I'm in complete wonderment over a subject that is dead and buried. Perhaps a debate on the wrongs of the Civil War is in order as well.

Yes, BINGO, maybe you have finally got it! Eureka!!!

This is the last time I will attempt to explain to you a concept that apparently everyone else but you understands.

The AirTran pilots that were inserted into the list in front of me were younger than the original Southwest pilots that were in front of me prior to the acquisition of AirTran. Everyone on the new list, as well as the old list, has a mandatory retirement age of 65. Absent the insertion of younger individuals in front of me, I would gain seniority as the original SWA pilots retire.

Do you not remember this quote?:

You are the youngest and most junior pilot at airline X. Airline X has 100 pilots and you are number 100 on the list. In 10 years everyone ahead of you on the list will reach mandatory retirement age and you will reach number one on the list due to mandatory retirements.

Now imagine airline X acquires airline Y which also has 100 pilots and each of those pilots are younger than than the pilots at airline X. Both lists are combined using relative seniority. Now you are number 200 on the combined list and at the exact same place in relative seniority.

10 years go by and every one of the pilots originally on airline X's seniority list has retired, without the addition of airline Y's pilots you would be number one on the list. But, since all of airline Y's pilots were younger, not all of them have retired and you are not number one on the list. You have lost seniority even though the pilots of airline Y were added at relative seniority.

To which you replied:

SHOELU sir, I concede. You got me on this. It is hard for me to debate when I am not grasping fully your information in regards to the age of each pilot group.

So, ONE LAST TIME. The small bump in seniority I received is slowly eroded every year as the new younger AirTran pilots on the list in front of me do not retire at the same rate as the older original SWA pilots that were above me prior to the acquisition of AirTran. It really is not that difficult to comprehend. Are you being intentionally obtuse because this inconvenient truth does not support your completely misinformed narrative?

Shoelu,

Where you a Captain at the time of the snapshot?

Shoelu,

My search for the truth is rapidly losing steam. Are you by any chance left handed? Maybe that's why you lose seniority? If you were righted handed at the time of the merger would it have made a difference?

Unfortunately Bad, that's simply not the case. The trainwreck that is currently taking place in MCO and to a lesser degree in BWI is drastically impacting lives. People that were living in domicile are being forced out and made to commute, or at a minimum are losing seniority and quality of life.

It is far from dead and buried.

Shoelu's argument actually makes sense.

It's basically the same argument we NWA pilots used in our SLI arbitration argument when we merged with Delta.

(Ie., "We've got more retirements coming up than they do and if we do a straight ratio, we are gonna get screwed.")

The arbitrators went for it -- somewhat -- and they pulled out 155, or 255 (? can't remember) pilots from the list that were soon to retire (I think within 2 years), then did a ratio SLI, based on category and class, then put those pilots back in the list. I believe they called it a pull/plug method.

When all captain seats pay the same and all FO seats pay the same, the "other side" having a younger pilot group is probably one of the few valid arguments to make for skewing a straight ratio seniority list.

Basically, the older pilot groups FO at 55% can say, I was going to upgrade in 5 years when these 100 guys/gals retired, now if you put 100 more in front of me, where it's going to take them longer to retire, because they're so young -- now it will take me 7 years to upgrade and I'll get screwed.

That's a good, "A straight ratio seniority list will cost me money." argument.

It's easy to explain and prove with numbers. Arbitrators like that, because they can used ages, upgrade times and percentages, and pay rates in their award report, to explain their formula.

"My airline is better than yours," and "They had a lot of pilots who applied here." arguments rarely males the cut.


The question is whether, or not, they used some kind of formula when they came up with the list and, if so did they release it to the pilots to read and understand?

Also, how do they explain downgrading the Air Tran captains?

If there was a method to their madness, and they didn't explain what it was, I think they should have.

Then you guys wouldn't be fighting with each other (as much.) ;)

Shoelu,

You sir think that SWA had the equal amount of pilots as AirTran?

You think that all the pilots at SWA (Brand X) are the same age from 1-5,880?

You think that all the pilots at AAI (Brand Y) are the same age but younger than all the pilots at SWA (Brand X)?

Just use the first 300 AAI that data was collected, You say they were all younger than the first approx. 50 % of the SWA pilots (Captains)? I am assuming your were a Captain.

The best is that if those 300 were given relative seniority, by the way that made up about 20 % of all AAI pilots, then you would have moved backwards (lose relative seniority) over the next say 10-15 years. In addition, lose your seat as a Captain and possibly retire as an F/O?

Have a nice day sir.

I agree with you somewhat. IF both sides had equal number. But one was only about 30 %. And, they were not all the same age. They were not all younger.

IF you take 10 pilots and say they are all 60 except 1 guy at number 9. He is 57.
Take 3 pilots and are all 55.
Ratio in at Relative. 1 at # 2 spot count 4 then plug count 4 then plug.
The first 2 will end up at spots 1 and 2 when the original # 9 guy was planning too.
But I don't see that even multiplied a couple times with Shoelu's position. All ages on both sides. Certainly don't see losing Relative Seniority over the rest of career. There are still retirements in front. I concede if you were going to be the #1 guy and had that in your mind for years and then your going to be number 2 or 12 out of 10,000 instead. But not a complete loss which has been demonstrated for the AirTran Captains.

How about who you think shot Kennedy or what happened?

Yup - it would have been so much "fairer" for the most junior CA at AirTran to stay in the left seat ahead of the 1,000 plus SWA FO's senior to him by DOH who had not made it to upgrade yet. Same for the #2 guy at SWA moving down to #3 behind someone hired SEVENTEEN years after him if Relative Seniority had ruled the day.