Alaska Virgin SLI

Cherokee_Cruiser

Cherokee_Cruiser

Bronteroc
60% longevity, 40% status/category
Harmony model meaning the formula was applied straight through 60/40 with no other ratios/re-doing
No fences
Certain restrictions to protect current CAs on both sides in case of future base closure/reduction



(@ATN_Pilot what do you think? Just goes to show you can't really look at past precedents as each case is unique)

Most senior AS pilot hired 1979, most senior VX guy Dec 2006.
With the formula above the first VX pilot showed up at #534 which placed him next to a 1998 AS hire.
It fairly quickly drops into putting yr 2000 hires of AS with 2007 hires at VX and so forth. It seems 2012 and onwards is almost DOH with that formula (give or take).
The AS guy directly above/below me were hired the same month/year as I was; pleasantly surprised at my final result and did really well all things considered.
 
Everyone wants to talk about numbers, but numbers don't matter, percentages do.

How close are you to your VX seniority in percentile?
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
The AS guy directly above/below me were hired the same month/year as I was; pleasantly surprised at my final result and did really well all things considered.
Click to expand...

So, is it official then, you staying?
 
Honestly I didn't think it was all that bad overall. Most, MOST are pretty close to where they were before in terms of relative seniority although percentage wise might have been thrown off. Most VX guys are next to pilots who were hired several years earlier on the AS side. Not really sure what more the group expected/wanted. Of course the VX #1 hired 12 years ago isn't going to be as senior as somebody hired in 1976....
 
jtrain609 said:
Everyone wants to talk about numbers, but numbers don't matter, percentages do.

How close are you to your VX seniority in percentile?
Click to expand...

The biggest loss percentage wise was medium to high seniority vx captains. A friend of mine went from 20% to 38%. Most guys around his seniority lost 15% to 20%. The other (smaller) loss seems to be for senior AS FOs. Other than those two groups it looked pretty even percentage wise.
 
AAPalmTree said:
That’s not the gold standard.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I asked.

I was curious how far he moved, not in numbers, but in percent.

I was not advocating for a merger based on relative seniority. I'm saying when guys flip out and say they "lost" 500,000 numbers it doesn't mean anything, the percent that you move from your original list position tells you the relative impact of the SLI.
 
jtrain609 said:
I think you misunderstood what I asked.

I was curious how far he moved, not in numbers, but in percent.

I was not advocating for a merger based on relative seniority. I'm saying when guys flip out and say they "lost" 500,000 numbers it doesn't mean anything, the percent that you move from your original list position tells you the relative impact of the SLI.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
60% longevity, 40% status/category
Harmony model meaning the formula was applied straight through 60/40 with no other ratios/re-doing
No fences
Certain restrictions to protect current CAs on both sides in case of future base closure/reduction



(@ATN_Pilot what do you think? Just goes to show you can't really look at past precedents as each case is unique)

Most senior AS pilot hired 1979, most senior VX guy Dec 2006.
With the formula above the first VX pilot showed up at #534 which placed him next to a 1998 AS hire.
It fairly quickly drops into putting yr 2000 hires of AS with 2007 hires at VX and so forth. It seems 2012 and onwards is almost DOH with that formula (give or take).
The AS guy directly above/below me were hired the same month/year as I was; pleasantly surprised at my final result and did really well all things considered.
Click to expand...

Just read it. My overall reaction is “not bad, not necessarily good, but not an unfair bloodbath for anyone.” Random thoughts:

1. I think we made a mistake when we re-wrote ALPA Merger Policy circa 2010. We overreacted to the USAirwars debacle and made changes to policy that weren’t warranted, in my view. I wasn’t concerned about it much, because I figured arbitrators would largely ignore it and do their own thing after it got to their table. This view was largely confirmed by the Pinnacolaba merger where the Panel basically said “eh, relative seniority sounds mostly good,” but this award goes the other way and basically says that if it’s in merger policy, it has to be given weight. Which isn’t an unreasonable thing for the Panel to do. It makes sense. But it’s not what I expected, and I don’t think it’s ideal. I don’t like longevity in SLI. The two are different concepts, and we shouldn’t have given it more weight.

2. It is downright hilarious to see Jeff Freund argue the unimpeachable merits of longevity. It just goes to show you that a great attorney really can argue either side of the issue with equal effect and conviction. Kudos to him. I’m just disappointed that VX didn’t hire Katz so that we could see the role reversal on both sides.

3. I continue to believe that relative seniority with seat and equipment protections is the true “gold standard,” but Freund and committee did a great job with their arguments for why their model remained fair for the VX group by placing emphasis on “time in seat” post-SLI. It’s a great argument, and they almost convinced even me. :)

4. The award just goes to show how much of a mistake the pilots made at AirTran by not forcing an arbitration. We had a much stronger position going into the SLI than VX did, but VX came away with the far, far better integration because they left it up to the arbitrators and didn’t chicken out. The key lesson: always arbitrate SLI.

