Originally Posted by
XHooker
GB, I'll make this simpler and give an example since what I wrote was misinterpreted.
Is it reasonable to expect to hold the same position you held pre-merger after the SLI?
Example: On May 3, 2010 your seniority was that of a WB FO, regardless of what you actually held ("above" your seniority, i.e. Captain, or "below" your seniority, i.e. NB FO). On November 3, 2013 would it be reasonable to expect to be a WB FO (or better due to intervening retirements)? I'm including status and category and using a single 2010 "snapshot." I'm not including longevity because I'm interested in hearing the how and why it should be used beyond "it's ALPA merger policy."
I see what you are saying. I'd have to answer: "It depends". You see the problem with that method as far as I see it is this. If after the seniority list is published, we all stay in our relative positions in our relative seats, then it is unfair to the LUAL pilots. This is simply due to the fact that the LUAL side brings substantially more WB Captain jobs to the merger, while the LCAL side brings substantially more NB jobs to the merger. Therefore, the pool of the most desirable jobs is diluted for the LUAL guys post merger, and is improved for the LCAL side. There should be some adjustment for that which isn't considered in your proposal, longevity issues aside (which can't be completely ignored per ALPA).
I say this despite the LCAL testimony that they wished we didn't have all these pesky new work rules so that we could all work harder... That was NOT our finest moment as airline pilots. You don't think we will see that testimony during the next round of contract negotiations????? =(