AS/HA SLI Discussion
#181
Min Credit Line
Joined APC: Dec 2023
Position: FAKES
Posts: 86
And honestly, it's probably not likely to come up with our SLI. The WB guys seem pretty happy where they are, and our plan is the expansion of the WB fleet. The only guys from the 737 that seem to be salivating at the thought of WBs are the very very senior. I'm just hoping it creates movement on the NB side. If WB flying had been super important to me, I could have and would have gone to a carrier that flies them.
But something just sticks in my craw about "career expectations" and how there seems to be a fair amount of looking down the nose at the NB pilots and their fleet because the WB fleet is "superior." I spent a good amount of time at a regional and I have no use for that mindset. I'm just stubborn enough to campaign against an otherwise fair SLI for no other reason than I don't like their attitude. We're the purchasing airline, gosh dang it.
#182
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,680
Because the seniority list has already been integrated, and there's no chance that someone junior to them could displace them out of their seat. One would expect that they would get what their seniority (or lack thereof) afforded them.
And honestly, it's probably not likely to come up with our SLI. The WB guys seem pretty happy where they are, and our plan is the expansion of the WB fleet. The only guys from the 737 that seem to be salivating at the thought of WBs are the very very senior. I'm just hoping it creates movement on the NB side. If WB flying had been super important to me, I could have and would have gone to a carrier that flies them.
But something just sticks in my craw about "career expectations" and how there seems to be a fair amount of looking down the nose at the NB pilots and their fleet because the WB fleet is "superior." I spent a good amount of time at a regional and I have no use for that mindset. I'm just stubborn enough to campaign against an otherwise fair SLI for no other reason than I don't like their attitude. We're the purchasing airline, gosh dang it.
And honestly, it's probably not likely to come up with our SLI. The WB guys seem pretty happy where they are, and our plan is the expansion of the WB fleet. The only guys from the 737 that seem to be salivating at the thought of WBs are the very very senior. I'm just hoping it creates movement on the NB side. If WB flying had been super important to me, I could have and would have gone to a carrier that flies them.
But something just sticks in my craw about "career expectations" and how there seems to be a fair amount of looking down the nose at the NB pilots and their fleet because the WB fleet is "superior." I spent a good amount of time at a regional and I have no use for that mindset. I'm just stubborn enough to campaign against an otherwise fair SLI for no other reason than I don't like their attitude. We're the purchasing airline, gosh dang it.
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,135
Frankly that's my worst fear. As I've said the HA WB pax pilots should have generous fences to protect them from senior SEA guppy lifers, who will scurry like rats to the 787's if allowed to.
But the AZ WB pilots should really be stapled, because their career expectations are: ACMI
But the AZ WB pilots should really be stapled, because their career expectations are: ACMI
Everyone seems to say that staples are illegal. That seems to come out of the McCaskill-Bond statute passed after AA stapled many of the TWA pilots and other employees. But that statute is only invoked if the two unions are different. In your case, both are ALPA. But under the federal statute or ALPA merger policy, staples are not explicitly prohibited. If one can make the case that a staple is fair and equitable, then an arbitration panel can use a staple. The only example I could think of at the top of my head is if a legacy airline bought and merged with Cape Air, as one possible example. Surely they will be able to convince anyone that a staple is fair and equitable.
The staple would work with the status and category stovepipe. Generally they are (total number of pilots in each seat from each airline), WB captains, NB captains, WB FOs, NB FOs, constructive notice pilots, lastly, furloughed pilots. With a legacy buying a propeller aircraft airline, the prop pilots would be slotted just before furloughed pilots in the stovepipe, stapled. With the AMZN flying in question, presumably rickair would create a separate status and category for them and put them behind NB FOs. That would seem to be the best way to staple the AMZN pilots, if you can convince a panel of arbitrators that that is the most "fair and equitable." Again, keep in mind that the stovepipe doesn't use pilots actually holding those particular seats. It takes the number of total seats occupied in each status and category for each airline and assumes all pilots exercise their seniority to the fullest extent.
As for not being able to use the equipment a pilot flies as a basis of career expectations, unless I'm misunderstanding, doesn't a pilot who is expected to fly narrowbody aircraft for their career have a different career expectation than a pilot who has the possibility of flying transpacific wide body aircraft? How else would one measure career expectations without basing it at least in part by what equipment they fly at their respective airline?
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 339
Out of morbid curiosity, I clicked on the last page of this thread and read it. So as someone who has zero eggs in either of these baskets, these comments caught my attention and I want to throw my dos pesos in, for what that's worth.
