newKnow

1 seat,

I try to answer every question asked of me, so if I missed your response before, I apologize.

Do you see that the list being "more skewed" on the FO side than the captain side might hurt your case?

An arbitrator is going to look at the top 25% of the list and see when the next retirements would take pace.

The further down the road that they occur, the less likely they will factor them in.

In essence, If you are in the bottom 1/4 of the list, they probably won't care, if you are 35 and the AT guy ahead of you is 27.

What they probably will care about is if the top of the list has a lot of guys who were approaching 60 to see if any adjustments needed to be made.

I also, answered your last question in my previous post.

1Seat 1Engine

Is that all you could think of?

It's brilliant for you guys who aren't really involved in the process or have nothing at stake to pontificate away.

It really doesn't matter what argument is made, someone (like you for instance) will have some brief response that is surely witty to themselves and otherwise contribute nothing.

I haven't used the "S" word in a single post, but I'm starting to think that I should just take that as my position. You guys are going to argue to the death until you see what the arbitrator says anyway.

Then you'll argue some more.

1Seat 1Engine

The 800 vote was after the snapshot.
Additionally it was probably moot since we already got the same pay for 500's vs 300/700's.

Rolf

A wise Martian once said (on page 1):

"I would strongly encourage AAI and SWA pilots to refrain from taking the bait posed by this thread. FWIW. "

I second that motion....this rhetoric serves no-one except those who wish for an east v. west part deux

Wasatch Phantom

Question: What is the difference between 1/4, 25/100, 3,000/12,000, etc.

Answer: There is no difference.

With relative seniority by definition your relative position is the same, just with a larger base.

I was around 35% at Delta. After the SLI I'm guess where? Within one quarter of one percent of where I was.

DAL had a slew of 767s both domestic and international. We had zero DC-9s. NWA had a whole bunch of DC-9s. Every single one of them smaller (and lower paying) than DAL's smallest airplane.

Nowhere in a DAL pilots career expectation was there a DC-9 and similarly nowhere in a NWA pilots career expectation was there a 767. With that glaring dissimilarity in fleets, what did the arbitration panel decide?

Relative seniority.

And SWA-Airtran has identical fleets.

It seems to me the arbitration panel is going to have to create new legal precedent (not likely) to make the SWA pilots happy.

Life's not "fair".

FAULTPUSH

Aahhh....and the other pilots in other SLI's didn't have good cases. Of course.

I'm surprised to hear that from a non-SWA pilot. Has that ever happened before?

Now that's an argument that will carry some weight.

80ktsClamp

Nope, but every integration is different, thus each one will have small differences in how the final list is derived.

The NW/DL list was more or less relative, but it was certainly not pure relative. There was weighting included for the much larger amount of bigger aircraft that DL had as well as weighting on the other direction for an older pilot group at NW. What it boiled down to was that pay rates didn't really matter all that much and that in the end of the day each carrier was a larger legacy. FL and WN are both the 2 most prominent LCC's in the US. See a similarity?

All in all it was basically a wash as far as relative... most only shifted in relative seniority under 1% in any direction. Some of the NW 95 hires moved 4% or so up, while the DL 91ish hires moved back the same.

As far as the age of relative peer groups, as has been said before only the senior guys seem to matter. I'm mixed in with NW guys that are 10-15 years older than me in many cases... of course I was holding a much larger airplane than any of my north peer group could hold with very reasonable seniority.

Simple, unemotional logic says that there will be a nod to the greatest differences between the carriers.... thus where I came up with the pay difference being the most stark. Retirements/projected upgrade I think will be a wash, but the WN guys may end up with another nod in that direction.


May God have mercy on your ears flying the 737 the rest of your careers. I don't know how you guys put up with that thing every day.

shoelu

Ok, granted this is page 42 of a ridiculous thread that is going nowhere, but lets try and remember where it all started. The precedent set in a recent arbitrators decision. Everyone keeps talking about precedents set, yet they only want to use the precedent that supports their argument. I in no way believe that an arbitrators decision will exactly mirror this one, but I can see more similarities in this case than I can between DAL-NW or US-AW. In the end no one will ask me, so what does my opinion matter. And certainly no one will ask pilots from other airlines what they think should happen with the SLI. So my question is why is everyone that does not work for either company so interested in this subject? I honestly can't remember looking at any threads centered around integrations of other companies. Why is this so interesting to parties not directly involved? Pinnacle-Mesaba-Colgan are going through an interesting SLI, are you all following that also? Here is the relevant portion thrown out by the original poster:

..."It is clear, when one considers routes flown, cities serviced, the two carriers' relative financial condition, fleet size and fleet type, that the equities weigh so heavily on the side of the Chautauqua Pilots as to virtually obliterate any alleged equities that the Shuttle America Pilots claim they bring to the merger."

"Simply stated, the rates of pay, rules and working conditions in the Chautauqua Pilots' collective bargaining agreement, are far superior to those found in the Shuttle America Pilots' collective bargaining agreement. As a result of the acquisition Shuttle America Pilots will be the beneficiaries of the superior rates of pay, rules and working conditions found in the Chautauqua Pilots collective bargaining agreement."

"A date of hire seniority integration, while it might not significantly dilute the seniority of the Chautauqua Pilots, would, to some extent, constitute a WINDFALL BENEFIT for the Shuttle America Pilots."

"This Arbitrator agrees that the "reasonable" career expectations of the two pilot groups is the benchmark for determining what is fair and equitable in this case."

"On this basis alone, the integration of Shuttle America Pilots into the Chautauqua operation has substantially increased career expectation for the Shuttle America Pilots, far beyond what they could have reasonably expected when they "signed on" as pilots for Shuttle America."...

Fishfreighter

ANR headsets.

Cogf16

You are way off on this. And the arbitration panel won't even pay a second of attention to it.