Originally Posted by bryris

After all, someone has to sit reserve. Seniority is logical in this sense, but is there another way? Food for thought anyways.

Originally Posted by Numpty1

"Why does a furloughed major airline pilot have to start over at the bottom of the hill in regards to pay"

This is only true if that pilot gives up a seniority number at the airline he/she is furloughed from.

Originally Posted by Joachim

Were not in the situation were in because we like the work we do. If that was true, more interesting jobs would pay less. Thats not how the world works.

The reason why we seem to be moving backwards when everyone else is moving forward is the fact that we are covered under a peice of legislation unique to the airlines and railways which severely restricts our negotiating powers. That is why airline management can push us around like they do. If we carried a big gun in our belt (read: ability to strike) we wouldn't be pushed around. Wouldn't it be wonderfull if you could "set the brake" the next time your airline furloughs out of seniority, stalls you contract negotiations or worse?

Airline Pilots continue to work under deteriorating conditions because they don’t have a choice. Their hands are tied under the Railway Labor Act. In practical terms, airline pilots cannot strike airline management is well aware of that. Therefore, in times of economic growth, it is in the best interest of the airline negotiators to stall and maintain status quo. It is near impossible to improve the overall conditions of the pilot groups because of the RLA. Major changes happen when people die in plane crashes but not when pilots forewarn about unacceptable conditions. Compared to other economically unregulated industries that are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the employees of the airline industry have very little leverage. The RLA prevents employees from engaging in self help, carries no provisions for unfair labor practices, and contracts have no set expiration dates. These three major differences cause unionized airline employees to be at an unfair disadvantage when compared to the rest of the population. In addition, the “fly now grieve later” rule allows the schedulers to force pilots to complete tasks that may be against their contract.

The effects of the RLA became particularly obvious after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 where pilot groups accepted supposedly temporary pay cuts to keep their companies in business. In the subsequent years, airlines became profitable, however, the pilot groups did not have enough leverage to regain any lost territory in a timely fashion. Before any progress was made, the economic cycle had turned around and threats of furloughs and additional outsourcing to cheaper subcontractors deterred further progress in negotiation.

The restricting elements of the RLA, preventing pilot groups from engaging in self-help need to be amended to reflect those of the NRLA. An even better solution would be to free the airline employees from the RLA altogether and treat the airline industry as the deregulated industry it is and place it under the laws of the NRLA. If the government sees a need to use aviation as a public utility, it should be completely regulated and subsidized as such. Otherwise, aviation should be treated as an industry in its own right and unionized airline employees should have the same self-help rights as the majority of the population. Release the airline employees from the Railway Labor Act.

Originally Posted by tomgoodman

Suppose a furloughed pilot could "bump in" at another carrier. Wouldn't that stagnate or even displace the junior guys who were already there? What if he wasn't furloughed, but just decided to make a lateral move to a better job? If he came in at the bottom for seniority purposes but kept his old pay rate, wouldn't that be a "reverse B-scale", with senior pilots making less than juniors in the same seat?

Like "age 65", the NSL would probably be accepted if it were in place when everyone started flying -- it's the transition in mid-career that will cause problems.

Originally Posted by Freedom421

I think we should be more concerned with getting paid based on experience not on seniority. I don't want to displace any one, schedule and furloughs based off seniority, pay based off experience. That way if your airline changes your base and the new airline has a open spots you could possibly take a job with the new airline and not have to commute or move to your new base. Today you can take a pay cut, move or commute if your airline moves its bases. Or you can quit.

Originally Posted by tomgoodman

Disconnecting pay from seniority is a pretty radical idea, but maybe we need to consider it. There would certainly be some objections. First, companies would have to be forced to hire the high-wage veterans instead of low-wage rookies. No incumbents would be displaced, but it would "lock in" a pay inversion (reverse B-scale). There would be an internal battle over the next contract proposal, with senior, lower-paid pilots wanting parity, and junior, better-paid pilots saying "you still have less years of experience than I do." The company might say "forget it -- nobody gets a pay raise, because we had to spend it all on the new-hires."

Although the pay-for-experience idea has some definite merits for the profession as a whole, I doubt that any individual company or pilot group will voluntarily take in "refugees" except at the bottom of the seniority and pay scales. (Unless, of course, the refugees bring some nice airplanes with them).

Originally Posted by bryris

The RLA is designed to prevent interruptions in service. Those in power have decided that the railway system and airlines serve such a vital role in the nation's transportation system - upon which so many businesses rely - that a strike is to be pushed off as long as possible by delaying through mediation, mandatory cooling periods, etc. That is its purpose.

If you back away from the "pilot think" and look at it from the government's viewpoint, the motive for the act is sound. It is sort of the same reason that railroad companies are prevented from filing for liquidation bankruptcy. We can't really afford for them to go out of business. Someone has to haul the #$!@ around.

Accordingly, the RLA (or some amended variant) isn't going anywhere.

Originally Posted by Freedom421

I think we should be more concerned with getting paid based on experience not on seniority. I don't want to displace any one, schedule and furloughs based off seniority, pay based off experience. That way if your airline changes your base and the new airline has a open spots you could possibly take a job with the new airline and not have to commute or move to your new base. Today you can take a pay cut, move or commute if your airline moves its bases. Or you can quit.

Originally Posted by tomgoodman

Disconnecting pay from seniority is a pretty radical idea, but maybe we need to consider it. There would certainly be some objections. First, companies would have to be forced to hire the high-wage veterans instead of low-wage rookies. No incumbents would be displaced, but it would "lock in" a pay inversion (reverse B-scale). There would be an internal battle over the next contract proposal, with senior, lower-paid pilots wanting parity, and junior, better-paid pilots saying "you still have less years of experience than I do." The company might say "forget it -- nobody gets a pay raise, because we had to spend it all on the new-hires."

Although the pay-for-experience idea has some definite merits for the profession as a whole, I doubt that any individual company or pilot group will voluntarily take in "refugees" except at the bottom of the seniority and pay scales. (Unless, of course, the refugees bring some nice airplanes with them).

Originally Posted by Lab Rat

I think the biggest issue with this is the fact that interpreting experience is very subjective. For example, who is more experienced among a 2,000 hour carrier-based fighter pilot, a 7,000 hour regional jet captain, and a 5,000 hour 747 first officer? I don't think one can definitively point to a set of criteria and arrive at a black-and-white answer on that one because there are just too many variables to consider.

I know people with low time and years of flying who are great aviators as well as people with 10 times the experience but half the common sense. Sometimes experience cannot be measured quantitatively.

The way the system is set up now is in fact paying you based on experience. Experience, for the most part gets you the interview. You submit an application based on hours and level(s) of experience and that leads you to a job (seniority number). Hopefully the job lasts, but unless one has a crystal ball it is impossible to tell. We make the best decisions that we can with the information we have available.

What you are proposing sounds like a "plan B" in case the first plan falls through. That proposal in fact may do more harm than good with regards to hiring. In this hypothetical situation, most managers would assume hire a low experienced person because the pay would be much lower for the same type of work.