Senority List Integration from 2007 on......
11-12-2017, 05:25 AM
#292
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: A320
Posts: 236
As of Dec 16th, 2016 Alaska's Jr Captain was June/July 2007, based in Anchorage.
As of today, the jr. Captain is Jan 2012, also based in Anchorage.
There are approx. 120 FO's senior to the jr. captain in Seattle (who presumably are waiting until they can hold Seattle to upgrade). The jr. captain in Seattle is a summer 2007 hire.
PDX is approx 2003/4 to hold the left seat.
LAX jr Captain is summer 2007.
As of today, the jr. Captain is Jan 2012, also based in Anchorage.
There are approx. 120 FO's senior to the jr. captain in Seattle (who presumably are waiting until they can hold Seattle to upgrade). The jr. captain in Seattle is a summer 2007 hire.
PDX is approx 2003/4 to hold the left seat.
LAX jr Captain is summer 2007.
The hardest parts of these lists always seems to be around 10%+/- of the upgrade line. It will be interesting to see what the arbitrator does with airlines that have such a discrepancy in longevity, and in career advancement prospects in the same category and class.
11-12-2017, 02:21 PM
#293
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: American Airlines Brake Pad Replacement Technician
Posts: 476
Senority List Integration from 2007 on......
Would airline attrition to other airlines be one possible metric to help round out Career Expectations for the Arbitrator? Example; how many VX vs AS guys had apps out and were deemed employable by other airlines? Perhaps the respective hr departments have that info....regarding attrition and class no shows.
How those numbers look both pre/Post AS acquisition of VX might be of value as well.
How those numbers look both pre/Post AS acquisition of VX might be of value as well.
11-12-2017, 02:50 PM
#294
Guest
Posts: n/a
That would be an exotic fishing expedition. And it would serve no purpose. I would hope that an arbitration panel would see right through that. There will be a number of Virgin captains that will not see anywhere near their relative seniority. I believe that we will see the balance come in the form of capping the seniority involved...Far more important than SLI is the daily wholesale violation of every section of our contract...Stay focused on the enemy at hand...We are not each others enemy. The management of Alaska Airlines is. From the top to the bottom they are united in the suppression of our careers.
11-12-2017, 03:04 PM
#295
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: American Airlines Brake Pad Replacement Technician
Posts: 476
Senority List Integration from 2007 on......
That would be an exotic fishing expedition. And it would serve no purpose. I would hope that an arbitration panel would see right through that. There will be a number of Virgin captains that will not see anywhere near their relative seniority. I believe that we will see the balance come in the form of capping the seniority involved...Far more important than SLI is the daily wholesale violation of every section of our contract...Stay focused on the enemy at hand...We are not each others enemy. The management of Alaska Airlines is. From the top to the bottom they are united in the suppression of our careers.
Why would it serve no purpose? Why wouldn’t Pilot Attrition be a valid metric directly tied to ones Career Expectation?
I agree not each other’s enemy.
11-12-2017, 03:08 PM
#296
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: retired
Posts: 564
I read this thread with a bit of smug humor having been the victim of 4 mergers. North Central /Southern, Republic / Hughes Air West , Republic /Northwest and Northwest /Delta . All I can tell you is expect the unexpected and you as an individual have zero control.
11-13-2017, 12:34 PM
#300
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 19
It's obvious few have done their homework concerning seniority integration. Let me break it down factually.
In an ALPA-ALPA SLI There are only a few pertinent governing documents: Section 45 of ALPA's Admin Maual, a few clarifying ALPA national newsletters, and the two or three ISL awards since the latest iteration of ALPA Merger policy that resulted from large multi-airline conferences in 2009.
Above all, any ISL must meet the Fair and Equitable (no windfall) standard. F&E has been interpreted to mean the maintenance of pay opportunities and QOL. Since pay in this case is moot with the JCBA, it hinges on QOL. QOL is synonymous with the schedules a pilot is accustomed to, which is informed by 'bidding power,' which is a function of relative seniority. Therefore, under ALPA, relative seniority trumps DOH.
ALPA's governing SLI rules have been whittled down over the years to three. These are the MAJOR equities that Merger committees or arbitrators must use to craft an ISL. However, they are not weighted, they just have to be considered. They are:
1) Category / Class. In AS-VX this has already been negotiated. There are only two: CA/narrow body and FO/narrow body. (A third--constructive notice pilots--will be integrated by straight DOH and attached below the FO/narrow body list as per the TPA.) So all CAs on the snapshot date go in one bucket, and all FOs in the other.
2) Career Expectations. This has been interpreted in awards to mean access to more lucrative flying, which means wide bodies. In this case, career expectations are equal. An argument made concerning upgrade time/potential could be made, but I'm not sure which side would prevail, and there is no recent precedent using such as a Major Equity.
