Bluetruthpilots

[B6Busdriver]

Want to learn about how JetBlue pilots compare to the rest of the industry?

http://www.bluetruthpilots.com/

 

[CapnVegetto]

Where is the card drive? I keep hearing "soon, soon" etc.

Are you waiting until we take a screwing on health insurance or what?

 

[B6Busdriver]

Where is the card drive? I keep hearing "soon, soon" etc.

Are you waiting until we take a screwing on health insurance or what?

I'm not involved this time. Have you contacted any of the folks spearheading this effort?

 

[Blue Dude]

Where is the card drive? I keep hearing "soon, soon" etc.

Are you waiting until we take a screwing on health insurance or what?

You can send in a card now if you want. It's good for a year. If you're upset about the pace of the campaign, then lend your efforts to move things along at a pace that better suits you.

 

[johnsonrod]

Want to learn about how JetBlue pilots compare to the rest of the industry?

http://www.bluetruthpilots.com/

One thing that is abundantly clear is that, unlike most other airline pilots, they're JETBLUE CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

 

[PCL_128]

I'm not involved this time. Have you contacted any of the folks spearheading this effort?

Is this another independent drive, like the JBPA?

 

[Blue Dude]

No, ALPA.

 

[spitfire1500]

No, ALPA.

You poor bastards.....Ask the Trannies about the hot deal ALPA didn't let them vote on.

 

[Blue Dude]

You poor bastards.....Ask the Trannies about the hot deal ALPA didn't let them vote on.

You mean the hot deal AirTran's locally elected MEC didn't let them vote on? I'm just trying to clarify who I should be angry at, you understand.

I'm more interested in the fact that AirTran's pilots were actually able to consider a deal to vote on, rather than have a decision made for them by their management. The fact that they screwed up their decision doesn't mean our group has to.

 

[BeachBummer]

You poor bastards.....Ask the Trannies about the hot deal ALPA didn't let them vote on.

I'm guessing you really have no idea what your talking about. So I'll sum it up in a nutshell:

SWA purchased AT under guadalupe holdings rendering MC-Bond ineffective because SWA didn't purchase them the holding company did.

The first "deal" would have been voted upon my both groups and would have passed the AT guys with flying colors and failed SWAPA by a landslide. They know this because they were polled.

The second "deal" was voted on and passed by both groups in the higher 80th percentile.

The reason that the first deal never went to a vote is because it would have been voted down by SWAPA. There would have been no arbitration. Guadalupe holdings would have continued to own AT and operate it. The planes would then be xfrd to SWA as needed and the AT pilots would have been XFRD to the street.

ALPA got them the best deal possible under the circumstances. Feel the LUV... but a harsh business partner they are. Hey that's just my opinion. Fire away.

 

[labbats]

SWA purchased AT under guadalupe holdings rendering MC-Bond ineffective because SWA didn't purchase them the holding company did.

Is this true? Seems a bad precedent as lots of airlines have holding companies today.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Is this true? Seems a bad precedent as lots of airlines have holding companies today.

Opinions vary. Some felt MB had been triggered and were willing to go the distance, however, the majorty got scared by "threats" and the negotiations for the second deal were over before they began. Plenty of blame to go around, but I don't blame ALPA. I'd have much rather gone through this process with them as opposed to without them. Plenty of reading about this on other threads.

 

[Ski-N-Fly]

You poor bastards.....Ask the Trannies about the hot deal ALPA didn't let them vote on.

It amazes me how so many people think with emotion, rather than logic. I feel that most pilots at B6 actually want a union on the property, but have a bad taste for ALPA. When I ask people if they prefer the DR, I have yet to hear yes. Yet here we are with only the DR, and no union to represent us. It's the "cut off your nose to spite your face" mentality. Hopefully this time, this pilot group will realize that without a union, we don't have a leg to stand on. I just hope it's not too late.

 

[Lake Alice]

You poor bastards.....Ask the Trannies about the hot deal ALPA didn't let them vote on.

AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract. They we're lucky with what they got.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm guessing you really have no idea what your talking about. So I'll sum it up in a nutshell:

SWA purchased AT under guadalupe holdings rendering MC-Bond ineffective because SWA didn't purchase them the holding company did.

