Merger of seniority lists - what is a 'fair' method. Any thoughts?

[exeng]

Many of us have been dragged into this over the years and have probably been unhappy with the outcome.

Does anybody out there have any good ideas on how to achieve a reasonable deal.


Regards
Exeng

[The Guvnor]

Logically, the best I can come up with is date of original hire - therefore a guy coming in from an airline that has been absorbed who was hired on say June 6 1989 would fit in between existing guys hired on say June 1 1989 and June 10 1989.

Personally, I favour a merit based system - where the best guys get promoted first, rather than simply serving time.

The problem is, how does one make that method fair and impartial?

[dallas dude]

exeng

I'll throw my 2 cents worth in.

I think the first concern on both sides is for a fair shake. With that being said I also think one needs to compare apples with apples i.e. if two viable, profitable carriers of comparable size merge, DOH probably is fair.
However, if one carrier is an apple and the other's an orange (so to speak) there needs to be some other considerations.

If a carrier is about to go out of business, it's pilot group obviously carries less (or no) career expectation beyond that point, other than starting all over knocking on doors somewhere new.

In my opinion, this needs to be accepted by all parties and they should agree to agree on the outcome of merger negotiations BEFORE there is any talk of where folks will be on a seniority list.

An example would be, my wife/husband needs a new car, my daughter needs braces and my eldest son is just starting College. My carriers' in a tailspin and I've got to pay for this stuff. That's HUGE pressure! Now, the next morning I'm driving to work and I discover I'll be joining one of the big three. My "problems" are over. I'm not even turning grey any more.

Where is it fair to "put" this merged pilot?
I'd suggest one would receive a different answer once the uncertainty dissappears. Initially they'd like ANY job. With the future secure they'd want my job.
I don't blame the "oranges" group. If the boot was on the other foot I'd have a different opinion for sure.

In my case,AA has 11500 pilots with GREAT prospects. TWA has around 2500 pilots with ZERO prospects.
Now, there's light at the end of TWA's tunnel. I hope the greed factor is kept to a minimum.

Cheers,dd.
(OK helmet on, fire away)

[dallas dude]

Guvnor,

You never cease to amaze me. You really don't have a clue, do you?

By your theory/preference, your two-bob operation should get the same consideration as the major that acquires you? What planet are you on?

How are you going to rate the best 11500 current + 2500 additional pilots ? Give 'em a rubik cube?

dd.

[exeng]

Thanks Guv and Dallas Dude.

It is a very difficult one isn't it. Dallus Dude would you mind if I posted your opinion over to another thread I started? It won't be for a while as I'm off on my hols.


Regards
Exeng

[dallas dude]

exeng,

Fill yer boots, mate, if you promise not to tell the TWA folks where I live.

Happy hols (at least get a tan!)

dd.

[Roc]

In this case I'd venture to guess that all but the most senior TWA guys will be getting a nice pay raise, not to mention benefit package..I know if I were at TWA It would be like hitting the lottery. I was hired at TWA in 94, and had to turn the job down because of the pay rates, Good Luck to all!!

[The Guvnor]

Dallas Dde - First off, I said that was my personal preference and I do, indeed, fully recognise the many problems that would be encountered if one tried to change the game midpoint. It simply couldn't be done in an AA/TW scenario.

However, if AA already had a meritocracy based seniority system, then there would be no problem.

As we all know, there are superb pilots; great pilots; good pilots; fair pilots and useless pilots in every organisation. There are also many FOs that want to remain in the right hand seat and never go for command; and there are many that have no command ability; regardless of how much they might want it.

My point was simply that I don't think it's fair that a mediocre timeserver should be more senior than a top-class talented go-ahead type just because of date of hire.

The problem with this system is, as I stated on my original post, making it fair and equitable for all - and ensuring that the various 'cliques' don't hold sway.

[Splot1]

Your method is the military method Guvnor.

It sounds fair, but even in a Military environment it doesn't work properly because of "preferment" and "interest".

As to civil airlines, I like the "apples and oranges" scenario. Well said that man.

Problem is the human nature factor. Everyone tends to believe they work too hard for too little, and resents anyone earning more. This characteristic is then exploited by senior management emloying their own version of the Military method.
Cynical - you bet !

------------------
To fly is heavenly, but to hover is divine.

[The Guvnor]

Ok, so how do we create a fair, equitable, transparent system?

Or is it just a utopian dream and we have to muddle along with jobsworths, timeservers, preferment, interests etc - none of which do justice to anyone, least of all the company?

A toughie!!