All in all, good job by the arbitration panel and the committees, and not a bad integration. I suspect a little grumbling from both sides for a few years, then relative harmony (no pun intended).
 
Last edited:
jtrain609 said:
Everyone wants to talk about numbers, but numbers don't matter, percentages do.

How close are you to your VX seniority in percentile?
Click to expand...

Percentile wise stand-alone VX I was about 53-54% and now SLI company wide about 55%-56%.

Maximillian_Jenius said:
So, is it official then, you staying?
Click to expand...

I think if I get a call before I move to the west coast, I’d go to the big 3. But if I don’t get a call by next year and move to the west coast, may as well stick it out here. Besides, next yr 8th yr pay and retirement is a lot to give up.




Cptnchia said:
Is everybody upset/pissed/angry? Then it’s a fair award!
Click to expand...
Autothrust Blue said:
Except for the #1 guy, no?
Click to expand...

In this case the first 533 guys are the first 533 AS pilots so there are at least 533 happy campers. :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Just read it. My overall reaction is “not bad, not necessarily good, but not an unfair bloodbath for anyone.” Random thoughts:

1. I think we made a mistake when we re-wrote ALPA Merger Policy circa 2010. We overreacted to the USAirwars debacle and made changes to policy that weren’t warranted, in my view. I wasn’t concerned about it much, because I figured arbitrators would largely ignore it and do their own thing after it got to their table. This view was largely confirmed by the Pinnacolaba merger where the Panel basically said “eh, relative seniority sounds mostly good,” but this award goes the other way and basically says that if it’s in merger policy, it has to be given weight. Which isn’t an unreasonable thing for the Panel to do. It makes sense. But it’s not what I expected, and I don’t think it’s ideal. I don’t like longevity in SLI. The two are different concepts, and we shouldn’t have given it more weight.

2. It is downright hilarious to see Jeff Freund argue the unimpeachable merits of longevity. It just goes to show you that a great attorney really can argue either side of the issue with equal effect and conviction. Kudos to him. I’m just disappointed that VX didn’t hire Katz so that we could see the role reversal on both sides.

3. I continue to believe that relative seniority with seat and equipment protections is the true “gold standard,” but Freund and committee did a great job with their arguments for why their model remained fair for the VX group by placing emphasis on “time in seat” post-SLI. It’s a great argument, and they almost convinced even me. :)

4. The award just goes to show how much of a mistake the pilots made at AirTran by not forcing an arbitration. We had a much stronger position going into the SLI than VX did, but VX came away with the far, far better integration because they left it up to the arbitrators and didn’t chicken out. The key lesson: always arbitrate SLI.

All in all, good job by the arbitration panel and the committees, and not a bad integration. I suspect a little grumbling from both sides for a few years, then relative harmony (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

Agree except #3. Longevity should matter a lot more than relative seniority. Relative seniority ignores the difference between the two airlines. What if Skybus made it to 2012 and was bought by Alaska? Should their most senior guys with 5 yrs on property with no contract and the lowest pay get to be integrated next to a 1980s hire at Alaska simply because that’s where relative seniority would be? I whole heartedly disagree.

I guessed 60-65% relative seniority and 40-45% stat/cat. From a poll on APC, it seems a lot of guys thought it would be 15-30% longevity and 85-70% stat/cat. No, that would not have been a fair integration.


I hate SLIs and mergers (my second one already in 11 years), but this is one case where the arbitrator panel got it 100% correct. I say good job and glad my SLI dues assessment paid off.


Can you provide more info on AirTran pilots able or not able to force arbitration? Was that an option? If so, how? And why didn’t they try arbitration.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Agree except #3. Longevity should matter a lot more than relative seniority. Relative seniority ignores the difference between the two airlines. What if Skybus made it to 2012 and was bought by Alaska? Should their most senior guys with 5 yrs on property with no contract and the lowest pay get to be integrated next to a 1980s hire at Alaska simply because that’s where relative seniority would be? I whole heartedly disagree.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we'll definitely continue to disagree on that one. Relative seniority protects current bidding priority, and anything beyond that is purely speculatory. For all we know, had both remained separate, Alaska could be chapter 7 in 10 years and VX could have 300 planes and be kicking the legacies' ass. Everything beyond the next few days is speculative in the airline business, so the idea that anybody can accurately judge "career expectations" is fanciful, and longevity in the bank is about as worthless as the fuel you didn't load before you departed.

Can you provide more info on AirTran pilots able or not able to force arbitration? Was that an option? If so, how? And why didn’t they try arbitration.
Click to expand...

