DL/NW relative seniority moving forward
07-22-2012, 04:34 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Yeah - I really got over on you poor boys. Hired on 15 years ago and in the same seat all this time except post 9-11 when I was on the DC-9. My QOL life has been going down for the past 2 years and seniority wise I'm going backwards in MSP on the 7ER. Even better, thru the end of June I'm running almost 12% under last years pay.
07-22-2012, 05:00 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Good post. Due to a combination of factors most pre-merger Delta pilots will need a couple of years to achieve the same relative seniority in equipment and base that they enjoyed in 2008. That makes a 5 to 6 year step backwards. Pay raises have reduced the sting.
One problem with the merger is that status quo with regard to equipment and seat was ignored. Relative seniority was favored, then the effect of retirements (which have not happened) skewed the results even further. The result being that with identical relative seniority a Delta pilot was a junior lineholder on a 767 or senior on the MD88. At NWA the equivalent was the A320 and DC9. The most adversely effected were junior lineholders on the 767 which were integrated on the level of f-NWA's narrow body pilots. (FWIW, the NWA side did not acknowledge the 767 as a wide body)
As f-NWA and 767 pilots have been displaced a swap (NWA moving up, DAL moving down) has been slowly occurring as f-NWA pilots equitably bid what their seniority buys them at Delta.
The guys I fly with now are about half those who upgraded from NWA or those who got displaced f-DAL. Have not flown with a f-NWA displacement yet, but I'm sure that happened somewhere.
Collectively, the Delta pilots decided peace and unity were most important. While individual pilots were adversely effected, as group the strategy worked well. (I make more than I would have made on the equipment I held before displacement)
One problem with the merger is that status quo with regard to equipment and seat was ignored. Relative seniority was favored, then the effect of retirements (which have not happened) skewed the results even further. The result being that with identical relative seniority a Delta pilot was a junior lineholder on a 767 or senior on the MD88. At NWA the equivalent was the A320 and DC9. The most adversely effected were junior lineholders on the 767 which were integrated on the level of f-NWA's narrow body pilots. (FWIW, the NWA side did not acknowledge the 767 as a wide body)
As f-NWA and 767 pilots have been displaced a swap (NWA moving up, DAL moving down) has been slowly occurring as f-NWA pilots equitably bid what their seniority buys them at Delta.
The guys I fly with now are about half those who upgraded from NWA or those who got displaced f-DAL. Have not flown with a f-NWA displacement yet, but I'm sure that happened somewhere.
Collectively, the Delta pilots decided peace and unity were most important. While individual pilots were adversely effected, as group the strategy worked well. (I make more than I would have made on the equipment I held before displacement)
In the short-term (a big slice of which ahs happened already), the pmDAL pilots slide back in terms of domicile and aircraft. I went back 15% in category, as an example. In the medium-term, the NW pilots retirements beneift both rgoups, which the pmNW pilots feel punishes them. From my perspective, it smoothes out the retirement curve, and it helps. In the long-term, the pmDAL side shifts back to providing the majority of retirements for both sides.
Mitigating the benefits for both sides:
-I differ slightly with Bar and Essential in the sense a number of retirements did take place since the merger. It just hasn't helped.
-The problem is that the combined airline has shrunk, and NW had a surplus, of about 250-350 per the arbitration hearings, up to 600 if you listen to some 4th floor types (and who listens to them?). Since they (NW) got credit for 250 retirements before they occured, the pmDAL guys feel they got robbed.
-As we move into a period of greater pmNW retirements, they feel they're getting robbed.
The end result is that we all end up roughly even in terms of relative seniority. We couldn't smooth out every fold of the list, and we couldn't make everyone happy. We just got a list that works well enough. We were smarter than LCC because we let our differences remain differences, and we moved on.
For me, DAL/NW it comes down to
1) accepting the trade of short-term pain for mid-term improvements,
2) the merger making a more secure network,
3) a desire to avoid self-inflicted suffering by trying to modify the past.
07-22-2012, 05:13 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
The bottom line for anyone on the outside trying to see how our list is working, is that it's more or less a relative seniority list, where the vast majority are +/- 1%. To answer the original question more specifically, for younger guys, we (DAL pilots) take it in the shorts in short term, but end up exactly where we would have ended up before the merger, except the middle of our progression is a few % better, i.e in about 10 years. Then it stabilizes back to where we were. For a young NW guy, the end result would be the same, except in ten years he's a few % lower of where he thought he would have been, assuming everything had worked out perfectly. As it turned out, we're all taking it in the shorts compared to where we expected to be. NW pilots are retiring, but not as fast as forecast, and the airline is killing all optimistic predictions by shrinking anyway.
No matter what management says beforehand, the purpose of a merger is to reduce redundancies. The combined network always offers opportunity to cut flying while serving the same markets.
This will happen at AMR, no matter what partner they choose, or get stuck with.
The difference between our path and the path followed at LCC (and any subsequent merger) will probably not be found in the SLI outcome. That will most likely end up at square one: relative seniority. The difference will rest in the fact that LCC has consistently failed to reap any of the benefits of participating in the inevitable.
We all are getting raped. East pilots just haven't tried to figure out a way to get a little lube during, and a nice little pat on the tush and a warm meal afterwards. You're still fighting over who gets first choice on where they want the cigarette burns.
No matter what management says beforehand, the purpose of a merger is to reduce redundancies. The combined network always offers opportunity to cut flying while serving the same markets.
This will happen at AMR, no matter what partner they choose, or get stuck with.
The difference between our path and the path followed at LCC (and any subsequent merger) will probably not be found in the SLI outcome. That will most likely end up at square one: relative seniority. The difference will rest in the fact that LCC has consistently failed to reap any of the benefits of participating in the inevitable.
We all are getting raped. East pilots just haven't tried to figure out a way to get a little lube during, and a nice little pat on the tush and a warm meal afterwards. You're still fighting over who gets first choice on where they want the cigarette burns.
Last edited by Sink r8; 07-22-2012 at 05:29 PM.
07-22-2012, 05:15 PM
#14
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
07-22-2012, 06:28 PM
#16
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Relative seniority is basically unfair, as is Date of Hire. Both result in windfalls in the seat, base and equipment that we pilots use a metrics to measure our career progress.
Status Quo, meaning merger by seat and comparable equipment is the only fair merger. You get same as you had going in. No upgrades, no displacements, no windfalls.
Status Quo, meaning merger by seat and comparable equipment is the only fair merger. You get same as you had going in. No upgrades, no displacements, no windfalls.
07-22-2012, 06:34 PM
#17
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Relative seniority is basically unfair, as is Date of Hire. Both result in windfalls in the seat, base and equipment that we pilots use a metrics to measure our career progress.
Status Quo, meaning merger by seat and comparable equipment is the only fair merger. You get same as you had going in. No upgrades, no displacements, no windfalls.
Status Quo, meaning merger by seat and comparable equipment is the only fair merger. You get same as you had going in. No upgrades, no displacements, no windfalls.
And when aircraft types don't match up as they did with DAL/NWA, how do you determine which is better? Or take into account if senior pilots were bidding down for commutability?
BTW, I offer no solutions here. I think it's a mess.
07-22-2012, 06:54 PM
#19
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Umm, I meant that the east would be playing the role of SWA and the west AAI. You really need to open up a bit more not be so defensivly spring loaded.
07-22-2012, 07:04 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Let me preface it: our merger was an industry setting success. From the pilots perspective, nobody really got over on anybody else and the company is making money in a crappy economy. I'm a big picture guy. I lost a lot in LA but my company is booming. Works for me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
