SpecialTracking

Slamming would convey a sentiment that you are right. I disagree with your post on that matter. Does it require a chart to prove you didn't beat your wife last night? Some topics are so simple to understand that hard facts and figures are not required. Longevity is an obvious example. Relative seniority as it affects the list in the present and the future is not a doctoral level mental exercise. Unless someone does not want to understand it. Then nothing will convince them.

The solution would be for alpa to grow a set and produce a definitive sli formula that would preclude the morass we find ourselves in.

Take care

Sunvox

Touche

Doctor Special.


But I wholly disaree. Explain to me your opinion on these matters please? (And by these matters I mean Longevity) Your post is a perfect example for what I slammed you.

davessn763

I agree. I work harder at getting paid more for less work, therefore I should be promoted and given a pay raise.

How many days off a month hanging around the CPO do I need to put in to be a better pilot?

Do better pilots run the APU less during the summer?

I think we should be paid a bonus or fine based on FOQA data. If you fly target all the way down the ILS with the A/T off you should get a bonus since you are obviously a better pilot and working harder.

7 second flare = $50

I think you should be penalized everytime you spool up reverse thrust or for not single engine taxiing, since you are obviously not working harder or being a better pilot.

IAHFLYR I heard a rumor that at EK they promote out of seniority favoring locals and expert aviators and they don't have a pesky union. You should leave UAL and go over there. You could come back here at the top of the list when we adopt your model of pilot management.

Good Luck!

SpecialTracking

Two airlines merge. Airline ABC has 10 pilots hired in the 80's. Airline XYZ has 10 hired in the 90's. The assumption is the pilots hired in the 80's are older than those of the 90's. For ease of comparison, each airline has a fleet of two 757s and both groups never experienced furloughs or loa.

Under straight longevity, xyz would be stapled beneath abc. With relative seniority, it would be a 1 for 1 sli. Solely utilizing longevity, no 1 at xyz, would now be no 11. He would progress to no 1 but that progression would be delayed. That holds true for all xyz pilots where their progression could be delayed for up to 10 years in a 30-35+ year career.

Now consider relative seniority. The no 10 pilot at abc would be no 20(19) under the merged list. No problem right? He was the bottom feeder then as he is now. At his old carrier he would have progressed to no 1 before retirement. At the new carrier he will never make it above no 10(9). This is due to the senior but younger pilots of xyz who were integrated above him, thereby blocking his career progression.

The bottom third of CAL's list was hired after 2005, The bottom third of UAL's list was hired after 1996. I don't think either relative seniority or straight longevity is fair.

I feel an sli could be devised with a combination of factors to which equal weight is assigned or not. A list composed of one single method, has the ability to benefit one group at the expense of the other.

My agenda is ALPA missed the mark by not creating a definitive isl methodology. We now have to follow this Judas (it's the arbitrator's fault not alpa's)of a merger policy. ALPA should provide a hardened formula to prevent the issues we face now and in the future. Many want to say what is fair(i.e. relative seniority) without regard the merger policy we operate under now. It is what it is, but we should be using the whole policy vs using 1/6 of it's tenants. Yes yes I know, up to but not including. Follow the damn thing in it's entirety and let the chips fall where they may.

krudawg

I have worked on the civilian side in Part 135 operations where there was no seniority system. People were hired and promoted based on brown nosing and/or sexual favors. Believe me guys and gals, this does and will happen without a seniority system. I'm very sure there are legions of pilots on this board who have seen similar results when a seniority system is non-existent.

SpecialTracking

The ability to make autonomous decisions without fear of reprisal is tantamount to safety.

tkhayes90

It is called th US military.

Night Hawk 6

No dog in this fight but just a very random thought: Seniority based on who has actually worked more? Pilot "A" hired in 1999 works two years then furloughed in 2001, 24 months actually worked for the company. Pilot "B" hired in 2007, 72 months actually working for the company. The company is now the combination of 2 formerly separate entities however what matters is how much time has actually been spent at work. It is unfortunate that pilot "A" got furloughed but it does not seem to be fair to penalize someone who has been producing for the company in favor of someone who has been on the sidelines. Yes this may seem harsh however it would be a more simple way to figure out where to be placed. Looking at where someone may or may not be at the end of the career in a business where predicting the future is pure folly seems to be like trusting the fortune teller at the fair. Now if pilots had a real union....

Airhoss

You know Joe, one of these days you might figure out that you are not as cool or as smart as you think you are. In fact my friend you've got quite the rep..

And it's not a good rep either.

Rather B Fishin

^^^^^^^^ TOTD stuff right there. If you still miss shining your O'6s shoes I have a pair you can practice on......