I no longer work in the industry. But perhaps you missed the part where I said I was an ex-AFA member. So thanks for the lesson on how seniority and the industry work.proudf/a said:
Seniority Challenge Greets Us/hp Merger
- Thread starter airlinedivalish
- Start date
Hooray for hulagirl!hulagirl said:
A lot of AWA F/As apparently feel differently.
I'm simply sharing my thoughts. If you don't like them, well, I can't help you there.
BTW, I disagree with you that straight seniority / DOH is the ONLY way to merge seniority lists. It is a good way in SOME situations, but not ALL.proudf/a said:
And not every airline union lives and dies by DOH. For example, in many ways the ALPA merger policy is fairer in many situations because it takes more equitable principles into account. Strict DOH is certainly more simple administratively (and, as I mentioned, it might be the fairest way to do it in SOME situations), but such a ham-handed, no-exceptions approach has the potential to leave more people feeling screwed than one that considers other important factors.
Let me ask you this...do you think it is fair that a f/a with 20 yrs of service, sit next too a f/a with 10 yrs of service, and be considered jr to that f/a? The 10 yr f/a gets to pick and choose their monthly flying schedule and yearly vacation, and the 20 yr f/a has to take what is left over? How would you assume there is an equitable way to do this if you are so not in favor of DOH? No one is entilted to gain seniority they have not earned, nor does anyone on either side deserve to lose seniority that they HAVE earned. We can continue to beat this dead horse, but nothing I say is going to cause you to rethink your position. That is fine. Just be thankful you arent in this situation, you had enough sense to get out of this crazy industry before it all hit the fan.Bear96 said:
Bear69,
Actually, most AWA flight attendants feel that DOH is fair.
As for your opinion, and mine, we are both entitled to them.
Have a great day.
Actually, most AWA flight attendants feel that DOH is fair.
As for your opinion, and mine, we are both entitled to them.
Have a great day.
You appear to be proposing a universal seniority system among all airlines, meaning if I work for Airline A for 20 years and then quit and get hired by Airline B, I should come into Airline B with 20 years seniority on my first day.proudf/a said:
First, is that what you are proposing?
Second, for the record, I really wouldn't have a problem with that. But, that is not our current system. Our current system is that you accrue seniority at an airline and lose it when you leave (or when your airline goes out of business), even when you later start at another airline. It would strike me as unfair to embrace universal seniority when it benefits you, and reject it when it doesn't.
First, the end result must be that at the end of the process, everyone has to feel entirely screwed. If anyone feels less than entirely screwed, they probably got a windfall at the expense of someone else.
Seriously, though, the proportional system I have seen suggested here before(maybe on another thread) is a good one. If you are 1/3 of the way up the U seniority list, or 1/3 the way up HP list, you should be 1/3 of the way up the combined list.
And remember I am not NECESSARILY "so not in favor" of DOH. In SOME situations (a true merger of airlines of equal financial health, where the partners have similar seniority structures), DOH would be the best way. But what is going on here is perhaps the perfect example of when DOH is NOT the way to go: an larger, more senior, airline on its last legs combining with a smaller, younger, financially healthier one. My point is that one size does not fit all -- one merger policy does not (fairly) fit all mergers, and the uniquenesses of each merger should be considered.
ALPA's "career expectations" concept is interesting also, though perhaps too subjective to be workable. I guess we'll find out as ALPA goes through their own process.
I agree. Yet you want people who are relatively JUNIOR at U to end up being relatively SENIOR at the combined carrier. Seems like some people are about to gain some seniority they have not earned.
The problem is DOH is an "absolute" instead of "relative" way of measuring things, and seniority is ALWAYS relative. With the same seniority date, you may be holding the creme de la creme of bid choices at one airline, and be on interminable reserve on another. Even within the same airline, you mighe be "senior" at one base and "junior" at another. It's all relative, yet you want to use an absolute system.
If I may get scientific for a minute, it's like measuring humidity. The "absolute" way to measure water vapor in the atmosphere is with the dew point. So say the dew point is 50'. Is it "humid" out? If it is 55' out, the relative humidity is high and it is damp. If it is 100' out, it is a dry day with low relative humidity. Absolute measures can be meaningless without considering the context and relativity. (OK so maybe that analogy was pretty useless.)
Bear96 said:You appear to be proposing a universal seniority system among all airlines, meaning if I work for Airline A for 20 years and then quit and get hired by Airline B, I should come into Airline B with 20 years seniority on my first day.
