Originally Posted by
Captain Tony
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but what motivation would an airline have to hire high longevity pilots under this scheme? You guys act like you have management over a barrel.
Longevity=pay&benefits (what costs management)
Seniority=seat, schedule, and equipment (what costs pilots)
National lists of either one are never going to happen. Too many people have too much to lose.
Not sure what the pilots would lose with a National Longevity list; the only losers would be the companies. Its the same basic concept of what trade unions like Electricians do so that you don't take a pay cut when you go to work for another company. The only way it would work is if it didn't take so long for a pay scale to mature. Also, it would require a national union to negotiate it into all the airline contracts. It really is just a theoretical way to solve a problem that this industry has where you are not compensated for your experience.
It probably never will be successful; I was just trying to explain a basic concept to someone that lacked knowledge. The concept of the difference between longevity and seniority seems to be lost on a lot of pilots (especially when a merger happens).
Originally Posted by
Delta1067
Isn't that a socialist idea. Why should a private company be forced give new hires added longegivy? Not very capitalistic of you
The airlines have never been in a free market, otherwise employee groups wouldn't be forced to negotiate under the RLA and submit to the whims of the NMB. If the free market was actually allowed, bankruptcy wouldn't allow contracts to get tossed and pilots could demand what they are worth. We would also never see regionals as mainline pilots would be able to strike at their discretion to put an end to them.