that, we need to reign in scope at all carriers first. The airline with the best scope hasn't furloughed in 40 years and has been consistently profitable. That is not an accident.

The difference is in business model, and only tangentially related scope. SWA never asked for changes because they didn't ever need it within the structure of their plan. I don't see causality between scope, furlough, and profits. I do find causality between profits that led to consistent growth in a niche business model that allowed for no furloughs due to (up until recently) lower costs and that continued growth.

Secondly, they have NOT always been consistently profitable as an airline operation. Just because they have "reported profits" doesn't mean it was an "airline profit. They have lost money on the airline operation side that they made up for with prescient hedging strategies during the post-9/11 period.
So yes, it could be an accident, IMHO.

All that being said, I would like to see continually tightened scope clauses that put Delta Pilots in an ever increasing percentage flights of Delta ticketed passengers. I think we will have the most success with that via turning up the heat slowly via wanting it all at once.

The difference is in business model, and only tangentially related scope. SWA never asked for changes because they didn't ever need it within the structure of their plan. I don't see causality between scope, furlough, and profits. I do find causality between profits that led to consistent growth in a niche business model that allowed for no furloughs due to (up until recently) lower costs and that continued growth.

Secondly, they have NOT always been consistently profitable as an airline operation. Just because they have "reported profits" doesn't mean it was an "airline profit. They have lost money on the airline operation side that they made up for with prescient hedging strategies during the post-9/11 period.
So yes, it could be an accident, IMHO.

All that being said, I would like to see continually tightened scope clauses that put Delta Pilots in an ever increasing percentage flights of Delta ticketed passengers. I think we will have the most success with that via turning up the heat slowly via wanting it all at once.

So what do you see for the next round (C16?)

Trade unionism presupposes a willingness to place the group above the individual, paradoxically for the greater benefit of the individual. We should be smart enough to come up with a system that divorces the interest of a long-term career from the short lifespan of a business AND reduces whipsaw potential.

Should, but aren't.

Parochial interests, jealousy, and greed trump common sense and concerted action. But for those three, we would be working day and night on a NSL.

100% agree
Originally Posted by atooraya *
I would choose that ALPA do something to redeem themselves and create a national seniority list for the entire pilot group. We slightly suffer now for the betterment of the entire industry so that the next generation of pilots doesn't have to deal with this insanity.

You are correct and the scenario only gets worse in the future without a NSL.

A national seniority list would require a national contract, something that's impossible.

Trade unionism presupposes a willingness to place the group above the individual, paradoxically for the greater benefit of the individual. We should be smart enough to come up with a system that divorces the interest of a long-term career from the short lifespan of a business AND reduces whipsaw potential.

Should, but aren't.

Parochial interests, jealousy, and greed trump common sense and concerted action. But for those three, we would be working day and night on a NSL.

No pilot group at a healthy company is going to nuke their own careers so that everyone at every operator in the country can slide on over at full longevity and seniority. Not to mention good luck getting management to accept 20 year "new hires" at top scale pay. ALPA is powerless to make this happen anyway without the support of the healthy carriers, which they will never get. If they strong arm it, they will guarantee their decertification.

Better to spend negotiating capital and effort on the numerous other areas we need to strengthen in unity, taking the sting out of starting over and scope. An NSL will never work and would be a windfall of epic proportions for some while ending the career advancement of others. Won't work. Ever.

A national seniority list would require a national contract, something that's impossible.

That too. Imagine the "quids" management would demand for that little gem.

No pilot group at a healthy company is going to nuke their own careers so that everyone at every operator in the country can slide on over at full longevity and seniority. Not to mention good luck getting management to accept 20 year "new hires" at top scale pay. ALPA is powerless to make this happen anyway without the support of the healthy carriers, which they will never get. If they strong arm it, they will guarantee their decertification.

Better to spend negotiating capital and effort on the numerous other areas we need to strengthen in unity, taking the sting out of starting over and scope. An NSL will never work and would be a windfall of epic proportions for some while ending the career advancement of others. Won't work. Ever.

Show me a company that will be healthy for 25 years, and I'm with you on this.

The real reason this profession is messed up is because the pay scales and contracts are based on a Defined Benefit pension program. Now contracts have to focus on making a respectable pay rate throughout ones entire career. Since, pilots vote on their own contracts, good luck on making that paradigm shift.

A national seniority list would require a national contract, something that's impossible.

Not necessarily. It could be constructed however the union could convince the managements to accept.

What pilot groups are there with DB plans that would not go along with an ALPA NSL?

NSL?? Hell to the no.

I am with Tsquare on this one.

So what do you see for the next round (C16?)

Hmmm.

Small Jet Scope:
Tighten the MGH ratio to within .05 of the actual MBH ratio as of the previous year, and the number can only move towards a higher mainline percentage (and once it is increased it will not be reduced <--- finally use that language in our favor!)

Hold seat limit at 76. No, if's, and's or but's!

Look at the jets coming off "financial commitments"/ASA's with DCI operators. Over the life of "C16" reduce the DCI hull count by at least 50% of that number. (from 2016-2019 there are 55 70's coming off agreements, and 27 76's coming off agreements, and let's imagine 18 50's, they are so in flux anyway).
So with 100 large jets coming off deals, DCI would have to reduce by 50 those flown by "off-list" pilots. (I would not require the reductions to be of a certain size, just that the total number of hulls is reduced.)

Any future contracts for DCI flying must be awarded to carriers with ALPA represented pilots as of the exchange of openers.

No "next-gen" powerplants (GTF's, etc.) may be operated at DCI, unless already under contract as of the exchange of openers.

End result: Max of 410-400 hulls 76 seat and lower at DCI, MBH tightened, ALPA pilots doing more DCI flying, no GTF's at DCI.

Dom. Scope:
Alaska language tightened to 20% on non-hub routes, SEA becomes a "hub" for all flying beyond WA, OR, and CA, and 4:1 ratio increased to 5:1 for hub flying that utilizes the code share.

RAH exemption loophole is closed when Frontier is sold. If they have any "other than permitted aircraft types" under contract for another airline that cannot be grown.

The company will NOT vote to permit any other US carrier to become a member of Skyteam.

Int'l. Scope:

JV protections increase to a minimum of 47% of EASK's, 47% of block hours, or 47% of legs whichever is greatest. (I leave slop in below 50% because one of the three metrics will likely put the DAL flying at the 50/50 point or better).

Language that protects DAL domestic flying and ratio of flying within the 'Skyteam Family' should transnational ownership/operation become a reality.

The company will NOT vote to permit any foreign airline that engages in any 5th freedom or cabotage flying within the US(cargo included) to become a member of Skyteam, unless said airline is already a member (China Southern Cargo?)...

Furlough:
120 day notice for furlough, 1.5 months' pay at lowest payrate being used on property for each year of longevity, with a max of 8 years used for calculation.
Flowdown language for all future DCI awarded flying.


(This is by no means razor precise, but I think you get the general idea. I'm not sure that ALL of these things are possible in the next round, but it would be my preference.)