We had a process agreement signed by all three parties that was basically the same as yours. Direct negotiations, mediation, arbitration. It was a legally binding agreement. Gary issued some veiled threats that maybe they'd have to rethink their plans if we didn't take their crappy offer, and everyone panicked. Gary's threats were about as credible as Donald's latest tweet.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yeah, we'll definitely continue to disagree on that one. Relative seniority protects current bidding priority, and anything beyond that is purely speculatory. For all we know, had both remained separate, Alaska could be chapter 7 in 10 years and VX could have 300 planes and be kicking the legacies' ass. Everything beyond the next few days is speculative in the airline business, so the idea that anybody can accurately judge "career expectations" is fanciful, and longevity in the bank is about as worthless as the fuel you didn't load before you departed.
Click to expand...

You are correct that anything is possible, but given THOSE two scenarios it is extremely unlikely either would have happened. Working here as long as I have, there is no way a stand-alone VX would have gone to 300 planes kicking the legacies' ass. The business model was not viable long term. We were competing on highly competitive routes and our competitors had already caught up. There's a reason VX was basically put out for sale. The only reason we turned the profitability corner in 2013 onwards is because oil came crashing down. Who knows if VX would have survived the next big downturn. In comparison, AS would have done just fine. Longevity in the bank is worthless? How? You just admit that you don't know the future so career expectations are hard to predict! I agree. So why would you give any credibility to relative seniority when that could change in a heartbeat tomorrow? If VX parked all their 319s, we would take a huge hit and face downgrades/furloughs. Right away, relative seniority changes. In comparison, longevity is length of service/sweat equity and regardless of what happens in the future your longevity today is staying and increasing the longer you stay.

Say you still worked at SWA and assume SWA was ALPA. In 2014 I started an airline called Maurus Air with 737s. I pay the lowest in the industry but guys came here for the DEC and quick upgrades. I start with 5 planes and in 4 yrs today I have 30 planes and pilots voted ALPA in, but no first contract yet. Now SWA buys out Maurus Air. Do you really expect or think or argue that Maurus senior pilots from just 4 yrs longevity, 4 yrs seniority, and top 1% should get ANYTHING even remotely close to a top 1% integration with someone at SWA, which is what, a late 1970s hire? With due respect, dream on. :)

We had a process agreement signed by all three parties that was basically the same as yours. Direct negotiations, mediation, arbitration. It was a legally binding agreement. Gary issued some veiled threats that maybe they'd have to rethink their plans if we didn't take their crappy offer, and everyone panicked. Gary's threats were about as credible as Donald's latest tweet.
Click to expand...

I guess. Merger 2010, all one in 2012, and the first 717s were leased out to Delta starting 2013. Don't know what the exact veiled threat was but it looked like they didn't want the 717s. What if it went to arbitration and during that phase all the 717s started going away? That would have gone real bad in SLI integration.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Say you still worked at SWA and assume SWA was ALPA. In 2014 I started an airline called Maurus Air with 737s. I pay the lowest in the industry but guys came here for the DEC and quick upgrades. I start with 5 planes and in 4 yrs today I have 30 planes and pilots voted ALPA in, but no first contract yet. Now SWA buys out Maurus Air. Do you really expect or think or argue that Maurus senior pilots from just 4 yrs longevity, 4 yrs seniority, and top 1% should get ANYTHING even remotely close to a top 1% integration with someone at SWA, which is what, a late 1970s hire? With due respect, dream on. :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, we’ll just have to disagree on that. If I was king for a day, merger policy would basically be one line: “ALPA pilots will be merged by straight ratio within a category and status.”

I guess. Merger 2010, all one in 2012, and the first 717s were leased out to Delta starting 2013. Don't know what the exact veiled threat was but it looked like they didn't want the 717s. What if it went to arbitration and during that phase all the 717s started going away? That would have gone real bad in SLI integration.
Click to expand...

Snapshot date was already established. Companies can make whatever decisions they want about planes. Pilots need to remember that pilots don’t manage airlines.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Like I said, we’ll just have to disagree on that. If I was king for a day, merger policy would basically be one line: “ALPA pilots will be merged by straight ratio within a category and status.”
Click to expand...


If you’re not going to acknowledge the differences of airlines, their equities, what they bring to the table, the airline’s age, etc, then may as fight for a national seniority list for major airlines. After all you’re saying we’re basically all equals relatively speaking and just merge us straight ratio within stat/cat.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Say you still worked at SWA and assume SWA was ALPA. In 2014 I started an airline called Maurus Air with 737s. I pay the lowest in the industry but guys came here for the DEC and quick upgrades. I start with 5 planes and in 4 yrs today I have 30 planes and pilots voted ALPA in, but no first contract yet. Now SWA buys out Maurus Air. Do you really expect or think or argue that Maurus senior pilots from just 4 yrs longevity, 4 yrs seniority, and top 1% should get ANYTHING even remotely close to a top 1% integration with someone at SWA, which is what, a late 1970s hire? With due respect, dream on. :)
Click to expand...

Morris Air
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top