National Seniority List? A first step....

Doug Taylor said:
I think it's one of those ideas that good in theory, but the practical application would be a nightmare.
Click to expand...
Very true. That would mean all 60,000 pilots working for how many airlines would have to agree to havethe same representation. I think if this was the case starting out, it would have flown, but now....it would really be a drastic change for some. Look at the skyWest/Colgan/USAir votes. Each pilot group has a different idea of how each pilot group could be best represented.


I also think that the perceived "strong arm" tactics that some in union stewardship portray turn people off to the mere idea of a union. People are passionate about their cause, which is good. I just don't think the message is brought across well. The fact that unions seem to have lost some of their power I think doesn't help. Some people coming into the industry (like me) look at the current state of unions, see the outstanding grievances, lonnnng contract talks, no communication from the union and think "What am I paying dues for?".
 
I just read that, as a part of the merger agreement, Delta must give preferential interviews to furloughed ALPA pilots for all new pilot hiring.

PCL was getting some grief about the NSL thing...but it's an ALPA seniority list and would apply to ALPA represented properties. It doesn't have anything to do with every commercial pilot in the country (if I understand correctly). Philosophically, I don't see an issue with that...and would be a great benefit to dues paying members.

My grandfather was a tradesman and I remember him telling me you had to get into a union to get the good paying jobs. For whatever reason, he was never able to hire on with a union employer and always earned subpar wages.

Given the turbulent state of the industry, it would be nice for pilots to have some type of career protection...and this would be a great objective for a union, especially one with the reach of ALPA to achieve. I would think it would be within their grasp...possibly fledgling at first...strengthening down the road.
 
inside0ut said:
This is the way it should be, just without the specific union. Make it a national union and thats the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Baby steps, my friend. You don't get to the finish line in a single step. It will take time and hard work. This could be the first step on the way to that final goal.

B767Driver said:
I just read that, as a part of the merger agreement, Delta must give preferential interviews to furloughed ALPA pilots for all new pilot hiring.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I hadn't heard that. These sorts of clauses should become standard practice in all ALPA contracts in the future. Based on recent statements from Captain Prater, I think he'll be pushing a lot harder for these sorts of agreements.
 
NJA_Capt said:
Who exactly awarded ALPA the right to give credit in the first place.

IBEW???
If a surgeon changes hospitals does he start over at as an intern?
If a lawyer changes practices does he start over as a paralegal?

You (ALPA) guys are looking at this as if ALPA is and will be the final authority in any future judgments. That opinion is totally one sided. The ONLY way for a national list is for a national union. NOT ALPA TAKES ALL. You are assuming that ALPA will be in charge of the NL. They may be in charge of an ALPA (mini) national list for its own members, but it has nothing to do with THE national list. There will have to be a new overall union. Lets call it the NPA (National Pilot's Association). ALPA has no say in who gets credit. Everyone is acting as if ALPA has been pronounced king daddy union. I wouldn't expect the NPA to "give credit" to anyone regardless of affiliation. Nor does ALPA deserve to self proclaim itself as the governing body.

A national list would be needed to properly integrate all US pilots. It ranks pilots in order of the pilot's first entry into the market as a professional aviator. It has nothing to do with who has been a union pilot and who has not. It has to go back to the initial common ground. The ONLY common ground is the date of the first professional checkride.

These threads are a good example of why the NL will never work. In order to get something you have to be willing to give and compromise. Too many pilots are in it for themselves. We are aviators FIRST and union members SECOND. How many of you would turn in your current union affiliation in order to properly form the NPA?


Don't you really mean what's best for ALPA members? That's really what this is all about.
Current members being put ahead of others is what caused this issue to begin with. To continue with the ALPA first mentality is just another "merging lists" fiasco. The only way to be fair is to "zero out" EVERYBODY. Until EVERYBODY is willing to compromise, nobody will have a true NL.
Click to expand...