[Secret Squirrel]

Dallas Dude,

I like your reasoning, but there again it is favourable to me. The reason Exeng is asking this (in case you don't know) is that BA have recently decided to 'merge' (I use the term loosely) their European Operations at Gatwick (EOG) with one of their wholly owned subsidiaries CityFlyer. Unfortunately for EOG they have been the victims of some very creative accounting and bad management and the scapegoat is 'terms and conditions'. Therefore, the plan is to 'streamline' the operation.

The original plan was to transfer loss making routes (under EOG) to CityFlyer, as we have a history of making them profitable. This was rejected by the (EOG)pilots and unions as it was percieved to be the thin end of a massive wedge, which it probably was!

As this avenue was closed off to them, BA management was/is hoping to circumvent the pilots and unions by proposing a 'merger'. Their idea of a merger is to incorporate operations and administration to prevent unneccesaary duplication of certain departments, BUT to keep us (pilots and cabin crew) on a seperate pay and conditions deal.

This IS the thin end of a very large wedge as it doesn't take a wall street analyst to see that long term conditions for the EOG crews is under threat, not to mention for new recruits.

So, the situation we have is that EOG do not want us to be on a 'B' scale because it may undermine their pay and conditions in the medium to long term. (EOG have just spent the last nine years aquiring mainline status with regards to P&C) However, there is resistance to the merging of seniority lists on the grounds that some of the pilots at CFE have about 9 years seniority.

I think that most of us can appreciate that our expectations at CFE are not matched by those at BA and so a date of joining merger would seem to be a little unfair. However, when you look at the numbers involved - maybe up to 20 with over 4 years seniority - the displacement is not all that much.

Those with most to lose would be anyone with under two years seniority at BA. Out of 200 pilots fifty would have to go for reasons of age or pension/legal considerations, being that they are ex-employees and are receiving pension payments from BA.

The point is that we are a profitable company and are being merged for reasons known only to management. As I said, the scapegoat is T&C but in reality we make money for reasons such as that we pay £400 for British Midland to turn our aircraft around and BA charge THEMSELVES £1400; our aircraft work 16 hours a day and theirs work 10-12, and so on.

I woudn't consider it fair to walk in with my full 4 years seniority ahead of guys who are as blameless as me about this. However, I do think that I should have some credit for for those four years even if it is on a 2 for 1 basis.

[Harry Wragg]

Hey Secret do you ever sleep?

Don't sell yourself short, what you are gaining in one hand may be removed from the other. The higher up the list, the better your life will be. But remember a merged seniority list is a double edged sword. Somebody may want what you already have.

There is no fair methodology, every permutation and combination has already been tried. It is a point for negotiation, just ensure that you have a better team, has watching Ally McBeal taught you nothing?

[Secret Squirrel]

Harry, I'm not selling myself short, I'm trying to be understanding of those who have very real concerns within BA too. I can't see that being selfish about this is going to get us anywhere. I am willing to compromise because, when all is said and done, I can't deny that it is not our colleagues fault that this is happening either, and yet many will be disadvantaged.

I find the arrogance and self importance of some of the posters on the other thread disgraceful, but I don't have to lower myself to their level. Make no mistake, Harry, belligerance in this matter is not going to get us anywhere. There are, in EOG, some who are far more responsive to and understanding about our plight - Sick Squid and Exeng to name but two - and we have to reciprocate.

It's not about right and wrong, I deserve you don't; it's about making the best of a bad situation and beating management at their own game. Of course two years off my seniority will have consequences for my prospects and future, but I REALLY don't feel comfortable with disadvantaging fellow pilots by being selfish about this. Inevitably, I will disadvantage some, but I will be able to look them in the eye and say that I compromised too.

BTW, I only watch Ally McBeal when she's wearing a short skirt and high heels; those legs are perfect, shame about the tits, though.

See ya at work, scotch git!




[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 11 January 2001).]

[Harry Wragg]

I take your point Secret, on both Ally McBeal, and seniority lists. All I am saying is that at this time whilst we don't want to create any unnecessary hard feeling, we do want to negotiate hard but fair.

Like a game of rugby really, be competitive on the field, but friends in the bar afterwards.

If you ask for the unreasonable you may just get what you want. But negotiations have to start somewhere and both parties have to feel that they have both won, a bit like married life.

Their will always be people who like stirring the sh*t, tub thumping is a forte of some at BA.

But we are all aspirational, if the deal ain't right we can vote with our feet. I just wouldn't want to be responsible for negotiating, Pete did the right thing.

I don't suppose we could hire Brad!