First, is that what you are proposing?
Second, for the record, I really wouldn't have a problem with that. But, that is not our current system. Our current system is that you accrue seniority at an airline and lose it when you leave (or when your airline goes out of business), even when you later start at another airline. It would strike me as unfair to embrace universal seniority when it benefits you, and reject it when it doesn't.
First, the end result must be that at the end of the process, everyone has to feel entirely screwed. If anyone feels less than entirely screwed, they probably got a windfall at the expense of someone else.
Seriously, though, the proportional system I have seen suggested here before(maybe on another thread) is a good one. If you are 1/3 of the way up the U seniority list, or 1/3 the way up HP list, you should be 1/3 of the way up the combined list.
And remember I am not NECESSARILY "so not in favor" of DOH. In SOME situations (a true merger of airlines of equal financial health, where the partners have similar seniority structures), DOH would be the best way. But what is going on here is perhaps the perfect example of when DOH is NOT the way to go: an larger, more senior, airline on its last legs combining with a smaller, younger, financially healthier one. My point is that one size does not fit all -- one merger policy does not (fairly) fit all mergers, and the uniquenesses of each merger should be considered.
ALPA's "career expectations" concept is interesting also, though perhaps too subjective to be workable. I guess we'll find out as ALPA goes through their own process.
I agree. Yet you want people who are relatively JUNIOR at U to end up being relatively SENIOR at the combined carrier. Seems like some people are about to gain some seniority they have not earned.
The problem is DOH is an "absolute" instead of "relative" way of measuring things, and seniority is ALWAYS relative. With the same seniority date, you may be holding the creme de la creme of bid choices at one airline, and be on interminable reserve on another. Even within the same airline, you mighe be "senior" at one base and "junior" at another. It's all relative, yet you want to use an absolute system.
If I may get scientific for a minute, it's like measuring humidity. The "absolute" way to measure water vapor in the atmosphere is with the dew point. So say the dew point is 50'. Is it "humid" out? If it is 55' out, the relative humidity is high and it is damp. If it is 100' out, it is a dry day with low relative humidity. Absolute measures can be meaningless without considering the context and relativity. (OK so maybe that analogy was pretty useless.)
[post="304450"][/post]
NO that isnt what i am proposing...NO one at either airline is terminating their employment and getting rehired or hired with a new airline. Everyone is retaining their status quo. If i have 20 yrs with AWA, I will still have 20 yrs after this merger based on the doh bylaws. If i have 20 yrs with US I will still have 20 yrs after this merger based on the doh bylaws. How you figure the junior person at US is going to end up being relatively senior at the combined carrier? Your years of service stay the same...this is not a situation where we are quitting our prospective carriers and are being hired with a new one. This is two financially struggling airlines combining to hopefully create one strong one. Let me bottom line this for you, it doesnt matter what you know or think that you know, the truth of the matter is AWA cant survive w/o us, and we cannot survive w/o them. Believe it or not AWA does come out on top of this with a caribbean market that is the best in the industry, bigger airplanes, Star Alliance recognition and a European market they could never even of dreamed of. That MrBear96 I can assure you they couldnt of accomplished all by themselves, an amazingly the USAIRWAYS name is still alive and kicking. So lets just agree to disagree.
No one I am aware of is disputing that is what the bylaws state. But I thought we were discussing if that is fair or not.proudf/a said:
That I disagree with. When the DOH dust settles, the U F/As will generally, as a group, have a higher relative seniority at the combined carrier than they do now at U. As an example, look at the most junior F/A at U now. What is that person's hire date? How many people junior to that date are at HP? At U, that person had 100% of the seniority list above her/him and 0% below. But now, voila, there are suddenly many people junior to her -- her relative seniority has changed.
I, and many others, disagree that AWA can't survive without U. AWA had the luxury of waiting a bit for other possibilities to emerge. U did not. This transaction is do or die for U. It was not for AWA.
