Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > JetBlue
Any practical examples of McCaskill-Bond? >

Any practical examples of McCaskill-Bond?

Search

Notices

Any practical examples of McCaskill-Bond?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-27-2022 | 02:37 PM
  #11  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by povertyeagle
I'm not aware of any non-wide body mergers that took status and category into account. TWA had some WB CA seats fenced off, but not many. On the contrary, SouthWest downgraded every single AirTran captain. That was 2011/post-McCaskill-Bond, so allowed by precedence.
That is not accurate regarding all AirTran Captains being downgraded. I was in training with a Left seat to Left seat guy from AirTran.There were quite a few Captains that did that. The catch was it had to be after a trigger date. I cant quite remember what that date was. It was widely thought that those pilots should have flown right seat at Captain pay for a period of time due to vastly different operating philosophies but that didnt happen.

ALPA national gave an SLI presentation in Atlanta that said of all the historical airline seniority mergers in history (North American Carriers) wirh Delta/Northwest being the best and I think it was AA/TWA or something as the least equitable, SWA/AT was in the middle. A lawsuit would net at most a 3-4% upside for the AT ALPA pilots with the possibility of unknown downside due to both carriers not being ALPA. Not quite germane to the Spirit/JB thing but the buzzwords for the SWA/AT SLI was expected career progression taking into account the more junior seniority list at AirTran.
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 04:21 PM
  #12  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: A320 captain
Default

Originally Posted by tom11011
Do dates of hire have any bearing between the 2 different airlines or are they just interleaving the pilots? Maybe the date of hire only matters for pilot #1 on each seniority list?

For example, according to APC, JB has 4650 pilots and Spirit has 3018. That means JB has approximately 1.55 times as many pilots as Spirit. If we were to try and break these down into a more manageable number to understand, for the sake of a simple math discussion we could say and estimate that JB has 9 pilots and Spirit has 6 pilots. Let's look at a mock seniority list under this example.

TODAY
J1 S1
J2 S2
J3 S3
J4 S4
J5 S5
J6 S6
J7
J8
J9

Let's assume J1 is more senior then S1 so he will be pilot number 1.

INTEGRATED
J1
J2
S1
J3
S2
J4
J5
S3
J6
S4
J7
J8
S5
J9
S6

Is this what it looks like?
S1-S87 were hired before B6’s first flight
…but in the end it will be sorted out in a negotiation that will certainly enrage or disappoint more than it pleases.
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 05:10 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 53
Default

Let’s focus on a JCBA first.

the SLI is legitimately 3 years away.
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 05:32 PM
  #14  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
Default

Originally Posted by Flyby1206
Have upgrade times ever played a role in a past merger? I know the arbitrator can do whatever he wants, but just haven’t heard of something like this before.
I do not think it ever has.
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 05:46 PM
  #15  
What’s it doing now?
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
From: 190CA
Default

Originally Posted by tom11011
I was trying to find some practical examples of M-B but cannot seem to find anything of substance.

We know that MB was part of the 2008 Federal Aviation Act which essentially codified certain parts of Allegheny-Mohawk, but it seems since there have only been 3 major cases involving M-B, 2 involving Flight Attendant unions and one was a dismissed case involving Republic and Frontier.

Can anyone provide any practical examples or theories of how its supposed to work for pilot groups? Is it true that your seat has bearing on the integration? If someone could explain it or post a link.
Maccaskill-Bond is a federal statute that requires a “fair and equitable” integration of seniority lists through negotiation and binding arbitration as necessary. It also specifies that if both parties are represented by the same union, that union’s merger policy applies exclusively. What both Maccaskill-Bond and the ALPA merger policy don’t do is state exactly how an integration should be carried out, but that it should be a negotiated solution. Recommended reading:
http://www3.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?...%3D&tabid=3345
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 05:50 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Flyby1206
Have upgrade times ever played a role in a past merger? I know the arbitrator can do whatever he wants, but just haven’t heard of something like this before.
no, can’t award anything for projections. I mean Jetblue has been planning on widebodies for a while so that counts too right?
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 06:07 PM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 320 Left
Default

Originally Posted by SaintNick
no, can’t award anything for projections. I mean Jetblue has been planning on widebodies for a while so that counts too right?
Thats why I came here!! Not to mention upgrade has been 2-3 years for most of my tenure. And since our 190 rates are close to NK's 320 rates I think that's a wash.
Reply
Old 08-27-2022 | 07:48 PM
  #18  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,256
Likes: 257
Default

Originally Posted by Flyby1206
Have upgrade times ever played a role in a past merger? I know the arbitrator can do whatever he wants, but just haven’t heard of something like this before.
The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category.
Changes in SLI arbitration process
After analyzing the Delta/Northwest merger, the Committee decided to incorporate the use of a panel of three arbitrators as the standard for the policy. If the merging MECs agree, they can use one arbitrator and two pilots. The pilots they select to serve on the board are called non-voting pilot board members in the revised policy. Their primary role
is to provide assistance to the arbitrator in achieving a fair and equitable integrated seniority list. The non-voting pilot board members will receive formal training on merger policy and their respective roles.
In an attempt to make the process more efficient, arbitra- tions are limited to 15 nine-hour days of hearings. In the interest of fostering open communications between MECs, new policy language discourages arbitrators from admitting MEC communications as evidence.

http://www3.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?...%3D&tabid=3345
Reply
Old 08-28-2022 | 10:42 AM
  #19  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
Default

Expected upgrade time is NOT what is meant by "career expectations".
Reply
Old 08-28-2022 | 10:59 AM
  #20  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,256
Likes: 257
Default

Originally Posted by Bluedriver
Expected upgrade time is NOT what is meant by "career expectations".
Au contraire. Career xpectatiins are whatever the arbitrator decides they are.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jarba
Hangar Talk
11
08-01-2018 06:52 AM
nwa757
American
1
02-04-2013 09:43 AM
travelair
Foreign
6
03-01-2011 05:34 AM
TonyWilliams
Regional
62
02-27-2011 10:49 AM
sellener
Flight Schools and Training
6
12-07-2009 11:21 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices