Another nugget from the most recent binding SLI decision.

F. Relative Seniority
Relative seniority, in various guises, involves determining a pilot’s relative position on his pre-merger seniority list and trying to duplicate that position on the merged list. Described another way, if a pilot is at the 50th percentile on the pre-merger list, the goal of relative seniority is to place the pilot at the 50th percentile of the new list. While relative seniority has surfaced from time to time in previous pilot seniority integration arbitration disputes, the concept is not a mandatory factor under the ALPA policy and has not been adopted as a critical factor in any previous pilot seniority list integrations involving major carriers. Relative seniority contradicts the concept of longevity. While the Board considered the relative seniority charts that are part of the record in this case, the Board concludes that relative seniority is not a significant consideration in determining the method for merging the Alaska and Virgin America lists.



G. Static Fleet Versus Dynamic Fleet Assumptions
Arbitration decisions integrating pilot seniority lists typically rely on fleet assumptions that are static on the snapshot date. By doing so, Arbitration Boards are able to see the implications of various methods for integrating the pilot work force on the workforce as it actually existed on the announced date of the merger, as contrasted to a work force determined by hypothetical assumptions about aircraft count, pilot behavior, and other merger related variables. In this case, for example, the parties presented multiple and inconsistent fleet projections. Those projections were simply predictions made at a certain date, using different assumptions, and presented to different audiences. None of them provides a reliable guide to the future. ALPA Merger Policy cautions that “merger representatives should recognize the difficulty of forecasting what will occur well into the future” [JX 1,p. 4].

While the fleet size, number of pilots, and status and longevity of pilots on the separate lists will continue to change after the snapshot date, many of those changes will be directly related to the merger. Using the snapshot date as the measuring stick for various merged lists helps to keep post-merger driven considerations from unfairly impacting the IPSL in either direction. Fleet assumptions are important because the size of the fleet determines the number of pilot jobs, the status of the jobs, the opportunities for advancement and other factors important to a pilot’s everyday work life. The Virgin America Committee argues that the Alaska fleet will most certainly grow over the next few years and urges the Board to consider several different, future fleet sizes in determining a fair and equitable seniority list. The Board disagrees. Unlike future fleet projections which may be too high, too low, or dead on, the size of the fleet on the snapshot date is ascertainable and definite. Using a static fleet analysis as of the snapshot date allows the Board to determine the impact of various formulas for merging the lists without reliance on speculative merger driven fleet size assumptions. In the final analysis, when a merged list is implemented and the fleet subsequently grows, all pilots will benefit from the opportunities presented by that growth, even if the benefit varies from pilot to pilot.