curious what a jet blue pilot loses in actual terms with a relative seniority integration? Vacation slots? Seat? Schedule?

I am a 2011 B6 hire if the list was straight relative senority i would be slotted with 2016 NK hires.

Just be ready. My friend at Alaska got hired in 2001. He is now junior to VA pilots that were hired in 2008, by 100s of numbers. It seems like arbitrators weigh more heavily towards relative seniority than DOH, especially since we all basically have the same career expectations.

I believe Alaska/Virgin was a 60/40 longevity/realitive weight.

Well, we started around 4200 this year and are planning on hiring 961 (for a net gain after attrition of 600-700 of that if we hire that many). A tad bit more than 3%. As far as deliveries, for the next 5 years that’s around 19 planes a year net after retirements/lease returns, or about 6.7% fleet growth YoY, with increased utilization (220 will have higher utilization than 190, requiring more pilots…and the LR/XLRs will also require more pilots due to being augmented). Not that ASM growth matters to pilots, but due to the upgauging, that’s also going uo double digits per year. So, 7+ % a year pilots for the next 5 years minimum unless they start retiring more planes with no replacement orders, but we are understaffed anyway, so it’ll likely remain 600+ a year (greater than 10%) for the foreseeable future. 961 is 21% of our current list. Factor attrition and call it a net of 500-600 this year it’s still 10-15%, if we net 700 from starting with 4200 (the goal) that’s over 20%. No matter how you crack it, jetblue isn’t stagnant, and is a lot closer to ULCC growth than 3%, and might actually surpass it this year depending on hiring and attrition.

unless it’s a TRO, then APC and pilots opinions somehow matter, lol.

That seems to be an emotional response. You still have the same relative seniority, so your same bidding power and you still have your longevity for pay rates.

I don’t think it was emotional it was factual. But yes, nothing gained or lost by either group in that scenario except for “expectations”.

Except “expectations” count under the ALPA guidance for SLIs. From the ALPA merger policy:

It is an emotional response to a fact. I’m not arguing that a straight relative integration doesn’t place 2011 b6 hires with 2016 nk hires. I’m saying that the perceived harm isn’t as bad as b6 guys seem to try to make it out to be. Our entire careers are based on seniority as percentage in our base/seat/company. Career expectations are an increase in company seniority percentage, relative seniority keeps everyone on that same trajectory. The major adjustment I’ve noticed would involve retirements. B6 has more than NK so the sli needs to account for that. I just don’t want this to end up being toxic and the statement that b6 gets screwed because they are placed next to this guy from NK doesn’t help. How about being placed next to a qualified pilot, everybody gets paid more with better qol, and nobody steps on anyone to better their position.