Adios amigo.

p.s. How about a drinking contest for seniority?

[Secret Squirrel]

Drinking contest? Yeah right, all the Irish and Scottish would end up at the top and then where would we be? I'm a lightweight as far as drinking goes.

Can't argue with your reasoning. Indeed, I agree in many ways. Pete Burch said I should get involved in the negotiations, but my problem is I see too much non-existent good will in others and they'd eat me alive, which would cause me to lose my cool and Chris Darke would be pulling tea and biscuits out of his beard for a week.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[dallas dude]

Ally McBeal's got t*ts?
Where?

Cheers,dd

[Shaw Twilly]

http://www.funarchive.com/2videos/badday.mpeg

[fudpucker]

I hope you guys manage to sort this one out amicably~and fairly quickly.I'm with another "wholly-owned subsidiary" , which has been wholly owned for quite some time now.We may be about to be merged with a franchise company , or indeed lumped in with EOG/CFE~if anybody knows they aren't saying.
I personally think that the ultimate management aim is to create an A & B pay scale , a la Cathay. I have to be honest , this could be great if it gave me the chance to fly larger aircraft , and I would have to swallow hard to support a full integration of P&C and seniority , because I wouild not be much better off , as far as I can see.
That said , I am all for fairness and compromise (I hope) , but I can't help thinking that management will announce at some date that the seniority integration is too difficult , and what with natural wastage some B scale pilots will eventually wind up flying first BAR , then longhaul ac and routes. Needless to say , all cep's will wind up on the B scale.
Hope I'm wrong , good luck with sorting the mess out , there are a couple of contentious points still in the pipeline , and remember the old adage "Divide and Rule".

[LatPilot]

Someone who can post a brief condensation bout the history of the seniority lists merges worldwide??

[ironbutt57]

Looks like commands at the guv's airline would be awarded to folks proficient at the "hind-lick" manuever...seniority is simply that time in service....lists should be merged by date of hire...with a 5-year seat protection clause for people who would otherwise not have the seniority to hold a command...the 5-year seat protection would be of course at the protected employees' current pay scale...if the protected employee would stand to gain a large increase in pay, the he/she could waive the seat protection, and bid any seat at the newly formed carrier that their seniority would allow them to hold...this merging of senoirity lists is by far the most ugly scene that can occur at any carrier..with a great requirement for give and take on both pilot groups...something that pilots are not known for...comments please...(incoming)

[Roadtrip]

It's a tough issue. Why should a pilot that got hired at a highly competitive/desirable airline take backseat seniority to one from an airline that whose hiring standards lower? In the case of AAL acquiring TWA, TWA's pilots were facing starting over, from the bottom, somewhere else at first year wages. At AAL, not only will they have jobs, but probably a 60% pay raise. Fences and some other provisions are probably in order, but strict seniority integration is very unfair to the AAL guys. This issue is best dealt with non-publically by the union leadership with inputs by the membership. AAL guys need to be reasonable, and the TWA guys need to realize that this is not a merger of equals - it's a lifeboat for TWA. There's a middle ground there, but strict seniority integration ain't it.

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 15 February 2001).]

[Harry Wragg]

So the TWA guys are not equal to the AAL guys, why is that then, did they all get their licenses out a christmas cracker? Can they be trusted to fly in our airspace, god, I'll be looking out for white airplanes with big red stripes from now on!

[Roadtrip]

Harry-
It's got nothing to do with technical qualification and experience. It's that seniority with one company does not translate into another, especially when it's not a merger. TWA has been on a downward spiral for YEARS. Why would anyone take a job or keep a job with them unless they couldn't get hired by the other successful majors. With all the pay cuts, even senior TWA guys make less than junior AAL pilots. All of the majors have many TWA guys who jumped ship over to a successful major -- and were happy to give up their seniority at TWA to do it. Financially, TWA's boat went to Davy Jones' locker at the end of January. AAL has thrown the the lifelines into the water and is in the process of saving the crews, but to be sure, they're swimming right now. But have no doubt, TWA as a company is history. Most of the TWA guys I have talked to are overjoyed that they're going to get jobs at all, and especially with American.

I wasn't aware that a pilot's license was a guarantee of equal pay, working conditions, and ability to get hired by the most best companies. Licenses are only your entry level ticket-- sort of like a college diploma. Don't complain, when you choose to work for a dying company, that you're owed a job with fully transferable seniority to someplace else that you couldn't even get an interview!! The profession doesn't work like that, in the U.S. as least.

BTW, don't UK airlines have seniority rules?



[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 19 February 2001).]