SherpaLifter

Actually your example makes sense with your assumptions.

But how do you make a fair list when not everyone on the AT list is younger than everyone on the SWA list? How about the old (age wise) junior guys on the AT list or the young (age wise) senior guys on the SWA list? I realize SWA has more retirements (they are a bigger airline so you would expect more numerical retirements). How about the aircraft orders AT brings (growth)? SWA FO's should upgrade faster because of these than they would have in the no growth days prior to 27 Sep 2010. Those upgrades should help every Capt on the list increase in seniority as well as every FO. But then there is the question of time frame. If you are trying to be fair to the "older" SWA list, how far out do you look (1 year, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50......)? Do you look at only no growth scenarios (retirements only) or do you assume some level of growth in your calculations? Keep in mind my previous post about the many stapled AT FO's who will never regain the massive seniority hit the failed deal would have given them prior to upgrading or retiring.

Hopefully, fair minded folks at SWA will not look at the rejection of the SLI deal as an attack on them personally or the culture of the company (as I've heard some of their pilots complain about.) Rather, I hope they understand the complexities of devising a fair seniority list. In the end, the AT guys, I would think, would also want a list that is fair to the SWA pilots. There should be no windfalls for either group in the construction of a seniority list. Unfortunately, many of the SWA posters here seem to think that just because the AT pilots are getting a pay raise that they should take a sacrificial hit to their seniority for a long period of time. If a mediated list is not obtainable, an arbitrator should be able to come a lot closer to a "fair and equitable" list than the one the ATN MEC turned down.

LuvJockey

This is further down the road than most realize.

forgot to bid

Hate to ask and maybe this was answered elsewhere in this thread, but in recent arbitration do aircraft orders matter? Both SWA and FL seem to have a lot, I believe we had conversations about the 787, but don't know what amount of consideration is given to an order versus on property aircraft.

Because the flip side is what happens if one airline shrinks or something? We merged thinking the DC9s could be parked at any moment, but in the end they weren't- which is a good thing. So you really never know if an order or shrinkage will happen.

Shrinkage.

That's what I said.

forgot to bid

Forgive me, if this was mentioned already, but what if the list is developed off an arbitrary future point like 15 or 20 years? Current ratio is 5:1, therefore, the top 50% of the list should be 5:1, make the list and then roll it back to today and add in the pilots who will retire prior to that arbitrary point?

1Seat 1Engine

FTB, if you look as SL9, that was pretty close to what it was for me.

I would have received a 9 percent seniority boost immediately. It would have eroded to 1-2 percent by the time I reached age 65. Since a lot of the AT pilots around me on the proposed list were significantly younger than I am, they would have been around much longer to make up even more.

I've never been a torch carrying member of the "staple" crowd. But if you ratio a list based on that criteria you are necessarily going to end up with a chunk of AT FO's at the bottom.

newKnow

When do the bulk of your retirements occur, 5 years from now, or 15 years from now?

Because, the further they are away, the less likely it is that an arbitrator will consider them. The days of factoring "fairness" 10, 15, and 20 years down the road after the merger are over and it seems that arbitrators are taking the "get on with it" stance.

BTW, I am not a "you guy." I don't work for Air Tran. I'm just passing along my observations and my lessons learned from mergers past.

NuGuy

There were a lot of guys at NWA and DAL that found themselves at par day one after the SLI, but find their relative percentages changed, sometimes into the double digits, 5, 10 and 15 years into the merger because of differing demographics. A lot of guys NEVER get back to where they were and will NEVER hold the seat/equipment they they thought was a sure thing.

There were guys who were going to retire in the double digits at 60, now will exit in the high hundreds at 65.

Your argument, that credence be given what happens past day one was tried, with computer models and pretty graphics and elaborate explanations....and it failed before a panel of 3 arbitrators. If they HAD accepted that argument, the NWA/DAL SLI would have been a DOH merger...where one side takes a 3-4 percent hit, but it evens out after 10-15 years because of demographics and everyone is back at par. But lists like that become impossible to quantify, because the further out you go, the fuzzier it becomes, and it affects different parts of the list and demographics in an increasingly divergent way.

No, what they want is a DAY ONE solution. Its VERY easy to point to and say "everyone is where they were".

They can ding up the list anyway they want, but if they go with precedent, everyone who thought they'd retire as a 737 captain, probably will, which is head and shoulders over simiar awards, and makes this a home run for the arbitrators. They aren't going to slap the AT guys with a 5 or 10 year hit because of future expectations (the concepts of which were pretty well thrashed by previous decisions) or economic issues (which are a cost for the company, NOT the SWA pilots).

Look Seat, Mergers sucks, but it is what it is. I feel for the SWA guys who say they aren't getting anything out of the merger, and that might be true, but that was a call that should have been made BEFORE papers got signed. They should have held up SWA management for a king's ransom to make things work, and that would, perhaps, eased some of the burden. All the AT guys have to do is NOTHING, and it goes to arbitration.

On the other hand, some kind of seniority improvement is the only thing the SWA guys can hope for out of this deal, since SWAPA didn't get any kind of fiscal reward attached to this thing. But that was a failing of YOUR side to negotiate, and is not justification for mugging the AT guys.

I understand your angst, but I think it's pointed in the wrong direction.

Nu