AS/HA SLI Discussion
09-25-2024, 11:39 AM
#201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 356
I don't know for sure, but tend to assume that where DOH is calculated that VX pilots will be granted a virtual DOH in keeping with their AS seniority counterparts.
Otherwise, VX pilots would get penalized twice, once for each of their two SLI's. They could end up junior to legacy AS pilots who they are currently senior to. I don't think that happens in SLI's.
Otherwise, VX pilots would get penalized twice, once for each of their two SLI's. They could end up junior to legacy AS pilots who they are currently senior to. I don't think that happens in SLI's.
During the phase of intergating the lists, the VX/AS list, which is not in strict longevity order, will be reverted to a "longeity only" list, meaning longevity regardless of where your position is on the list. Names are stripped off and only longevity is used. Once this is done a computer program will mathmatically create a list also factoring in status and category and then after that they will add back in the names for each pilot group in the seniority order of wherever they are on their existing lists. The effect is that you personally may be given the longevity credit of someone senior to you, or junior to you. But it won't be blended or averaged at all. Yes, you still carry your former merger longevity baggage, but your position on your current list doesn't change because the names are put back on afterward.
The result is that legacy AS pilots do a little worse than they would have done on a HA merger if they had not merged with VX previously and legacy VX pilots do a little better if they had merged with HA as if the AS VX merger had not happened. Yes your previous merger can screw you (merging with an airline with lower longevity pilots) or benefit you (merging with an airline with higher longevity pilots).
The reason the list is decoupled for longevity, is so just as a legacy Alaska pilot will not be penalized by having a legacy Virgin pilot with lower longevity ahead of them it also doesn't give an artificial benefit of "pushing up" a legacy Virgin pilot just because they ended up senior to a legacy Alaska pilot with far more longevity. Your poersonal longevity is not relevant. Its the longevity of the person in your "stovepipe" (which you will hear alot about during your SLI)
Another reason this is done is so that HA pilots do not get a windfall, nor a benefit from whatever happened in the AS/VX merger. It literally "splits the longevity baby".
Also it is highly unlikely that "new widebody deliveries" that HA has already ordered will be flown by the AS pilot group "as they are delivered" as someone suggested. UAL/CAL arbitrators gave CAL pilots a 25 plane fence for the 787, because they had 25 planes on order, despite ZERO planes having been delivered before the merger completion date, which was October 1st 2010.
Also decoupling the date of hire longevity combined with the widebody planes might even make the current AS list have large gaps with HA pilots in it. During UAL/CAL there were two legacy CAL pilots in the same new hire class and 1 number apart on their list that ended up 400 pilots apart from each other, because of a combination of UAL having a larger numebr of 747 FOs (CAL has no 747s) and a large number of UAL pilots hired in 1995, a year CAL had no hires.
I understand the "we saved Hawaiian" and "I want a SEA base fence" etc, but ALPA merger policy doesn't care about what decisions either airlines management did before or after the merger. It only looks as pilots as being the same, regardless of the economic situation of either airline, and assumes since both pilot groups will eventually operate under the same umbrella financially with one managment, that it effectively negates whatever advantage an individual pilot group believes it had previously with regard to how well those separate airlines were managed.
Good luck!
09-25-2024, 12:12 PM
#202
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 130
I can explain how the arbitrators do this, as was done in the last 3 ALPA mergers.
During the phase of intergating the lists, the VX/AS list, which is not in strict longevity order, will be reverted to a "longeity only" list, meaning longevity regardless of where your position is on the list. Names are stripped off and only longevity is used. Once this is done a computer program will mathmatically create a list also factoring in status and category and then after that they will add back in the names for each pilot group in the seniority order of wherever they are on their existing lists. The effect is that you personally may be given the longevity credit of someone senior to you, or junior to you. But it won't be blended or averaged at all. Yes, you still carry your former merger longevity baggage, but your position on your current list doesn't change because the names are put back on afterward.
