Sorry, I missed your extreme example.

Let's say it's a covered transaction as defined under the Mc Caskill-Bond.

It's a problem that you are going to pay the 737 captain the same as the 747 captain. Based on that fact alone, what do you want me to do about it, and why? Because it's not fair? What if he was a 380 captain at his airline? Does your argument become that he should go above our #1 pilot then?

Or, do you just want Date of Hire integration? Then his argument become that the merger would be costing HIM money, wouldn't it?


What's not a problem and easy for you to argue is that the 29 year old captain is part of a much younger pilot group and will be holding up the 50.00001% F/O on your list from upgrading quicker, thus the merger would be costing the F/O money.

 

Really? Could have fooled me. I guess we can just give away that profit shareing then, huh?

 

I hazard a guess s/he would NOT be slotted in at 5 years. As many are want to say here, pay is not everything. Bidding power in category has a lot of QOL items associated with it. Being slotted in at 5 years would be a huge hit.

Denny

 

Equipment does not matter, but seat does.

He would be slotted in at 5 years, possibly losing his captain seat and a lot of money (captain pay vs. F/O pay). He definitely would be closer to being downgraded, and furloughed.

I think it's why arbitrators have been persuaded to not go with DOH anymore -- at least not for pilots.

If I remember correctly, they dismiss the possibility right away.

 

Hey, at least after the last merger I can non rev ahead of averyone else. That's still DOH!🙁

 

Looks and sounds like you are advocating a UPS pay scale model. With a single A / B rates with a sliding longevity scale. Do I read that correctly?

 

By the way, look at what you did to make your extreme example. You had to change your argument by adding the pilots age and seniority date to it.

That's not the discussion and I pointed out what I think an arbitrator would do if the proper argument was made.


By the way, it's entirely possible that Alaskas pilot group is just as old as ours - relatively speaking, of course.


If that were the case, then what would you be advocating?

 

Unless you nonrev on Skywest. Then your DOH means nothing (unless you work for OO).

 

Consider yourself fooled.

 

i believe the alpa-alpa integration methodology is settled science.

okay....forget the age....but realize the floated complaint was the existing template 'punishes older hires'.

so he is a 50 yr old, with 5 vears longevity, at a 5 yr old airline. same story.

it doesnt alter the reality relative position on the list impacts every single aspect of employment.

this is a whole lot of itchin, and not much scratchin....and this same conversation was goin on 20 years ago.

none of this is a good idea. but if you want to entertain decoupling pay and productivity, the far more marketable product is seniority pay. that way a pilot gets paid 'more' has less incentive to join the churn, and more to manage qol.

otoh....simply installing an incremental bump in 401 funding by management to incentivize staying in a seat post lock expiration would be enough for many to stay put.