For the record, win, lose or draw, I intend on buying a large sailboat and naming my tender "Little Benito".

 

I think that it illustrates that even within your own list the relative value carries different weight depending on your circumstances. In your case I agree. If longevity and position on list are relatively equal then they should try to remain that way. That sounds fair to me. The problems with that do get more difficult in different parts of the list. On the senior side you have excessive longevity vs high bidding power. Around the upgrade line you have a wide variety of longevities and upgrade time variance. And in the middle of the captain list you also have longevity vs. Bidding power discrepancies.

It's no wonder why these things always go to arbitration. It's very complicated and not only does everyone puts a different value on their years of service. The value can vary dramatically at different parts of the list.

 

I have a question on that point Joe. What has the number 1 captain at VX been gifted with what you say as 20 years of longevity? The best schedule? He already has that. The best vacation slots? He's got that too. And in this scenario he actually loses quite a bit if the bus goes away. And he is probably going to give quite a few days off back in the mean time. We are all on one contract, one pay rate. A rate that was achieved by the merger, not one that existed before. The contract really has no bearing on longevity or seniority anyway.

So I'd like to hear what you think he's gained from being inserted in the list at a worst case scenario were the VX position places him.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying understand what the line of thinking is when guys say things like this.

-4

 

Currently, both sides junior CAs are summer 2012 hires. 2012 is where it starts to even out, in terms of upgrades and QOL. Senior to that is where it gets complicated all the way up to the number one slots on both sides. You are correct on why it always goes to arbitration. In the end, some will gain one way and others will gain the other way. Neither should totally lose it all and there are some on both sides that fall into this category.

 

Unfortunately they do not negotiate off the current status of the list. It's off the snapshot date list. There has been lots of upgrades on both sides since then. That will not mess with the results of the award. But it will create lots of implementation issues that may have unindented conciquences.

 

737 has 2014 hires in the left seat now. Airbus is stuck at 2012.

 

Because all of the 20+ year Alaska guys have crawled up the list for years. To lose ground to a 10 year guy who isn't even at top of scale is unacceptable. If the shoe was on the other foot you'd have the same concerns. It is, what it is. No relative argument will change this fact. We all know seniority is everything in this game. Now we'll see what the arbitrator thinks.

 

As a "lurker", I am curious as the the answer to a previous question; as "seniority is everything in this game...", if seniority is gained (not lost) as a result of the SLI, is there "harm"? Or is this a philosophical issue?

Have a good rest of the weekend.

S

 

Not quite sure what list you’re looking at.

 

That doesn’t answer the question about the supposed windfall for the top VA guys. They were bidding top 1% and won’t be after integration. Not saying 20 year AAG pilots deserve having people put above them, but if their relative seniority does not decrease they won’t lose ground, because their bidding power remains the same.
I don’t think any AAG loses relative seniority, or any VA pilot will gain relative seniority in the VA proposal, but I will happily be corrected by anyone who knows better.