Everyone seems to say that staples are illegal. That seems to come out of the McCaskill-Bond statute passed after AA stapled many of the TWA pilots and other employees. But that statute is only invoked if the two unions are different. In your case, both are ALPA. But under the federal statute or ALPA merger policy, staples are not explicitly prohibited. If one can make the case that a staple is fair and equitable, then an arbitration panel can use a staple. The only example I could think of at the top of my head is if a legacy airline bought and merged with Cape Air, as one possible example. Surely they will be able to convince anyone that a staple is fair and equitable.
The staple would work with the status and category stovepipe. Generally they are (total number of pilots in each seat from each airline), WB captains, NB captains, WB FOs, NB FOs, constructive notice pilots, lastly, furloughed pilots. With a legacy buying a propeller aircraft airline, the prop pilots would be slotted just before furloughed pilots in the stovepipe, stapled. With the AMZN flying in question, presumably rickair would create a separate status and category for them and put them behind NB FOs. That would seem to be the best way to staple the AMZN pilots, if you can convince a panel of arbitrators that that is the most "fair and equitable." Again, keep in mind that the stovepipe doesn't use pilots actually holding those particular seats. It takes the number of total seats occupied in each status and category for each airline and assumes all pilots exercise their seniority to the fullest extent.
As for not being able to use the equipment a pilot flies as a basis of career expectations, unless I'm misunderstanding, doesn't a pilot who is expected to fly narrowbody aircraft for their career have a different career expectation than a pilot who has the possibility of flying transpacific wide body aircraft? How else would one measure career expectations without basing it at least in part by what equipment they fly at their respective airline?
Everyone seems to say that staples are illegal. That seems to come out of the McCaskill-Bond statute passed after AA stapled many of the TWA pilots and other employees. But that statute is only invoked if the two unions are different. In your case, both are ALPA. But under the federal statute or ALPA merger policy, staples are not explicitly prohibited. If one can make the case that a staple is fair and equitable, then an arbitration panel can use a staple. The only example I could think of at the top of my head is if a legacy airline bought and merged with Cape Air, as one possible example. Surely they will be able to convince anyone that a staple is fair and equitable.
The staple would work with the status and category stovepipe. Generally they are (total number of pilots in each seat from each airline), WB captains, NB captains, WB FOs, NB FOs, constructive notice pilots, lastly, furloughed pilots. With a legacy buying a propeller aircraft airline, the prop pilots would be slotted just before furloughed pilots in the stovepipe, stapled. With the AMZN flying in question, presumably rickair would create a separate status and category for them and put them behind NB FOs. That would seem to be the best way to staple the AMZN pilots, if you can convince a panel of arbitrators that that is the most "fair and equitable." Again, keep in mind that the stovepipe doesn't use pilots actually holding those particular seats. It takes the number of total seats occupied in each status and category for each airline and assumes all pilots exercise their seniority to the fullest extent.
As for not being able to use the equipment a pilot flies as a basis of career expectations, unless I'm misunderstanding, doesn't a pilot who is expected to fly narrowbody aircraft for their career have a different career expectation than a pilot who has the possibility of flying transpacific wide body aircraft? How else would one measure career expectations without basing it at least in part by what equipment they fly at their respective airline?
On the captain side the freighter CA upgrade is maybe 6 months junior to 330PAX, both status have the junior captain around the 6-7 year mark. In our last vacancy both CA and FO went senior, with all the captains at 20+ years seniority coming over.
Are you going to staple a 1999 DOH because they decided to move from 330P to 330F?
#185
Everyone seems to say that staples are illegal. That seems to come out of the McCaskill-Bond statute passed after AA stapled many of the TWA pilots and other employees. But that statute is only invoked if the two unions are different. In your case, both are ALPA. But under the federal statute or ALPA merger policy, staples are not explicitly prohibited. If one can make the case that a staple is fair and equitable, then an arbitration panel can use a staple. The only example I could think of at the top of my head is if a legacy airline bought and merged with Cape Air, as one possible example. Surely they will be able to convince anyone that a staple is fair and equitable.
The staple would work with the status and category stovepipe. Generally they are (total number of pilots in each seat from each airline), WB captains, NB captains, WB FOs, NB FOs, constructive notice pilots, lastly, furloughed pilots. With a legacy buying a propeller aircraft airline, the prop pilots would be slotted just before furloughed pilots in the stovepipe, stapled. With the AMZN flying in question, presumably rickair would create a separate status and category for them and put them behind NB FOs. That would seem to be the best way to staple the AMZN pilots, if you can convince a panel of arbitrators that that is the most "fair and equitable." Again, keep in mind that the stovepipe doesn't use pilots actually holding those particular seats. It takes the number of total seats occupied in each status and category for each airline and assumes all pilots exercise their seniority to the fullest extent.
