A tale of Two Cities

[Piedmont1984]

"What we have here....is a failure to communicate"

What I think we have here, is two disparate pilot groups, separated by a generation, with totally incompatable views of what is important in terms of what goes into an airline career.

A young pilot, relatively new to the airline business, has no seniority and therefore assigns little value to it - and the traditional factors that go into achieving it - such as DOH, time in service, etc.

The older pilot, having invested decades, having endured the trials and tribulations that this industry has experienced, views all other considerations subordinate to his or her DOH.

Of course, I am biased, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.
To overlook or minimize time in service in determining how pilots should line up in the pecking order is a deeply flawed and potentially destructive position to take. For all those who do not have much time in service today, they certainly will one day - and what will they preach then.

Career expectations, relative position and other factors are certainly relevant, but they are secondary to length of service. They are shortcuts which attempt to circumvent length of service.

Length of service, in the form of DOH, governs everything a pilot does and gets within his own organization. But when two pilot groups merge, the younger group argues that length of service is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, this just does not pass the smell test.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A young pilot, relatively new to the airline business, has no seniority and therefore assigns little value to it - and the traditional factors that go into achieving it - such as DOH, time in service, etc.

Wrong - that younger (or with less longevity regardless of age) may have enough seniority to hold 737/A320 or even 757 captain. After all, does not holding such a job take seniority relative to his/her peers? Are you saying that any pilot, with some magic amount of longevity, should be a captain regardless of seniority?

The older pilot, having invested decades, having endured the trials and tribulations that this industry has experienced, views all other considerations subordinate to his or her DOH.

Correct, as long as that DOH benefits him/her in a merger - by letting them jump ahead of those with more seniority but less longevity.

Length of service, in the form of DOH, governs everything a pilot does and gets within his own organization.

Within his own organization......

But when two pilot groups merge, the younger group argues that length of service is irrelevant.

As it is since it says nothing about seniority across different organizations.....

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Seniority..as defined in the American heritage Dictionary:

sen·ior·i·ty (sēn-yôr'ĭ-tē, -yŏr'-)
n.
The state of being older than another or others or higher in rank than another or others.
Precedence of position, especially precedence over others of the same rank by reason of a longer span of service.

Websters Dictionary:

Seniority
Noun
1. Higher rank than that of others especially by reason of longer service.

2. The property of being long-lived.

Kinda' tough to see how much of that can be observed within the "seniority" contained within the Award.

As for seniority via "higher rank"...even the military services employ a "DOH" via which an officer's date of commission superceeds anothers...without concern for his/her branch of service. What we have here is an atrocity, not a "seniority" integration.

Just some food for thought..lest "seniority" become a term fully co-opted, and ignored in it's essential meaning.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Let me explain this very...very...slowly. Not because I think you are stupid, but because I am indluging myself in my third Appleton Estate Rum.

Wrong - that younger (or with less longevity regardless of age) may have enough seniority to hold 737/A320 or even 757 captain. After all, does not holding such a job take seniority relative to his/her peers? Are you saying that any pilot, with some magic amount of longevity, should be a captain regardless of seniority?

I am saying that longevity and seniority, within a given pilot group, go hand in hand. Pilot hired first has seniority number one, pilot hired last has seniority number last.

Correct, as long as that DOH benefits him/her in a merger - by letting them jump ahead of those with more seniority but less longevity.
Within his own organization......

[i]Wrong, he is not jumping ahead of anyone...he was in line first.

As it is since it says nothing about seniority across different organizations.....

Thank you UAL pilots, to the detriment of all of us.

No how the hell do I keep your quotes in nice little boxes in order to respond to them?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Kinda' tough to see how much of that can be observed within the "seniority" contained within the Award.

Maybe you missed it - "higher in rank".

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

"I am saying that longevity and seniority, within a given pilot group, go hand in hand. Pilot hired first has seniority number one, pilot hired last has seniority number last."

I've never said differently. Within a given pilot group, seniority and longevity generally go hand in hand. Which has nothing to do with merging two pilot groups together.

"Wrong, he is not jumping ahead of anyone...he was in line first."

So you were in line at HP after you were hired at US? Likewise for every other US pilot - they were in line at HP after being hired at US? What really happens is a pilot usually gets in several lines for a job. When he's hired at a carrier, he's not really in line at any other carrier and ties his fortunes to the carrier that hired him. A perfect example is the guy on both lists. Got hired by US, then pushed out of line (furloughed). So he got in the HP line. His fortunes were better at HP, moving up that line (gaining seniority) to a position above what he had in the US line. Being further up the HP line gave him more seniority than he had in the US line, so he's higher up based on his position in the HP "line" than he is in the US "line", even though his DOH at US was before his DOH at HP. Unless, of course, you want to argue that one's position in line doesn't determine one's seniority.....

No(w) how the hell do I keep your quotes in nice little boxes in order to respond to them?

By using the "Quote" feature. Each quote has to begin with the word "quote" in brackets (I can't type it that was or the software will turn into a quote). Each quote also has to end with "/quote" in brackets.

If you want the quote to include the name of who's being quoted, as well as date and time, the easiest way is to use the "Reply" button at that post which will activate the "Quote" feature (not the one at the bottom of the page). That will quote the entire post. To break it down into pieces, copy and paste the first "quote...." in brackets to the start of each piece, and end each piece with "/quote" in brackets.

