Originally Posted by
EWRflyr
Axl,
Maybe your comments were in reference to something else ewrbasedpilot stated that bothered you. If I missed that my apologies, but I do have a question.
I'm curious as to how a relative seniority integration is a "line of BS" in your view? To me it seems that this is the middle of the road view/position on SLI. It's not the extremes of either side (i.e. UAL pilots: staple the CAL guys; CAL pilots: staple the UAL pilots...we know neither is realistic and won't happen) but a more fair idea to integrate the list. Didn't DL/NW end up with something close to a relative seniority list within a few percent?
Honestly, I don't spend any time thinking about the SLI because we won't decide it, arbitrators will and I won't be on the team making the arguments. I don't even discuss it in the cockpit, but was curious since it seems to be brought up here.
Relative seniority for everyone on both groups works well for the present and a few years into the future. The problem arises later because of the 10-15 year younger age difference that the CAL 2005-2009 hires are. A straight relative seniority will prevent many late 1990's+ L-UAL hires from left seat widebody positions (or left seat positions period) that they would otherwise expect sans the merger. With the much fewer widebodies that CAL has, you can mathematically compute how many of the CAL 2005+ hires would get these left seats that they would NOT have without the merger.
Even if the ISL favored junior L-UAL folks at the outset, some/most of 2005+ would STILL enjoy widebody flying (that they wouldn't otherwise have) the last 15 years of their career due to the fact 95% of the entire L-UAL pilots would be retired. The 2005+ hires aren't going to lose their seats. At worst, their progression may be just a bit slower now but the 2005+ hires at CAL are going to own the whole operation the last 15+ years of their career. An enviable position, indeed.