Originally Posted by
shiznit
But if its relative seniority, you won't lose bidding power and there will be more opportunities going forward....
Isn't that what DAL argued in the NWA/DAL SLI?
I'm a way low man on the totem pole so anyone coming in ahead of me will have a potential impact on my future, but I do agree that a relative percentage SLI with adjustments for fleet makeup/percentage wide to narrow would absolutely be fair.
This is exactly why scope is important for everybody except for #1.
Without a strategy of growth and a union embracing even the interests of future hires the career outlook for everyone on the list takes a hit.
If you retire 1000 out of 12000 you're doing pretty good
If you retire 1000 out of 5000 not so good anymore for QOL and pay.
Either we are a labor union interested in getting everybody on board and making things better for all, or we just do out own thing, protect our guys and let
the others fend for themselves...
Unfortunately currently we pick and chose select principles while ignoring others to our own financial and career detriment.
The argument I always got through the ranks of the reps. when asking about Alaska, Hawaiian et al was "you should be happy to have a job, they are furloughing pilots". Now that many of those cited airlines are recalling and hiring. What does that mean for the former argument?
Let's face it: our seniority based system is a giant pyramid scheme. Unless there is a drive to keep it growing the base is stagnates and fails top live up to expectations while the guy at the very tip doesn't notice a thing.
I'm not bitter, but I think there are some philosophical holes the size of the moon in our organization that cannot be resolved by maintaining the established structure, direction and ideals.
Cheers
George