I still don't see how we would be hurt. You would not take a pay cut. Depending on how the seat shuffle worked out, you might possibly have to move to a different piece of equipment, but your pay would be the same. It would behoove the company to institute a no bump/flush policy so as to minimize training events. Otherwise we might have to go be more senior on a smaller piece of equipment for the exact. same. pay. I just don't see the bad in that.

We can talk about longevity pay till the cows return to Capistrano, but it won't happen. Super premium airplanes are way to cool even though we only have a few.

 

Since you are talking hypothetically, here is what I think is the easiest solution in merging some carrier like Alaska if we were LBP. Merge DOH with 20 year fences.....

Denny

 

We might get slight additional pay banding, but will never get LPB. Ever. Its a pipe dream anyway. Not going to happen. The biggest reason allegedly is that it would reduce training, but if anything it would DRAMATICALLY increase training for years as everyone chased their own little fantasy island micro climates.

Dead issue. Move on.

 

No, you wouldn't take a pay cut but you could potentially take a big hit in seniority for QOL items. You obviously see this with your statement "Depending on how the seat shuffle worked out, you might possibly have to move to a different piece of equipment, but your pay would be the same."

The airline system of seniority is based on so many other things than pay.

Denny

 

Take a look back as to how this discussion started and you will see that I said that if we went to a longevity based pay system, we would lose a great argument against a ratio, two category list, IF we were to merge with someone.

Ie., we might wind up with the other airlines #1 pilot being merged in right behind our #1 pilot, even if that airline only flew smaller airplanes.

Cog and BobZ said that would never happen.


Maybe it would hurt their feelings, if it did.

 

That sounds sooooo familiar.


Maybe we could call the different groups Red, Green, or Blue, depending on which airline they were with, or of they were hired after the merger.


Nothing could go wrong then, right?

 

I think that depends on how one defines QOL. If it means vacation/days off/ability to choose what trips you fly, then I disagree big time. You might find yourself more senior on different equipment which would result in exactly the opposite of what you contest. The one downside that I would see is that every category/seat would become much more senior at the top of each for those reasons above as guys found their equilibrium and camped out. On the other hand, if QOL is solely equipment based, you would be right but I contend that many guys will bail from certain categories because they ONLY do it for the money. I know many people that do not like all international flying for example.

I agree with your last statement. The funny thing is that QOL is the one thing that is sacrificed in chasing that pay. Everything else we do is determined by seniority. (The only thing that I can think of that is not is jumpseating). The thing is here that we are discussing pay. I guess what I don't like about the way it is now is that we depend on management to buy a lot of the big iron in order for as many of us to make as much as possible. It's like making Admiral in the Navy, there are only so many open slots. There just has to be a better way.

 

From what I've seen with the latest pay negotiations for new aircraft and the last TA, our union negotiators know what they are doing.


They know what's up.

 

Since we are using Alaska as the case study: how many guys that drive to work (in SEATTLE) would commute across country to fly a 777 for the same money? If they did, how many Seattle residents would then benefit?

I wonder where the FUPM mantra went?

 

Lots of dead issues on these forums. Doesn't mean they aren't worth discussing. You are right about the initial training, but once the dust settles it would be easy.