There was an idea floated for DL/NW that never took off that seemed fair to me. Merge the lists based on ratios but keep the numbers separated by pre-merger airline.

When a UA pilot retires the UA pilots move up among the UA numbers and the same for CO retirees. If you are the bottom/top of the list today you are on the bottom/top of the list after the SLI. If you were going to retire in the top 1% you will still retire in the top 1%. It avoids the windfall today of an unbalanced integration and the windfall tomorrow of getting slotted behind a much younger group and stuck in a log jam.

No windfall and career expectations are similar.

 

If not height, it will be by length. Credit will be given for the size of the watch and number of gold chains worn by the pilot that doesn't make the cut with height or length

If the guy is vertically challenged, yet drives a corvette, is an FFDO, has a big watch and chains. They get super seniority I would presume.

 

I like it! How do you factor new deliveries of equipment neither company operates, eg 787 & A350?

 

My guess is that we are one airline now and the future fleet will be whatever it is. We have orders and they have orders. I was at NW when they had the 20 year fences and it just seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

I just remember this notion being floated in the DL/NW SLI and it seemed to not screw people in the short or long term. I don't expect to kick some CO pilot out of his left seat but I don't want a logjam of young pilots devastating my current expectation of retiring with widebody captain seniority.

I don't have all the answers but when my NW buddies were talking about it there seemed to be a sense that it was fair to both sides. I don't know why the idea was dropped.

 

Airhoss, that's a great description of what has happened to everyone who isn't in the upper percentages of their seat/equipment the past few years. Anyone below 50% on their seat has seen significant degradation of QOL and pay. UAL I'd say is a little unusual with the unbelievable furloughs, as a percentage of the pilot list (20% at least?), so it has hit UAL pilots harder than any other it seems.

 

APC225,

While there certainly could be any possible twist in the approach taken by an arbitration board, aircraft not on the property at either airline have never been considered germane by boards in their final decisions. Again, it is who is on both lists, where they sit, and what equipment that is present at the snap shot that develops the hypothetical picture going forward in the "career expectation" evaluation and determination of the SLI.

Case in point, had the merger happened a few years ago when UAL still had hard 320 orders of 40 or so and 20 options (cancelled for I can't remember how much) they wouldn't have played squat into the arbitration. Sure either side can argue for those "promised" aircraft and career expectation.......then the arbitrator will dismiss it when the SLI is determined.

Current number of pilots, aircraft, percentages of wide bodies vs narrow at the time stamp determined will be the baseline that exists in a vacuum for the rest of the process. Yeah, they assume that the 747 will be around for the most junior UAL guy on the list to retire on if that was his/her expectation when the picture was taken (i.e. UAL will continue to have the same fleet size and ratio of WB/NB). We all know and so do they that the aircraft won't be there. But, there is no better way to approach the issue without making baseless assumptions. Airline X is made up of this number of pilots and percent of wide/narrow bodies. Airline Y is....... Now, they begin the process.

This isn't addressing modifications to ALPA merger policy but stating that aircraft on property are just that. And, aircraft on order are the same. They don't exist and are but promises. They might come, they might not come. To assume either outcome as true disadvantages one side over another based on an assumption. Therefore, they go with the status quo as their "given" in the equation they are trying to solve.

Go read a few decisions and find the "we got X aircraft order" means nothing in this arena. You can't possibly treat both sides "fairly" based on assumptions of aircraft on order. Lawsuits would multiply by a factor of ten over what they probably will be. Rather you make a baseline based on today and a perhaps fictitious, yet legal assumption, of status quo through out the career of aircraft type and ratios to come up with the final answer to try and balance the equation to result in the same career expectation and/or the damage inflicted to both sides to be equal. Isn't right or wrong. There is just no better answer.

The board might think UAL will tank in 12 months due to the economy and fuel prices when the time comes for SLI. Doesn't matter. They'll approach it as I have stated and come up with their best answer based on the facts existing at that time.

Frats,
Lee

 

So it's still 2 pilot groups operating in their original domiciles with their original equipment, but they happen to use the same callsign and have the same contract? What happens if Smisek moves A320s to EWR or 787s to ORD?

 

No, the way it was explained to me is that there is one pilot group operating on one list and all bases/aircraft/etc. are open for bid with no fences or restrictions.

The interesting point was that after the SLI based on current percentages that the resulting numbers were "owned" by the pre-merger groups. A UA retirement would leapfrog UA pilots up the list over CO pilots and a CO retirement would leapfrog CO pilots up the list over UA pilots.

The result was people keep relative seniority today but not suffer from age related retirement logjams down the road. You maintain your current position on the merged list today but retire in the same percentage of the overall list as you would expect to if there had never been a merger.

I don't know if would work but it's something my NW buddies mentioned was being thrown around since Delta had just done a big buyout of senior pilots and they had a much younger pilot group.

 

No, no, no. It is going to be done by the distance a pilot can drive a golf ball, from the longest to the shortest hitter.

BTW, due to a shoulder issue, my doctor has authorized me to use a designated "driver" for this test. I called Bubba Watson and he agreed to help a brother out when the time comes.

 

You can use Bubba Watson and I will use my car to drive my golf ball.