I don't think you got the point. The only reason I'm talking ALPA is ALPA is the one wanting to do it IBT has every right to do it at all the IBT carriers as well. I'm telling you that if ALPA is negotiating a benefit only at ALPA airline, it's not really their concern how non ALPA people feel about it.

IBEW makes a good example on how it works. Other union members can still help wages etc and are much much better than non union, but again, if it's an ALPA benefit, it's an ALPA benefit, and IBT can do the same.

As mentioned above, this isn't a "national seniority list." This is more of an integration of ALPA seniority. As such, it's not really something to concern yourself with if you aren't ALPA. If you love your non ALPA carrier, it won't affect your operations. If you go to an ALPA carrier in the future, it won't be any worse for you than it is now.
 
It would seem to me that a much easier step would be to eliminate longevity based pay scales. Captain's on any given piece of a equipment make X, whether they have been there for 1 year or 20. First Officers make a percentage of X.

One advantage of this is obvious. It would ease the pain of switching from one airline to another. No more going back to "first year pay." It would still hurt somewhat, but not as much as the alternative.

The other thing this does is eliminate the competitive advantage of incrementalism. Stay with me on this. One reason AWAC lost its United flying 3 years ago is that we were bidding against companies that had an incremental cost advantage. For every airplane/route our competitors were awarded, they got to hire 4 or 5 crews, and various support staff, at entry level wages, while AWAC had to pay higher wages to established senior pilots and staff. There was no way we could bid low enough to overcome this incremental advantage, so we lost the business. If airlines paid a single rate, this advantage becomes neutralized, and airlines compete on something other than labor costs.

Just something to think about
 
skydog said:
It would seem to me that a much easier step would be to eliminate longevity based pay scales. Captain's on any given piece of a equipment make X, whether they have been there for 1 year or 20. First Officers make a percentage of X.

One advantage of this is obvious. It would ease the pain of switching from one airline to another. No more going back to "first year pay." It would still hurt somewhat, but not as much as the alternative.

The other thing this does is eliminate the competitive advantage of incrementalism. Stay with me on this. One reason AWAC lost its United flying 3 years ago is that we were bidding against companies that had an incremental cost advantage. For every airplane/route our competitors were awarded, they got to hire 4 or 5 crews, and various support staff, at entry level wages, while AWAC had to pay higher wages to established senior pilots and staff. There was no way we could bid low enough to overcome this incremental advantage, so we lost the business. If airlines paid a single rate, this advantage becomes neutralized, and airlines compete on something other than labor costs.

Just something to think about
Click to expand...


When I was flying commuters the entire seniority list would turn over about every 3 or 4 years...granted...it was a small pilot group. Management was glad to see you go...they never wanted anyone on the upper level of the pay scale.
 
Baradium said:
I don't think you got the point. ....As mentioned above, this isn't a "national seniority list." This is more of an integration of ALPA seniority.
Click to expand...
I agree/understand. The confusion when some people are saying "NSL" but mean an integrated ALPA list. I have no problems with that at all. I think the terminology needs to be clarified. A true NSL should be interpreted as all professional pilots working for all air carriers, regardless of affiliation. An integrated alpa list is just that.
 
Baradium said:
There are a large number of ATP holders who got it just to get it.
Click to expand...

Really? Name 5!!

Baradium said:
For something like this to work, it'd also need clauses in the contracts requiring the company to hire any applicants who are ALPA members in good standing before non union members.
Click to expand...

So if I own company X, i HAVE to hire you? Why? What if I dont like you?

Not only do i have to hire you but now i have to pay you more than pilots i personally hired and actually like?

Why would a company sign on for this?

You couldve been on the verge of gettin fired and now i owe u 7th yr pay?

This is ridiculous! Also if its not a requirement then if i have a 2 yr guy i like and a 9 yr guy well guess what? im hiring the 2yr guy.
 
germb747 said:
Bingo! Don't people see why a NSL is ultimately self-defeating???
Click to expand...

