Originally Posted by
newKnow
AK,
You've got people "talking" to you who, two and a half years ago, were arguing both sides of the argument you are having now. We were just as sure and passionate and polarized as you are now. What should be telling to you though is that we are all saying the same thing now:
The arbitrator will discount many of the things you think are important when he or she constructs your seniority list.
That's as simple as it can be said.
I understand what you are saying and don't doubt that those are the facts for your deal. That does not make it right for you and definitely doesn't make it fair in this instance. Flying the same aircraft (more or less) takes a large variable out of the total equation. There is such a huge disparity in every other aspect of the acquisition that it would be unfair to overlook them. If it were just a couple bucks difference, ok...but c'mon, have you seen the difference in pay? They could drop almost half their trips with the new pay and still make the same amount of money. How's that for QOL? The pay is only one of the many large 'upgrades' they will enjoy. The argument that pay doesn't matter is pure BS.
I'll use this example again. Would relative seniority be fair if their company were only 5 years old with only a couple hundred pilots? (Nobody will answer this question.) Blending only a few pilots would not make a difference to the overall seniority of the larger group but it would be morally wrong. Same principle here, just different size and age.
I'm done watching the spinning wheels here...