The staple would work with the status and category stovepipe. Generally they are (total number of pilots in each seat from each airline), WB captains, NB captains, WB FOs, NB FOs, constructive notice pilots, lastly, furloughed pilots. With a legacy buying a propeller aircraft airline, the prop pilots would be slotted just before furloughed pilots in the stovepipe, stapled. With the AMZN flying in question, presumably rickair would create a separate status and category for them and put them behind NB FOs. That would seem to be the best way to staple the AMZN pilots, if you can convince a panel of arbitrators that that is the most "fair and equitable." Again, keep in mind that the stovepipe doesn't use pilots actually holding those particular seats. It takes the number of total seats occupied in each status and category for each airline and assumes all pilots exercise their seniority to the fullest extent.
Based on 21st century legal precedent and ALPA rules, anything resembling a staple probably isn't happening beyween extablished airlines. Even merging a regional into a legacy would see some regional lifers getting a surprising amount of credit for longevity. The law and arbitrators don't consider the airline pilot caste system.
As for not being able to use the equipment a pilot flies as a basis of career expectations, unless I'm misunderstanding, doesn't a pilot who is expected to fly narrowbody aircraft for their career have a different career expectation than a pilot who has the possibility of flying transpacific wide body aircraft? How else would one measure career expectations without basing it at least in part by what equipment they fly at their respective airline?
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,135
I think that comment was in the context that you cannot segregate the HA pilots, who are of course all one list, by pax v. cargo and then apply a different career expectation to that subset of the HA list, on an individual base. All of the career expectation weight for pax WB's, and any hypothetical penalty for AZ cargo ops, would be applied evenly to the entire HA list. IMO AZ sub-contractors have lower career expectations than Big 6 pax NB pilots.
As for the staple, I was merely commenting on your post where you wrote that per law and ALPA, you can't. Actually, neither prohibits it. It's a misconception, but I'll give you that maybe it's perceived by the reality that it hasn't happened since the AA/TWA merger. Has it even been tried?
#187
In theory, yes a staple could occur under very extreme improbable circumstances. Such as FDX buys and merges a startup cargo operator which flies Caravans and is three years old... you'd expect that to be a staple or nearly indistinguishable from it.
Based on 21st century legal precedent and ALPA rules, anything resembling a staple probably isn't happening beyween extablished airlines. Even merging a regional into a legacy would see some regional lifers getting a surprising amount of credit for longevity. The law and arbitrators don't consider the airline pilot caste system.
I think that comment was in the context that you cannot segregate the HA pilots, who are of course all one list, by pax v. cargo and then apply a different career expectation to that subset of the HA list, on an individual base. All of the career expectation weight for pax WB's, and any hypothetical penalty for AZ cargo ops, would be applied evenly to the entire HA list. IMO AZ sub-contractors have lower career expectations than Big 6 pax NB pilots.
Based on 21st century legal precedent and ALPA rules, anything resembling a staple probably isn't happening beyween extablished airlines. Even merging a regional into a legacy would see some regional lifers getting a surprising amount of credit for longevity. The law and arbitrators don't consider the airline pilot caste system.
I think that comment was in the context that you cannot segregate the HA pilots, who are of course all one list, by pax v. cargo and then apply a different career expectation to that subset of the HA list, on an individual base. All of the career expectation weight for pax WB's, and any hypothetical penalty for AZ cargo ops, would be applied evenly to the entire HA list. IMO AZ sub-contractors have lower career expectations than Big 6 pax NB pilots.
Last edited by PineappleXpres; 09-24-2024 at 07:07 PM.
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,680
The rates sadly aren’t that far apart. There’s also the question of the stability of that flying long term as it is subcontracted labor. Again I’m not arguing which way it should go and the reality is currently it’s a very small percentage of what HA does so I don’t think it’ll make a huge difference either way.
#189
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 92
Disregarding the staple discussion (let's be real, we know that isn't happening). But regarding DOH, how would a straight DOH integration work? The current Alaska list (at least the somewhat out of date one I have) shows quite a few places where people's seniority number and DOH are not congruent. I assume this was where the Virgin pilots got mixed in.
How would straight DOH be practical if the existing list is already not straight DOH, without re-shuffling those pilots again?
How would straight DOH be practical if the existing list is already not straight DOH, without re-shuffling those pilots again?
#190
AZ hired gun? You're at the mercy of Bezos.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post