Originally Posted by
CleCapt
While MANY may not agree. And it is not one of the stated corner stones of the NEW ALPA merger policy that are to be considered, it would be difficult for anyone to make an argument that Relative Seniority isn't fair.
Absent a merger, the UAL guys would have kept their relative position on their list, and the same for the CAL pilots. The furloughed guys would still be furloughed. To say that you would end your career as top 747 captain is projecting too far into the future and makes too many optimistic assumptions, given the volatility of the US Airline business.
So what could be more fair than being within a few percent of your current relative position.
I would be way better off with DOH, and I still think relative is fair. (I'm not a scab)
Sure, I think all the points raised on both sides will move a specific group up or down a few percent. Maybe there will be some fancy formula used to calculate the new list. In the end, I still think it will be close to current relative percent, plus or minus a couple.
Does that favour one proposal over another? It doesn't matter. I think that is how it will come down for most.
Relative seniority would place 1000-1400 younger pilots in front of older pilots with more longevity. This would essentially stagnate the older pilot's seniority progression during the latter part of their career.
A 35 year career at a widebody airline (100+) and not making widebody captain is quite the slap. Some would want to diminish the widebody airplane and it's career value for argumentative sake, but historical bidding patterns show otherwise.
While one cannot draw a picture of what the future holds, one side made a far reaching attempt to do so in their presentation. The objective methodology would utilize what is front of you where your argument is based on the current fleet and attrition through retirements. The farther you stray from that premise, the more subjective you get. It then becomes a seniority list produced by irrational design versus one built on facts and policy.