even if we were all paid the exact same down to the penny....relative position on the seniority list dictates a lot more than just the pay rate.

I'm going to ask a dumb question....what happens if this new normal pay model is adopted......and the industry then finds itself facing economic realities that result in returning to the 'old normal'?

 

Are you responding to me?

 

well....I am just dumbfounded at reading a suggestion that a pay model of equal pay rates would produce a rational argument (to an arbitrator or anyone else) that there then is no basis for discriminating subgroup integration of merging a seniority list?

Are you joking? Or what?

Outside of pay rates, relative position on a seniority list dictates every aspect of a pilots existence. To suggest slotting a NBA of airline X equivalent of a WBA in airline Y as inconsequential because 'they have the same PAY RATE first would place the NBA from X ahead of every NBA from Y.....never mind PAY RATE does not equal PAY CHECK.

And even given the 'new normal' pay model, it is PAY CHECK, not PAY RATE that is what ends up in the bank every month.

 

Guys lets please keep the discourse at a high level.

Scoop

 

I took a break from this board for a while because the level of discourse had degenerated. It would be nice if we could just have discussions on here as if we were standing in front of each other.


I'll start again, by addressing an obvious point you make:

I agree, relative position on a list does dictate a lot.

But, besides money and pay, please name the things that relative position on a seniority list dictates that an arbitrator would care about?

Maybe even explain how he, or she would write it down in their decision/award to justify altering the list, because it was so important to favor one group over the other, because of it?



Respectfully,

New K Now

 

My apologies.....thanks Scoop for calling the balls and strikes.

 

Ummm....domicile basing? Vacations? PBS bidding? Furlough? Displacements/AEs? theater of operation lifestyle? Premium flying awards?

Unless with this new normal pay rate template we somehow also adopt some other kind of metric for all these things other than relative seniority on the list?

To use an extreme example....airline X is a startup acquired by a legacy airline Y. The number one pilot at airline X is a 29 yr old 737A with 5 years longevity. So an arbitrator wouldn't care that this pilot is slotted in with a 35 year number one 777A at the legacy on the seniority list because the legacy group has a longevity pay rate model and there is no harm to all the legacy pilots below that 30 year 777A with such an integration?

is that the argument you believe could be rationally made to an arbitrator?

 

I'll start with the easy one:


1.) Premium flying awards: That's pay/compensation and if the #1 737 pilot makes the same as the #1 747 pilot, the premium flying opportunities are for the same amount.


Next:

2.) Furlough/displacements: The #1 AK 737 pilot is just as far from displacements to a lower paying position (which is F/O on any airplane), relatively speaking, as our #1 747 pilot.

3.) AE's: Same principle, just in reverse. Relatively speaking the 50.0001% F/O spot on the AK list is just as close to upgrade as the 50.0001% F/O spot on our list is. In fact, there is an argument that we could be at a disadvantage in negotiating this position that I won't get into.

4.) PBS bidding: Kind of the same principle, as well. Except, add the caveat that we all are pretty much awarded the same amount of hours, per month and being senior, doesn't guarantee you are going to initially be awarded more hours on the initial PBS run. Take longevity away and all captains will make about the same amount of money and all F/O's will make about the same amount of money. It's all relative, as well, too remember?

5.) Vacations: Same principle. Didn't the #1 AK pilot get all the vacation weeks he wanted, too? How do you want me, as an arbitrator to justify skewing the list in one direction so vacations can be fair?

Finally:

6.) Domicile Basing: Are you saying no Delta pilots will bid up to Anchorage, or Portland and vice versa? Even of they did, how am I as an arbitrator going to alter the list, and for what reason?

7.) Theater of operation/lifestyle: Once again, same principle. Who is to say that if given the opportunity, for the same payrate, Delta senior pilots wouldn't try to bid 737 captain, and do turns, so as to be home every night. Again, as an arbitrator, how do you want me to fix it and for what reason?


The bottom line is for arbitrators, lawyers, and judges, for the most part, it comes down to the bottom line. Money.


If you are costing someone money, and it can be fixed in a rational way, most likely, they will adjust their thinking and try to make things more equitable - monetarily.

And if the #1 747 captain makes the same amount as the #1 737 pilot, how are pilots being harmed monetarily by a ratio list with 2 category's -- Captain and F/O?


If you can't answer the above question, don't expect an arbitrator, or judge, to rule in your favor.



Respectfully,

New K Now

 

Do we have any recent examples that follow your extreme example?

We do have the SWA and Airtran model.

We also have the not yet decided Alaska Virgin America model.

IMO, the closest thing to your example is the USAir Amwest thing...

 

No. You completely miss the point. The 5 year CA would be slotted in at 5 years. This is all moot because it didn't start out this way. If EVERYBODY was on longevity based pay, DOH would be easy because pay rates wouldn't change because you go from 777 to 717. Equipment. does. not. matter.