View Single Post
Old 02-21-2008 | 10:03 AM
  #12  
LoudFastRules's Avatar
LoudFastRules
Saab Saab Phooey!
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
From: Set Hundo
Default

Originally Posted by Airsupport
the ruling will be in our favor as i said a couple of weeks ago. i thought they were going to say something more in our last confrence call but i heard from some good sources, a couple weeks ago, that "once phil and his gang see the ruling they will go ape ****" the ruling is coming and is an obvious violation of our scope clause. like higney said i wish for no ill will between us and our colgan pilots.

as far as seniority list merger goes i have heard of several different ways that it could go.

1. a 2 for 1 merging of the seniority list. for example a guy that had been at colgan for 2 years would be placed in line with the guys that have been at pinnacle for 1 year.. and so on, and so on

2. relative seniority merging. for example a guy that is in the middle of the pack at colgan, will be put in the middle of the pack at pinnacle. a guy in the top 10% at colgan, will be placed in the top 10% at pinnacle.

not sure if i like either way but i am sure it will be as fair as they can get since none of the pilots started this mess, we just have to clean it up.
Just to throw in my $.02:

It seems that the "relative seniority" method of merging lists is the only fair way to go. All of this "my airline is better than yours" nonsense is killing pilot unity and handing management victories hand over fist while they laugh their ways to the bank. The game of "Who's top?" vs. "Who's bottom?" has to end. Both companies always bring something to the table, and regardless of relative worth, the pilot group of any airline should not ever be punished. That is a surefire way to kill pilot unity and morale for years down the road.

Now, I'm sure their are ways to slightly modify the relative method to slightly adjust for upcoming retirements or slews of new hires at one company vs. no new hires at the other. However, these should only be slight adjustments. Screwing your partner in a merger is NEVER a good idea.

Finally, it would do ALPA a world of good to be exceptionally fair to Colgan despite their not choosing union representation. It's time for a good PR drive backed by actions at ALPA. Besides, it was a very close vote. There are a lot of pro-ALPA folks at Colgan, after all.
Reply