The nice backdoor side affect, is that eventually a NSL (an ALPA Longevity List, or whatever we want to call it) would be able to constrict supply to a certain degree, but not to the point of cutting off any initial entrance into the industry.

So, we can then call ourselves the APHC (Airline Pilot Hiring Cartel) and charge a market fare for our services every December (3% pay raise for all pay bands).

At least we would have some true pricing power.
 
Shhhh said:
Really? Name 5!!
Click to expand...

I personally know more than 5, and know of more than that. But I'm not going to give you their names either. www.aopa.org can give you some information regarding the actual statistics though.



BTW, the management of large airlines generally doesn't personally know pilots. They don't know your name and don't know who you are. They don't care about you personally if they don't have to deal with anything.
 
jtrain609 said:
Hey if ALPA carriers start doing this, nobody has to like it, it's something that ALPA carriers are going to do. If this gets going, and you don't like it because you didn't work at an ALPA carrier then tough nuts, guys.

Pilots are not a big happy family who want to take care of each other, this thread proves as much. Why in the world would ALPA say, "Hey, we know that you haven't funded this proposal at all, but we're nice guys and we want to help you out!"

Further it'll never be good enough for everybody, but any other system than what we have today would beat out what we've got.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought... extend non-active union membership to pilots that don't work for ALPA carriers... by... allowing them to buy it.

If you say to some 135 guy or military guy "hey, you want ALPA legal/safety bennies, etc, plus a spot on the NSL? Send us this card and pay some dues."

So now we've got an influx of new dues to ALPA, and a sort of 'freelancer' membership. That way, those that want on the list can do so, and those that don't, don't. The ones that want on the list pay in to the system, and get a return on their investment over time.

There are a number of "what-ifs" in this system, ie eligibility requirements, time of longevity accrued (you were on the list 20 years ago in the military, and now want to be hired as a new hire at 20 year pay?) type stuff.

I suppose if there was a cost/benefit analysis done to determine the break-even point for new hire training vs longevity pay with washouts factored in, you could find a mark. Say, limit longevity pay adjustments to five years, so make a clause that says "if you pay in for five years, you get this... if you go beyond five years, you get five years."

Thoughts?
 
Firebird2XC said:
Here's a thought... extend non-active union membership to pilots that don't work for ALPA carriers... by... allowing them to buy it.

If you say to some 135 guy or military guy "hey, you want ALPA legal/safety bennies, etc, plus a spot on the NSL? Send us this card and pay some dues."

So now we've got an influx of new dues to ALPA, and a sort of 'freelancer' membership. That way, those that want on the list can do so, and those that don't, don't. The ones that want on the list pay in to the system, and get a return on their investment over time.

There are a number of "what-ifs" in this system, ie eligibility requirements, time of longevity accrued (you were on the list 20 years ago in the military, and now want to be hired as a new hire at 20 year pay?) type stuff.

I suppose if there was a cost/benefit analysis done to determine the break-even point for new hire training vs longevity pay with washouts factored in, you could find a mark. Say, limit longevity pay adjustments to five years, so make a clause that says "if you pay in for five years, you get this... if you go beyond five years, you get five years."

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Interesting idea Charlie! some thought should go into something like this! :D
 
It seems that normal union protocol is for the idea of your probationary period to be based on completing a year with a union shop. Allowing individual people to join from non union shops might be counter productive. Now if it was contingent on being active in trying to unionize said airline, that could change things.

Part of the idea of this would be an added incentive for other airlines to unionize. Allowing individual membership could be detrimental to that goal. You also would have people saying they wanted membership who might not actively vote for ALPA if a vote was help at the company. A big part is that, if you don't allow individual membership, benefits at other ALPA carriers is a really big carrot to hand out to companies to unionize.


I see benefits to both ways, but a lot of caution has to be exercised in allowing non union pilots to join the union individually as it could hamper efforts to unionize the airline by removing incentives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top