The result is that legacy AS pilots do a little worse than they would have done on a HA merger if they had not merged with VX previously and legacy VX pilots do a little better if they had merged with HA as if the AS VX merger had not happened. Yes your previous merger can screw you (merging with an airline with lower longevity pilots) or benefit you (merging with an airline with higher longevity pilots).
The reason the list is decoupled for longevity, is so just as a legacy Alaska pilot will not be penalized by having a legacy Virgin pilot with lower longevity ahead of them it also doesn't give an artificial benefit of "pushing up" a legacy Virgin pilot just because they ended up senior to a legacy Alaska pilot with far more longevity. Your poersonal longevity is not relevant. Its the longevity of the person in your "stovepipe" (which you will hear alot about during your SLI)
Another reason this is done is so that HA pilots do not get a windfall, nor a benefit from whatever happened in the AS/VX merger. It literally "splits the longevity baby".
Also it is highly unlikely that "new widebody deliveries" that HA has already ordered will be flown by the AS pilot group "as they are delivered" as someone suggested. UAL/CAL arbitrators gave CAL pilots a 25 plane fence for the 787, because they had 25 planes on order, despite ZERO planes having been delivered before the merger completion date, which was October 1st 2010.
Also decoupling the date of hire longevity combined with the widebody planes might even make the current AS list have large gaps with HA pilots in it. During UAL/CAL there were two legacy CAL pilots in the same new hire class and 1 number apart on their list that ended up 400 pilots apart from each other, because of a combination of UAL having a larger numebr of 747 FOs (CAL has no 747s) and a large number of UAL pilots hired in 1995, a year CAL had no hires.
I understand the "we saved Hawaiian" and "I want a SEA base fence" etc, but ALPA merger policy doesn't care about what decisions either airlines management did before or after the merger. It only looks as pilots as being the same, regardless of the economic situation of either airline, and assumes since both pilot groups will eventually operate under the same umbrella financially with one managment, that it effectively negates whatever advantage an individual pilot group believes it had previously with regard to how well those separate airlines were managed.
Good luck!
During the phase of intergating the lists, the VX/AS list, which is not in strict longevity order, will be reverted to a "longeity only" list, meaning longevity regardless of where your position is on the list. Names are stripped off and only longevity is used. Once this is done a computer program will mathmatically create a list also factoring in status and category and then after that they will add back in the names for each pilot group in the seniority order of wherever they are on their existing lists. The effect is that you personally may be given the longevity credit of someone senior to you, or junior to you. But it won't be blended or averaged at all. Yes, you still carry your former merger longevity baggage, but your position on your current list doesn't change because the names are put back on afterward.
The result is that legacy AS pilots do a little worse than they would have done on a HA merger if they had not merged with VX previously and legacy VX pilots do a little better if they had merged with HA as if the AS VX merger had not happened. Yes your previous merger can screw you (merging with an airline with lower longevity pilots) or benefit you (merging with an airline with higher longevity pilots).
The reason the list is decoupled for longevity, is so just as a legacy Alaska pilot will not be penalized by having a legacy Virgin pilot with lower longevity ahead of them it also doesn't give an artificial benefit of "pushing up" a legacy Virgin pilot just because they ended up senior to a legacy Alaska pilot with far more longevity. Your poersonal longevity is not relevant. Its the longevity of the person in your "stovepipe" (which you will hear alot about during your SLI)
Another reason this is done is so that HA pilots do not get a windfall, nor a benefit from whatever happened in the AS/VX merger. It literally "splits the longevity baby".
Also it is highly unlikely that "new widebody deliveries" that HA has already ordered will be flown by the AS pilot group "as they are delivered" as someone suggested. UAL/CAL arbitrators gave CAL pilots a 25 plane fence for the 787, because they had 25 planes on order, despite ZERO planes having been delivered before the merger completion date, which was October 1st 2010.
Also decoupling the date of hire longevity combined with the widebody planes might even make the current AS list have large gaps with HA pilots in it. During UAL/CAL there were two legacy CAL pilots in the same new hire class and 1 number apart on their list that ended up 400 pilots apart from each other, because of a combination of UAL having a larger numebr of 747 FOs (CAL has no 747s) and a large number of UAL pilots hired in 1995, a year CAL had no hires.