Took me a while to figure it out at first, too.

Jim

ps - see, I screwed something up in the "quotes" so am trying to figure out what now.....dummy me put "/unquote" in brackets to end each quote.

 

[EastUS]

"Maybe you missed it - "higher in rank".

Nope. I addressed that via noting that within the military services, regardless of branch affiliation; those of identical rank are considered senior if they were commissioned first. Within the observably general social notions of what constitues "seniority": How does anything yet posted/thought/imagined/or fantasized, much less "awarded" actually square with a "2 month old" First Officer having higher "rank" than another initially hired 16 years prior?

By ANY consensus of societal norms...the word "seniority" is badly misrepresented within said "Award".

 

[Piedmont1984]

I've never said differently. Within a given pilot group, seniority and longevity generally go hand in hand. Which has nothing to do with merging two pilot groups together.
So you were in line at HP after you were hired at US? Likewise for every other US pilot - they were in line at HP after being hired at US?
By using the "Quote" feature. Each quote has to begin with the word "quote" in brackets (I can't type it that was or the software will turn into a quote). Each quote also has to end with "/quote" in brackets.

If you want the quote to include the name of who's being quoted, as well as date and time, the easiest way is to use the "Reply" button at that post which will activate the "Quote" feature (not the one at the bottom of the page). That will quote the entire post. To break it down into pieces, copy and paste the first "quote...." in brackets to the start of each piece, and end each piece with "/quote" in brackets.

Took me a while to figure it out at first, too.

Jim

ps - see, I screwed something up in the "quotes" so am trying to figure out what now.....dummy me put "/unquote" in brackets to end each quote.

I will consider your explanation of utilizing the quote feature.....tomorrow.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Nope. I addressed that via noting that within the military services, regardless of branch affiliation; those of identical rank are considered senior if they were commissioned first.

So let's look at your example - at the same rank, date of commission determines which is "senior". Even the military disregards "DOH" across ranks - an Army General is "senior" to an Air Force Colonel even though the Colonel may have an earlier "DOH", right? So even the military recognized that "seniority" is more important than "DOH".

Would not most of "society" recognize that a Captain is more senior than a F/O? That an active F/O is more senior than someone furloughed?

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

So let's look at your example - at the same rank, date of commission determines which is "senior". Even the military disregards "DOH" across ranks - an Army General is "senior" to an Air Force Colonel even though the Colonel may have an earlier "DOH", right? So even the military recognized that "seniority" is more important than "DOH".

Would not most of "society" recognize that a Captain is more senior than a F/O? That an active F/O is more senior than someone furloughed?

Jim

The military is not necessarily a good analogy. Promotion within the upper ranks are merit based. Which means politics are often rampant.

The airline system, as you know, is different. The system may not be perfect, but it has a fundamental fairness to it that is hard to argue with. It has worked well.

Nicolau's award threatens to undermine that long standing system.

These guys who are shouting "get over it" will one day be approaching retirement. When they have invested the years, they will appreciate the value of those years.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The military is not necessarily a good analogy. Promotion within the upper ranks are merit based. Which means politics are often rampant.

True, but it wasn't me that tried to use it to justify a position.....

The airline system, as you know, is different.

Yes, it is - which I way I didn't bring the military method into the discussion trying to "prove" something.

The system may not be perfect, but it has a fundamental fairness to it that is hard to argue with. It has worked well.

Yes it has - the idea that you only get what your seniority can "buy" has stood the test of time. Not perfect, but devoid of favoritism, nepotism, etc.

Nicolau's award threatens to undermine that long standing system.

How? By saying that what a pilot's pre-merger seniority could "buy" should be the same as what their post-merger seniortiy will "buy"? Isn't that exactly the result that "the system" at an individual airline gives? All I see is a lot of people arguing that seniority is meaningless in a merger - all that should matter is a date on a calendar

These guys who are shouting "get over it" will one day be approaching retirement. When they have invested the years, they will appreciate the value of those years.

The only value "those years" have is what they will "buy". That could be a lot or it could be a little (or even nothing). They have no other value when it comes to bidding equipment/seat. Some want "those years" to count for more when there's a merger than they do absent the merger. If "those years" have turned out badly, they want someone else to pay that price while simultaneously grabbing the gains of those who happened to have "those years" turn out better.

So tell me, how long have you believed that a furloughed pilot is somehow senior to a 757 Captain?

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

No bump/ no flush protects that 757 Captain quite nicely. The issue was and is future vacancies.

896 pilots on the east list who would have upgraded to captain as a result of attrition....will no longer have the opportunity.

In any case, we have a philosophical difference of opinion. I don't presume I have swayed anyone from their philosophical position.

In the real world, however, all is fair in love and war. This is all about power and politics. The arbitrator sided with the AWA group. But in reality there are legal options and strategems available to the East - and I would expect us to exhaust them all.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No bump/ no flush protects that 757 Captain quite nicely. The issue was and is future vacancies.

896 pilots on the east list who would have upgraded to captain as a result of attrition....will no longer have the opportunity.

Maybe that's the problem - you assume both of those statements to be true and neither is guaranteed to be.....

Jim