![]() |
Originally Posted by flywest
(Post 2518003)
I give up it will be what it will be. Hope the arbitrator sees what each side brings to the table and accounts for that.
|
Originally Posted by flywest
(Post 2517449)
Ok but wasn't Vx an ALPA carrier? We all started with a DOH.... So let DOH be the gold standard.
Hate to burst your bubble. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2517835)
VX will not agree to DOH and the arbitrator will not award DOH, so why bother talking about it?
It won't happen because it CAN'T happen. Dreaming about it won't make it so. |
Relative seniority. As explained to me it has nothing to do with merging the two groups. What it has to do with is each pilot group keeps “their” relative seniority. If you’re a 15-year Alaska FO, you won’t be jumped by a 10-year Alaska Captain. It keeps each seniority list as is. The merger committees are mainly negotiating percentage integration.....where the first airbus guys fall in and what ratios....and so on. The percentage integration lists would look just like what mea2000 mentioned earlier.....as an example. As for the arbitrator, they just have to “consider” ALPA merger policy and can weigh each section however they want. It becomes their show to do as they wish. I need to re-read the TPA to double-check though.
|
McCaskill-Bond says that in the merger of lists with the same union the union’s merger policy shall be used. To think one- let alone three- arbitrators would decide to simply ignore the act and open their award up to litigation seems far fetched to me.
Also, rule one of the policy states that the order of both original lists is inviolate. Under no circumstances can someone on a list jump another on the same original list... Longevity (Relative seniority) as written in the policy is an entirely different subject. Read the policy guys, it’s not that long and it’s written in fairly easy to read English. |
In arbitration, it will essentially come down to a percent weighting. In short they give each pilot a slot on a seniority list based 100% on DOH and another based 100% on relative position. Each pilot has two scores. For example, #1 VX Captain is #1 on RP list so that is 2700(?)ish points and on the DOH list he is about 1/2 way down so let’s pretend 1350 points.
Now the argument becomes how much to weigh each category. Let’s say it is 50% longevity and 50% RP. 2700x.5=1350 plus 1350x.5=675. Total score is 2025. Do that for every pilot on the list and then put them in order by total score. This is how essentially the last 3 arbitrated SLI’s have been done and there is no reason to think it would be any different here. What the arguments come down to then is how much each side should be weighed. L-UAL asked for 50% longevity weight...got 35%. In USA E/W it was 15% longevity. In USA/AA it was also 15% longevity. Arbitrators love precedent...and this formula method is pretty easy to implement once you decide what the scores should be. Anyway, I am horrified by some of the comments placed on here by some alleged Alaska pilots. My guess is they have to come on the internet to rant because nobody is listening to them at work. |
Originally Posted by flywest
(Post 2517449)
Ok but wasn't Vx an ALPA carrier? My understanding is VX ALPA's main goals was/is to protect jobs and seniority. WTF over. Now VX is demanding a relative seniority list. Putting a 9 year guy next to a 30 year guy. Give me a break. Can you say labor discord! We all saw the USAIR, AWA freak show. DOH avoids a windfall. We all started with a DOH. So let DOH be the gold standard.
|
Originally Posted by busbusbaby
(Post 2520586)
Apples and oranges one has nothing to do with the other stop trolling, get a life
|
While arbitrated ALPA merger policy isn’t my specialty, it appears from past cases an arbitrator can weigh provisions how they see fit. ALPA merger policy is vague. For example, longevity in arbitration has been weighed anywhere from 15-35 percent. An arbitrator could weight it 75% or 5% if they want. They can weigh the provisions however they want. They can even look outside the merger policy as long as they “considered” it. Probably not likely but possible. Arbitration sucks.
Originally Posted by Just a Lurker
(Post 2520388)
McCaskill-Bond says that in the merger of lists with the same union the union’s merger policy shall be used. To think one- let alone three- arbitrators would decide to simply ignore the act and open their award up to litigation seems far fetched to me.
Also, rule one of the policy states that the order of both original lists is inviolate. Under no circumstances can someone on a list jump another on the same original list... Longevity (Relative seniority) as written in the policy is an entirely different subject. Read the policy guys, it’s not that long and it’s written in fairly easy to read English. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 2520621)
His view is tainted by the fact that he has zero concept of the ALPA Merger/Frag policy.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:55 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands