Fleet plan
07-07-2017 | 07:41 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
The takeaway I got was that once those fences came down 20 years later Republic guys jumped to the top. If that happened here my single digit retirement seniority would take a substantial hit. I could see it passing with a yes vote by the majority of people who don't have 20 years left in the game.
07-08-2017 | 10:35 AM
#73
UCH Pilot
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 776
Likes: 1
From: 787
Secondly anything less than a 10 year fence would mean nothing to 80% of the seniority list.
First of all, even with a 100% status and category merger, plus adjustments for differential in pay and work rules, the most senior JetBlue pilot would be "seniority fenced", meaning he wouldn't have the seniority to just jump into a WB left seat. Let's say he ended up around 6,000 out of 13,000 on the list, which is probably 8-10 years from WB Captain. Sure he could hold WB FO, but there would have to be a fence on that as well. It would still take 10 years to hold a seat, so why even have a fence for Captain?
I don't like fences. They kick the problem down the road and have unintended consequences as are happening now. A seniority list integration should take that into account. Flying WB Captain is a career expectation, which unlike a fence, doesn't have a 5 or 10 year expiration. Our 2,000 or so pilots under the age of 40 will agree with that.
I sympathize with those former United pilots who went from retiring at around 400 on the list to over 2,000 because of the merger, even though they will be NB Captains sooner (many of them are now). I didn't experience that and I'm grateful. A bad integration with a carrier like JB just exacerbates that problem.
07-08-2017 | 06:09 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: B756 FO
Sure that could be the opener and I would expect nothing less. United pilots should look out for united pilots. But with us both being Alpa, I am sure there would be some type of fence but I don't think it would be 40 years. at some point you would need to be realistic just like you would want us to be. But it's all theory and I really doubt it happens.
So realistic expectations from your side of the fence? Just curious if the "no chance" did happen, what in your opinion would be reasonable for such a odd ball integration?
07-09-2017 | 03:51 AM
#75
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
It's all fun and games to speculate the what if's with the disclaimer of it likely not going to happen. However after I saw my previous airline (Republic) purchase not one but two major airlines plus a turbo prop operator within a few months of each other, I will never doubt the possibility of a "no chance" merge/purchases.
So realistic expectations from your side of the fence? Just curious if the "no chance" did happen, what in your opinion would be reasonable for such a odd ball integration?
So realistic expectations from your side of the fence? Just curious if the "no chance" did happen, what in your opinion would be reasonable for such a odd ball integration?
Please, please, please realize this is meaningless internet entertainment and nothing more!
I hesitate to enter the fray over SLIs, but what the heck it's all "Pie in the Sky" anyways.
Today's SLIs are fairly simply to calculate given the propensity of the arbitrators to use the new found algorithmic tool. As such one can hazard a guess how they would approach a UAL/JBLU SLI.
Stovepiped Category and Class sorted by a percentage usage of longevity.
The end result would put the most senior JBLU pilot beneath the most junior WB captain at UAL in a Stovepiped list (which is not the same as the actual current bidding list).
Without digging into actual numbers and just going on my own guesses AND JUST FOR FUN!!! A UAL/JBLU SLI MIGHT look something like this:
What does that mean? It means JBLU Airbus captains fall from 2500 to 8500 seniority, Airbus FOs fall 8500 to 11500 and RJ pilots are on the bottom of the list, and I would expect a 5 year fence to be included as well. Keep in mind that within those groupings the sort is then dependent on what percentage is given to longevity. At 100% longevity the categories are sorted purely on date of hire. That would put the most senior JBLU captain pretty far down the list since they are (I think) 1999 hires and as a result would end up much closer to 6000 than 2500.
Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch just remember this is an internet forum and we're talking about a rumor and nothing more so this is pure entertainment. Also, I want to emphasize for any JBLU pilot that might read this who doesn't fully understand what I mean by Stovepiped that the actual most senior RJ pilot will not end up on the bottom of the list because in a Stovepiped list it is assumed every pilot bids the most senior position possible which is, of course, never the case in the actual world.
My primary point is that recent SLIs have been somewhat mechanical as the "science" is sort of settled at the moment given that all 3 of the recent legacy mergers were Stovepiped Category and Class.
Today's SLIs are fairly simply to calculate given the propensity of the arbitrators to use the new found algorithmic tool. As such one can hazard a guess how they would approach a UAL/JBLU SLI.
Stovepiped Category and Class sorted by a percentage usage of longevity.
The end result would put the most senior JBLU pilot beneath the most junior WB captain at UAL in a Stovepiped list (which is not the same as the actual current bidding list).
Without digging into actual numbers and just going on my own guesses AND JUST FOR FUN!!! A UAL/JBLU SLI MIGHT look something like this:
pilots UAL JBLU
WB-Cap 2500 0
NB-CAP 3000 1200
WB-FO 3000 0
NB=FO 3500 1200
RJ-Cap 0 400
RJ-FO 0 400
WB-Cap 2500 0
NB-CAP 3000 1200
WB-FO 3000 0
NB=FO 3500 1200
RJ-Cap 0 400
RJ-FO 0 400
What does that mean? It means JBLU Airbus captains fall from 2500 to 8500 seniority, Airbus FOs fall 8500 to 11500 and RJ pilots are on the bottom of the list, and I would expect a 5 year fence to be included as well. Keep in mind that within those groupings the sort is then dependent on what percentage is given to longevity. At 100% longevity the categories are sorted purely on date of hire. That would put the most senior JBLU captain pretty far down the list since they are (I think) 1999 hires and as a result would end up much closer to 6000 than 2500.
Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch just remember this is an internet forum and we're talking about a rumor and nothing more so this is pure entertainment. Also, I want to emphasize for any JBLU pilot that might read this who doesn't fully understand what I mean by Stovepiped that the actual most senior RJ pilot will not end up on the bottom of the list because in a Stovepiped list it is assumed every pilot bids the most senior position possible which is, of course, never the case in the actual world.
My primary point is that recent SLIs have been somewhat mechanical as the "science" is sort of settled at the moment given that all 3 of the recent legacy mergers were Stovepiped Category and Class.
07-09-2017 | 07:22 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
1) ALPA merger 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.
2) Multiplication by zero equals zero
3) In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, JB pilots all are working under individual, and personally signed, employment agreements that explicitly state that they have zero long term (greater than one year) employment expectations in the event of a transaction.
Therefore, Sunvox, I think you are giving away the store before even considering the issues present in such an asymmetric combination. 2) Multiplication by zero equals zero
3) In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, JB pilots all are working under individual, and personally signed, employment agreements that explicitly state that they have zero long term (greater than one year) employment expectations in the event of a transaction.
07-09-2017 | 08:15 AM
#77
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 88
Likes: 4
Then in that spirit here's my thoughts considering:
1) ALPA merger 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.
2) Multiplication by zero equals zero
3) In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, JB pilots all are working under individual, and personally signed, employment agreements that explicitly state that they have zero long term (greater than one year) employment expectations in the event of a transaction.
Therefore, Sunvox, I think you are giving away the store before even considering the issues present in such an asymmetric combination. 2) Multiplication by zero equals zero
3) In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, JB pilots all are working under individual, and personally signed, employment agreements that explicitly state that they have zero long term (greater than one year) employment expectations in the event of a transaction.
07-09-2017 | 08:39 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Could you please share the scope, successorship, and fragmentation language of the in-force collective bargaining agreement?
(Hint: it's not actually protected unless there's a basis for protection. But if you are hanging your hat on McCaskill-Bond I'd like you to ask a former Airtran pilot about Guadalupe Holdings.
)
07-09-2017 | 09:56 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 51
From: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Awesome.
Could you please share the scope, successorship, and fragmentation language of the in-force collective bargaining agreement?
(Hint: it's not actually protected unless there's a basis for protection. But if you are hanging your hat on McCaskill-Bond I'd like you to ask a former Airtran pilot about Guadalupe Holdings. )
Could you please share the scope, successorship, and fragmentation language of the in-force collective bargaining agreement?
(Hint: it's not actually protected unless there's a basis for protection. But if you are hanging your hat on McCaskill-Bond I'd like you to ask a former Airtran pilot about Guadalupe Holdings.
)So staple the JetBlue pilot group?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