3) Longevity. This is the crux of the AS-VX SLI, which is really simplistic compared to others. Since relative seniority trumps (see above), the Relative Seniority
OH ratio will be skewed in its favor. How much will be determined by the MINOR equities (Work rules, company stability, growth, retirements, etc.). In UAL-CAL a 65:35 ratio was used. At AA (under McCaskill-Bond) 85:15 was used. Delta-NWA ISL was awarded based on a 'pull and plug' method that resulted in different ratios for the many different category/classes. NO ONE knows where this ratio will fall for AS-VX. There are 8 merger negotiators and 3 arbitrators who will have input that shapes the result, but they don't even know until the end.
VX will have to defend against AS' claims of superior minor equities (including a lopsided DOH).
AS has the problem of several hundred 'career FOs.' These senior pilot's information will be used to create slots that dominate the top of the FO/narrow body list. However, a pilot's name doesn't fill the slot his data creates. In an SLI, no pilot may jump another from his original list. At the end of the process, the created slots are filled in with names from top to bottom of the original lists in a process called 'stove piping.' (Management pilots, LOAs, medicals, and others who didn't 'bring a job to the table' are pulled out at the beginning and not used to create a slot. But they are reinserted below whomever they follow on the original list once all of the slots are filled.) The 'career FOs' will be reinserted in order in slots intermixed with the VX captains, which means those top FO slots their data created will be filled by the corresponding number of junior AS captains. This essentially staples the junior most AS captains (as of the snapshot date) to the captain list and nullifies any potential gains on the FO side. (VX, which had an 'up or out' policy, has almost no bypass FOs by comparison.)
In the end, VX guys will be slotted next to AS guys with much earlier DOHs. Because of hiring practices, the same rules / mechanisms will likely result in many jr. AS FOs being slotted ahead of VX FOs hired before them. But this is the actual process.
In an ALPA-ALPA SLI There are only a few pertinent governing documents: Section 45 of ALPA's Admin Maual, a few clarifying ALPA national newsletters, and the two or three ISL awards since the latest iteration of ALPA Merger policy that resulted from large multi-airline conferences in 2009.
Above all, any ISL must meet the Fair and Equitable (no windfall) standard. F&E has been interpreted to mean the maintenance of pay opportunities and QOL. Since pay in this case is moot with the JCBA, it hinges on QOL. QOL is synonymous with the schedules a pilot is accustomed to, which is informed by 'bidding power,' which is a function of relative seniority. Therefore, under ALPA, relative seniority trumps DOH.
ALPA's governing SLI rules have been whittled down over the years to three. These are the MAJOR equities that Merger committees or arbitrators must use to craft an ISL. However, they are not weighted, they just have to be considered. They are:
1) Category / Class. In AS-VX this has already been negotiated. There are only two: CA/narrow body and FO/narrow body. (A third--constructive notice pilots--will be integrated by straight DOH and attached below the FO/narrow body list as per the TPA.) So all CAs on the snapshot date go in one bucket, and all FOs in the other.
2) Career Expectations. This has been interpreted in awards to mean access to more lucrative flying, which means wide bodies. In this case, career expectations are equal. An argument made concerning upgrade time/potential could be made, but I'm not sure which side would prevail, and there is no recent precedent using such as a Major Equity.
3) Longevity. This is the crux of the AS-VX SLI, which is really simplistic compared to others. Since relative seniority trumps (see above), the Relative Seniority
OH ratio will be skewed in its favor. How much will be determined by the MINOR equities (Work rules, company stability, growth, retirements, etc.). In UAL-CAL a 65:35 ratio was used. At AA (under McCaskill-Bond) 85:15 was used. Delta-NWA ISL was awarded based on a 'pull and plug' method that resulted in different ratios for the many different category/classes. NO ONE knows where this ratio will fall for AS-VX. There are 8 merger negotiators and 3 arbitrators who will have input that shapes the result, but they don't even know until the end.VX will have to defend against AS' claims of superior minor equities (including a lopsided DOH).
AS has the problem of several hundred 'career FOs.' These senior pilot's information will be used to create slots that dominate the top of the FO/narrow body list. However, a pilot's name doesn't fill the slot his data creates. In an SLI, no pilot may jump another from his original list. At the end of the process, the created slots are filled in with names from top to bottom of the original lists in a process called 'stove piping.' (Management pilots, LOAs, medicals, and others who didn't 'bring a job to the table' are pulled out at the beginning and not used to create a slot. But they are reinserted below whomever they follow on the original list once all of the slots are filled.) The 'career FOs' will be reinserted in order in slots intermixed with the VX captains, which means those top FO slots their data created will be filled by the corresponding number of junior AS captains. This essentially staples the junior most AS captains (as of the snapshot date) to the captain list and nullifies any potential gains on the FO side. (VX, which had an 'up or out' policy, has almost no bypass FOs by comparison.)
In the end, VX guys will be slotted next to AS guys with much earlier DOHs. Because of hiring practices, the same rules / mechanisms will likely result in many jr. AS FOs being slotted ahead of VX FOs hired before them. But this is the actual process.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
