Originally Posted by LivingInMEM

Aeris, et al

There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority. When it comes to mergers (and a lot of other situations) our seniority system has some nearly unworkable flaws. So, with that in mind, when a voter votes he usually votes as to what will most benefit him/her in that particular situation. I don't think anyone was really concerned about a date of hire conundrum or anything else along those lines.

The way the merger decision was structured, it was voided as soon as ALPA was voted out - because the US AIR East MEC was still "ALPA" (whether national or not). Given that, it seemed like an easy decision for the question of retaining ALPA or not. To some, the option of accepting the resultant seniority was not much better than having to start again at another airline - so putting the long-term health of the airline may not have been such a huge risk.

With that seniority list being the over-riding concern of the majority of voting members, it was pretty short-sighted to produce videos about insurance benefits, etc. I am sure that video was effective as one that, when shown to a pilot group that was about to vote whether to accept 50% paycuts (a hypothetical), talked about how they would lose out on their free breakfasts if they voted out the union. I don't believe any of those US Air guys would be sitting at their resultant seniority saying "good thing we still have our insusrance."