Of course -- although I thought we had already sorta done that, at least impliedly! It is still interesting to exchange ideas though.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Whether anyone feels that the AFA policy of DOH is fair is pointless. Both carriers agreed to be represented by AFA waaaaaay before this merger was ever dreamed up. I have the feeling that many on the HP side that do not agree with this are relatively new there. It was ok before May 2005 and it will remain in effect after 9/27/2005. I have 8 years at US and many will go above me at HP. That is the way the cookie crumbles. We all agreed to a policy that is cut and dry. No gray area there. I can't wait to have this done and over with so we can all work for a much better run company that can compete and hold their own. Two great carriers joining forces to kick some serious #$%. Those that are angry need to start thinking about how they are going to deal with the changes. That applies to both carriers. DOH is not changing whether we feel its fair or not. If AFA changed a bylaw for this merger shall other bylaws be changed in future mergers? Where would the changes end? It has worked for this many years ! ! ! ! Look forward to flying with some new faces. Up up and awaaaaaaaay.
Bear69,Bear96 said:You appear to be proposing a universal seniority system among all airlines, meaning if I work for Airline A for 20 years and then quit and get hired by Airline B, I should come into Airline B with 20 years seniority on my first day.
First, is that what you are proposing?
Second, for the record, I really wouldn't have a problem with that. But, that is not our current system. Our current system is that you accrue seniority at an airline and lose it when you leave (or when your airline goes out of business), even when you later start at another airline. It would strike me as unfair to embrace universal seniority when it benefits you, and reject it when it doesn't.
First, the end result must be that at the end of the process, everyone has to feel entirely screwed. If anyone feels less than entirely screwed, they probably got a windfall at the expense of someone else.
Seriously, though, the proportional system I have seen suggested here before(maybe on another thread) is a good one. If you are 1/3 of the way up the U seniority list, or 1/3 the way up HP list, you should be 1/3 of the way up the combined list.
And remember I am not NECESSARILY "so not in favor" of DOH. In SOME situations (a true merger of airlines of equal financial health, where the partners have similar seniority structures), DOH would be the best way. But what is going on here is perhaps the perfect example of when DOH is NOT the way to go: an larger, more senior, airline on its last legs combining with a smaller, younger, financially healthier one. My point is that one size does not fit all -- one merger policy does not (fairly) fit all mergers, and the uniquenesses of each merger should be considered.
ALPA's "career expectations" concept is interesting also, though perhaps too subjective to be workable. I guess we'll find out as ALPA goes through their own process.
I agree. Yet you want people who are relatively JUNIOR at U to end up being relatively SENIOR at the combined carrier. Seems like some people are about to gain some seniority they have not earned.
The problem is DOH is an "absolute" instead of "relative" way of measuring things, and seniority is ALWAYS relative. With the same seniority date, you may be holding the creme de la creme of bid choices at one airline, and be on interminable reserve on another. Even within the same airline, you mighe be "senior" at one base and "junior" at another. It's all relative, yet you want to use an absolute system.
If I may get scientific for a minute, it's like measuring humidity. The "absolute" way to measure water vapor in the atmosphere is with the dew point. So say the dew point is 50'. Is it "humid" out? If it is 55' out, the relative humidity is high and it is damp. If it is 100' out, it is a dry day with low relative humidity. Absolute measures can be meaningless without considering the context and relativity. (OK so maybe that analogy was pretty useless.)
[post="304450"][/post]
Why are you refering to "our current system" if you are not in the industry any longer?
Why has Parker said that AWA "needed this merger" if AWA was financially healthy?
Relative is subjective. Absolute is not. Who subjectively decides an absolute equation?
We will get through our seniority issues using date of hire. No one will be happy except the absolute number one flight attendant at USAirways. That is the way it is. That is progress. That is business in America. THAT IS FAIR.
Hot argument. Dry heat. I swear.
So , with 8 years, you are relatively new to USAirways. So you are fairly junior to most of the airline. But now you will be senior to about 1/3 of the F/A's being added to the combined airline. So your seniority moves up considerably without you having to "earn" it. The HP F/A now loses relative bidding position (if and when the PHX base adds more F/A's) without having done anything to "earn" this penalty.Travelpro72 said:I have the feeling that many on the HP side that do not agree with this are relatively new there. It was ok before May 2005 and it will remain in effect after 9/27/2005. I have 8 years at US and many will go above me at HP. That is the way the cookie crumbles.
[post="304514"][/post]
And this is fair how?
I would expect that when support is needed to protect the seniority-based bennies you will find many backs turned. This may not hurt the very senior F/A's now, but the mid-seniority people will find themselves isolated in the future when they are senior and their greed comes home to roost.
Demanding DOH will yield a bitter harvest in the future.
Date of hire is fair because one cannot hold a seniority number while in the womb.luvn737s said:
