DL/NW relative seniority moving forward
07-23-2012, 01:07 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
The point being that it should not be different.
The best way to merge is status quo. You get what you had going into the merger.
The NWA merger makes it more difficult for any pilot group to understand "reasonable." Now "reasonable" can include either party's estimate of their future results and frankly, the result encourages speculative exaggeration. It set a bad precedent.
As another poster wrote, what made this merger work is that management put money on the table. When the pilots took the money it obligated them to a process agreement which made the seniority result a fait accompli.
The merger did not turn on fairness. It hinged on greed.
US Air did not put any money on the table and arguably, management benefits greatly by the fact US Air Captains are in most cases making less than Delta First Officers for similar work. Delta paid a high price for peace.
The best way to merge is status quo. You get what you had going into the merger.
The NWA merger makes it more difficult for any pilot group to understand "reasonable." Now "reasonable" can include either party's estimate of their future results and frankly, the result encourages speculative exaggeration. It set a bad precedent.
As another poster wrote, what made this merger work is that management put money on the table. When the pilots took the money it obligated them to a process agreement which made the seniority result a fait accompli.
The merger did not turn on fairness. It hinged on greed.
US Air did not put any money on the table and arguably, management benefits greatly by the fact US Air Captains are in most cases making less than Delta First Officers for similar work. Delta paid a high price for peace.
If we merge with Hawaiian and they have 5-7 year 330 captains, do you know what the union and probably you will argue for? DOH.
The only thing any pilot should know about any merger is that they will feel the best and only fair way to merge seniority lists is they way that benefits them the most.
It's human nature.
07-23-2012, 01:19 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
I have to disagree with you there BB. I don't think they can all be the same because of the make up of different pilot groups and fleets. That is one thing I agreed with Nicolau on, he said every merger turns on it's own.
If an airline has been stagnate for years, then the average age of it's pilots is going to be greater. If you slot X% of the guy on this aircraft with the same of another group that has been moving up, or has had a recent amount of retirements, then you stunt the upward progress of the older group. A bunch of younger guys are now in front of them instead. Some is inevitable, but I don't think you can place a template on every group, every fleet.
Career expectations are a fluid, murky thing. Once a merger happens the previous expectations change, for good bad and at times maybe both.
I may have put this on here before, not sure. I've thought that the simplest method would be to start with straight relative position. Then take a sample, say every ten pilots or so and chart their career progression out until retirement and come up with a formula that has those sample pilots hitting certain gates on the way up, say every 5 years. Then go back and put short term fences on widebodies if there is a big disparity. Seems like that would dampen the big changes in relative position moving forward. I've wondered if this is mathematically possible and have been told that it is, but it is beyond my capability.
If an airline has been stagnate for years, then the average age of it's pilots is going to be greater. If you slot X% of the guy on this aircraft with the same of another group that has been moving up, or has had a recent amount of retirements, then you stunt the upward progress of the older group. A bunch of younger guys are now in front of them instead. Some is inevitable, but I don't think you can place a template on every group, every fleet.
Career expectations are a fluid, murky thing. Once a merger happens the previous expectations change, for good bad and at times maybe both.
I may have put this on here before, not sure. I've thought that the simplest method would be to start with straight relative position. Then take a sample, say every ten pilots or so and chart their career progression out until retirement and come up with a formula that has those sample pilots hitting certain gates on the way up, say every 5 years. Then go back and put short term fences on widebodies if there is a big disparity. Seems like that would dampen the big changes in relative position moving forward. I've wondered if this is mathematically possible and have been told that it is, but it is beyond my capability.
07-23-2012, 01:46 PM
#63
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
I have to disagree with you there BB. I don't think they can all be the same because of the make up of different pilot groups and fleets. That is one thing I agreed with Nicolau on, he said every merger turns on it's own.
If an airline has been stagnate for years, then the average age of it's pilots is going to be greater. If you slot X% of the guy on this aircraft with the same of another group that has been moving up, or has had a recent amount of retirements, then you stunt the upward progress of the older group. A bunch of younger guys are now in front of them instead. Some is inevitable, but I don't think you can place a template on every group, every fleet.
Career expectations are a fluid, murky thing. Once a merger happens the previous expectations change, for good bad and at times maybe both.
I may have put this on here before, not sure. I've thought that the simplest method would be to start with straight relative position. Then take a sample, say every ten pilots or so and chart their career progression out until retirement and come up with a formula that has those sample pilots hitting certain gates on the way up, say every 5 years. Then go back and put short term fences on widebodies if there is a big disparity. Seems like that would dampen the big changes in relative position moving forward. I've wondered if this is mathematically possible and have been told that it is, but it is beyond my capability.
If an airline has been stagnate for years, then the average age of it's pilots is going to be greater. If you slot X% of the guy on this aircraft with the same of another group that has been moving up, or has had a recent amount of retirements, then you stunt the upward progress of the older group. A bunch of younger guys are now in front of them instead. Some is inevitable, but I don't think you can place a template on every group, every fleet.
Career expectations are a fluid, murky thing. Once a merger happens the previous expectations change, for good bad and at times maybe both.
I may have put this on here before, not sure. I've thought that the simplest method would be to start with straight relative position. Then take a sample, say every ten pilots or so and chart their career progression out until retirement and come up with a formula that has those sample pilots hitting certain gates on the way up, say every 5 years. Then go back and put short term fences on widebodies if there is a big disparity. Seems like that would dampen the big changes in relative position moving forward. I've wondered if this is mathematically possible and have been told that it is, but it is beyond my capability.
Status Quo is seat and relative position on equipment. IMHO a 7 year Hawaiian A330 Captain at 50% (if such a thing exists) should integrate at Delta as a A330 Captain at 50%. Not a reserve MD88/DC9 FO (which is what 7 years buys at Delta).
DOH is meaningless except for pass benefits and pay scale longevity.
There are usually reasons why a growing airline grows and a stagnant airline stagnates. A merger is not the tool to make up for that inequity.
A merger should not have such clear winners and losers. The result of an SLI should be "m'eh, I didn't move."
07-23-2012, 01:50 PM
#65
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Bar,
If we merge with Hawaiian and they have 5-7 year 330 captains, do you know what the union and probably you will argue for? DOH.
The only thing any pilot should know about any merger is that they will feel the best and only fair way to merge seniority lists is they way that benefits them the most.
It's human nature.
If we merge with Hawaiian and they have 5-7 year 330 captains, do you know what the union and probably you will argue for? DOH.
The only thing any pilot should know about any merger is that they will feel the best and only fair way to merge seniority lists is they way that benefits them the most.
It's human nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9xwV2qaBg
07-23-2012, 01:53 PM
#66
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Ok, barely line holder who would prefer reserve to the alternative (or whatever your version of reality is, A320/737 plug?). Works for the purposes of illustration (which was the point). Or if we are here to impress other airlines with our career advancement, then I'll take a mulligan. Thought I had a nice 350 yard drive in 2007, then a strong northwesterly breeze knocked by balls right back into the rough.
But hey with DOH I could sport bid into a 330 left seat in Hawaii, right? How fair that would be
But hey with DOH I could sport bid into a 330 left seat in Hawaii, right? How fair that would be
07-23-2012, 01:54 PM
#67
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
07-23-2012, 01:56 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Nice theory, doesn't always work.
07-23-2012, 02:01 PM
#69
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Really? So every airline stagnates or expands on what? It's greatness? At my airline I've seen 2 year captains and 22 year captains. How long is it taking at DL? How about SW? What if you merge with a company that was on a huge expansion tear that could not be sustained, would you want your seniority to keep their artificial, unsustainable movement going? Mighty generous of you.
Nice theory, doesn't always work.
Nice theory, doesn't always work.
OK, I give. Here's the sticker for your next merger:
07-23-2012, 02:03 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