I understand the "we saved Hawaiian" and "I want a SEA base fence" etc, but ALPA merger policy doesn't care about what decisions either airlines management did before or after the merger. It only looks as pilots as being the same, regardless of the economic situation of either airline, and assumes since both pilot groups will eventually operate under the same umbrella financially with one managment, that it effectively negates whatever advantage an individual pilot group believes it had previously with regard to how well those separate airlines were managed.
Good luck!
09-25-2024, 04:43 PM
#203
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,241
There are 3,600 AS pilots 1,200 HA pilots…. I’m pretty sure we have the votes to pay band this whole thing. I mean since no AS pilot will ever hold a WB, why do we care what they pay. We should only care what NB’s pay… One rate both planes. We can have the highest NB rates in the world and the lowest WB rates.
09-25-2024, 05:13 PM
#204
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 1,212
There are 3,600 AS pilots 1,200 HA pilots…. I’m pretty sure we have the votes to pay band this whole thing. I mean since no AS pilot will ever hold a WB, why do we care what they pay. We should only care what NB’s pay… One rate both planes. We can have the highest NB rates in the world and the lowest WB rates.
filler…
09-25-2024, 05:42 PM
#205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,680
There are 3,600 AS pilots 1,200 HA pilots…. I’m pretty sure we have the votes to pay band this whole thing. I mean since no AS pilot will ever hold a WB, why do we care what they pay. We should only care what NB’s pay… One rate both planes. We can have the highest NB rates in the world and the lowest WB rates.
09-25-2024, 06:15 PM
#206
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,241
I am actually under the impression that the company is going to tie the JCBA to a joint union worked SLI. In other words they will require both unions to agree to the SLI terms as the final part of the JCBA. Like we will vote on it as a package deal, we will ratify both on the same day, as a package deal. Company wants it done by next summer.
09-25-2024, 06:46 PM
#208
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,680
Self interest is a funny thing… might makes right and those with the gold always win!
I am actually under the impression that the company is going to tie the JCBA to a joint union worked SLI. In other words they will require both unions to agree to the SLI terms as the final part of the JCBA. Like we will vote on it as a package deal, we will ratify both on the same day, as a package deal. Company wants it done by next summer.
I am actually under the impression that the company is going to tie the JCBA to a joint union worked SLI. In other words they will require both unions to agree to the SLI terms as the final part of the JCBA. Like we will vote on it as a package deal, we will ratify both on the same day, as a package deal. Company wants it done by next summer.
09-25-2024, 07:08 PM
#209
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 226
Self interest is a funny thing… might makes right and those with the gold always win!
I am actually under the impression that the company is going to tie the JCBA to a joint union worked SLI. In other words they will require both unions to agree to the SLI terms as the final part of the JCBA. Like we will vote on it as a package deal, we will ratify both on the same day, as a package deal. Company wants it done by next summer.
I am actually under the impression that the company is going to tie the JCBA to a joint union worked SLI. In other words they will require both unions to agree to the SLI terms as the final part of the JCBA. Like we will vote on it as a package deal, we will ratify both on the same day, as a package deal. Company wants it done by next summer.
09-25-2024, 08:10 PM
#210
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,297
The company *really* wants to expedite the full SOC integration to realize enhanced synergies blah, blah, blah. That can't happen until after SLI, so...
It's not impossible that the company intends to offer a generous JCBA, but condition it on a mutually agreed SLI. Technically the SLI does not absolutely *have* to go to arbitration, that's just how it always plays out in the real world. The MEC's could negotiate and agree to an SLI, and maybe a juicy JCBA would be the carrot to get it over the finish line.
I also hadn't considered a blended rate, but that can and has been done (UPS had that at one point?). Company would prefer it, especially with so many fleets, since it eliminates the need to cross bid for $, instead folks would only switch planes for domicile or schedule.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
