tsquare

boog123

Just because the last two mergers, that were bigger than yours, were relative seniority doesn't mean yours will. arbitrators never look at precedent.........

FAULTPUSH

But management thought you'd be better off WITH the deal

I was stunned at how quiet it was - you could honestly hear a whisper as soon as the gear came up.

Please point to a time where it HAS mattered.

The second sentence would seem to indicate that the arbitration was fair and equitable.

Wasatch Phantom

I've read over the last ten pages or so of this discussion. I'm somewhat amazed at a fair number of the posts.

I think newKnow has done an exceptional job of trying to explain what the arbitrators are likely to decide.

I have no dog in this fight and confess to being a DAL guy. My recollection is that DAL pay rates were somewhat higher than the pay rates of NWA. I don't think that counted for anything with our arbitrators. NWA had a pilot group that was somewhat older and had more people slated to retire sooner. That was factored in somewhat, but wasn't a huge issue.

I've flown with quite a number of pilots at Delta who were former Western or former Pan Am. The vast, vast majority were great to fly with. However there were exceptions and these were almost always pilots who were exceedingly bitter over how their SLI went.

Whatever the arbitrators decide, do your best to "move on". Don't be bitter and don't let that emotion ruin the cockpit atmosphere. Life is too short ....

Stetson20

Amen to that!

NuGuy

Heyas,

If you pull out all the handwaving about the retirements and the insignificant fences (really, how many aircraft affected? 22?), the DAL/NWA list was a straight ratio list, which is what the arbitrators wanted. The rest was window dressing.

DOH was not considered
Longevity was not considered
Differences in work rules made no difference
Differences in pay made no difference
"Quality of bases" or "Quality of flying" made no difference

With the very slight exception to the 330s, the AWA/AAA merger was exactly the same.

By and large, the arbitrators want an award to be defensible and uncomplicated, and they don't like making new policy. They want the whole thing to fit into two pages, 12 point font, single spaced with lots of footnotes to previous awards.

What they DON'T like are participants that are intractable and pushing an awkward/complicated scheme filled with qualitative "feelings".

Nu

Bwipilot

It shouldn't be difficult: just use the old ALPA policy of career expecations. Calculate the expected career yearly earnings of each AAI and SWA pilot at Sep 27th, 2010 and assign seniority numbers based on that. Every pilot will stay in line with what they thought there earnings wouldv'e been--and then the AAI pilots will enjoy a big jump on the same calculation when moved to the SWAPA contract. Now everyone's happy

sailingfun

How could you possibly know the expected career earnings of each group. Historically SWA has been one of the lower paid pilot groups. A unique combination of circumstances has pushed them to the top which is a position even their own union does not really like since it eroded their historical cost advantage and stunted growth.

1Seat 1Engine

SWA's pay has been more predictable than other airlines. It's their pay that's changed, not ours.

newKnow

Bwi,

Let's say I agree with your premise and decide to use career earnings as a factor.

Can you please tell me how YOUR career earnings will change with a relative seniority list?

How exactly are they hurt? Or, can you tell me how they don't remain the same?

Once you can do that, you will have the arbitrators ears.