But the fences at DL are only 5 years in duration and only cover what, 30-40 out of 700+ planes? I just don't see it harming that many efficiencies. I'm not a big fan of the fence either, given that the two fleet types effected by it pay the same and are about the same size but that was the agreement and its no factor in a few years anyway.

In a DL/AS merger, I would think that a much larger and more restrictive fence would be a part of it because it would either be that or quantify the disparity in equiptment and then take it out of the ratio, which the AS guys would call a DL windfall. If it was just pure DOH or ratio, the DL guys would call that an AS windfall. In either case, both would be right to a significant degree, which is why I predict there would be a substantial fence. Not a 20 year one, but all widebodies (which is a LOT of metal) for probably around 10 years or so. But of course it would all come down to the agreement.

Longevity pay has a lot of benefits, but one key reason it is not likely to happen is the initial pain and massive training tsunami initially. I think a more reasonable 3-4 tier system is better, sort of like CAL has (had). Make that 4-5 once we bring the 70 seaters back in house.

 

What training tsunami? Oh please don't tell me you are of the camp that says we MUST rebid everything...

 

I tend to agree with gloopy. I believe the DL pilots would insist on a long fence around the widebody seats using the "career expectations" argument. However, give the AS guys an equal fence around AS crew bases and a straight ratio or DoH SLI would be appropriate.

 

Interesting discussion. Does anyone at AS or elsewhere care to post percentage of mandatory retirements at AS for the next 20 years? I think the DL numbers are around somewhere. Thx

 

Labor always hates this answer, but one of the primary jobs of a corporate board is to return value and equity to shareholders. If you hold Alaska Airlines stock you'll get to share in some of the rewards. In fact, if you're an Alaska Airlines employee, you'll share the rewards via profit sharing (trust me, I know it's never enough ).

 

Although most of "their" crew bases are also our crew bases, so that would be very interesting and ripe for company abuse/division if they wanted to go that route, and to some degree by default even if they didn't. What if a joint base grew or shrunk? Who would get or lose that flying? How would an LA 73 base be handled? Etc. And if "they" got base fences, wouldn't "we" deserve base fences too? That would set up a mini USAir/AWA situation of 2 substantially different pilot groups. And all for what? Some 73's we could get anyway if we wanted? Never put anything past airline management I suppose.

 

I'm in the "camp" that says that if you substantially change how we are paid from equipment to longevity, there will be at least 51% clamoring for a rebid. YOS pay with no fences and all the sudden AS pilots start gobbling up 777/747 slots? There is no way that would work. How many years would the scale go up to? 18? 20? 40? It could be done, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying there would be a significant adjustment period and a lot of training costs initially, although it would most likely save a lot of training costs down the road.

 

That was just for the sake of the discussion. If longevity pay is in place, it matters not what you are flying. I hear so many guys say "I don't care if I'm flying a C-172 as long as I'm paid properly. The argument would be that unless a AK guy just had a woody for flying the whale, why would he commute to DTW? He won't make any more money doing so. What you will see more than likely is the big iron going more junior....

My proposal would be a 40 year payscale, with a 3% increase every year. Doesn't matter what you fly... Bid for seniority and QOL instead of having to make a choice like you do now

 

What if the company got A380's? How would this effect scope sale pressures, much less the ability to re-insource at least a little of the outsourced flying...747 pay for 76 seat RJ's? What kind of bargaining credit would we get for selling the 150 seat range? Could we do a YOS only scale? Sure. But it is far from a seamless transition and while I'm not completely against it, it would have to be handled with tremendous care. I would rather see a move in that direction first by consolidating at least some of the pay rates. 88/90 should pay the same, 737/320 should pay the same, DC9/EMB190/195/Small C series should pay the same, all 76's should pay the same, etc. Get it down to 4 pay rates, 5 with the larger RJ's back in house, and then we can worry about longevity pay only.

 

I'm not a fan of longevity only(I used to be but I have since seen compelling arguments against).

IF I was to support a pay system on longevity, in order to "capture the reveune" on a A380 or whatever:

Pay rates per aircraft type would still be negotiated. Using a staffing formula (pilots per airframe required), we would then use a weighted average to determine the "composite pay rate" that the longevity table would be based upon.

That weighted average could be adjusted quarterly/annually/or everytime an airframe comes on property.
-----The drawback is when you REDUCE "top end" fleet size, does everybody take a cut? There would have to be a floor of some kind (pay stays stagnant until COLA catches up or new airframes come on board).

I agree with some "pay banding" like you mention above, but I'm not sure a pure YOS scale is what I prefer.