The first "deal" would have been voted upon my both groups and would have passed the AT guys with flying colors and failed SWAPA by a landslide. They know this because they were polled.

The second "deal" was voted on and passed by both groups in the higher 80th percentile.

The reason that the first deal never went to a vote is because it would have been voted down by SWAPA. There would have been no arbitration. Guadalupe holdings would have continued to own AT and operate it. The planes would then be xfrd to SWA as needed and the AT pilots would have been XFRD to the street.

ALPA got them the best deal possible under the circumstances. Feel the LUV... but a harsh business partner they are. Hey that's just my opinion. Fire away.

A lot of that is incorrect. But the important thing to remember is this: unlike the JetBlue pilots, we had a say in our future. We had a union to represent our interests. Right now, Blue pilots have no one to look out for them except management, and when management's desires conflict with the pilots, watch out!

 

[PCL_128]

AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.

False.

 

[BeachBummer]

A lot of that is incorrect. But the important thing to remember is this: unlike the JetBlue pilots, we had a say in our future. We had a union to represent our interests. Right now, Blue pilots have no one to look out for them except management, and when management's desires conflict with the pilots, watch out!

I'd like your take on it. That info comes from an 8yr AT guy. Who was furloughed by AA from TWA.

Not being confrontational, just wondering how you saw it go down. I thought I got a pretty straight story from the horses mouth.

 

[Fins Up]

Originally Posted by Lake Alice
AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.

False.

Care to elaborate?

 

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Lake Alice
AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.



Care to elaborate?

Not much on which to elaborate. Our CBA mandated operational integration no later than 18 months after the date of corporate closure. Therefore, we did have such a clause, and it was even linked to the holding company via a holding company side letter.

 

[PCL_128]

I'd like your take on it. That info comes from an 8yr AT guy. Who was furloughed by AA from TWA.

Not being confrontational, just wondering how you saw it go down. I thought I got a pretty straight story from the horses mouth.

Well, I prefer to avoid talking about it now, since the SWA guys obviously view things very differently, and I'd like to put all of this behind us. But I'll take it point by point, and hopefully it doesn't create an argument with our SWA bros:

SWA purchased AT under guadalupe holdings rendering MC-Bond ineffective because SWA didn't purchase them the holding company did.

The use of a holding company does not render McCaskill-Bond ineffective. Any transaction that involves the planned combination of air carriers triggers McCaskill-Bond, regardless of the use of holding companies or other corporate vehicles. Every merger involves the use of a holding company, due to tax and other issues.

The first "deal" would have been voted upon my both groups and would have passed the AT guys with flying colors and failed SWAPA by a landslide. They know this because they were polled.

There was no polling on either side related to the first SLI deal. Any statements about what would have happened with a vote on SLI1 is pure speculation. My best guess is that it would have been close on both sides, but we have no hard date to support that or any other conclusions.

The second "deal" was voted on and passed by both groups in the higher 80th percentile.

This part is correct.

The reason that the first deal never went to a vote is because it would have been voted down by SWAPA.

Our MEC stated that they voted down SLI1 because they felt that it was not a fair and equitable integration. The possibility of it being voted down by SWAPA may have been a consideration, but they certainly didn't say that it was, so that's speculation.

There would have been no arbitration. Guadalupe holdings would have continued to own AT and operate it. The planes would then be xfrd to SWA as needed and the AT pilots would have been XFRD to the street.

Guadalupe Holdings ceased to exist on May 1, 2011, long before any SLI deal was reached. AirTran became a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines on that day.

Although no specific threats were ever made, it was understood that SWA management's implied threat was to operate us separately and to not integrate operations. To the best of my knowledge, no one in SWA management even implied that AirTran pilots would be "XFRD to the street."

Regardless, we had contractual and other protections in the event that SWA management decided to go this route. How fighting to enforce those protections would have ultimately turned out is the subject of much debate.

ALPA got them the best deal possible under the circumstances.

Well, that's debatable. But regardless of your opinions on whether it was the best deal possible or not, one thing is certain: ALPA International is not responsible for the actions of a local MEC and its committees. ALPA merely provides the resources, and the local MEC decides what to do with those resources. Any decisions made regarding our SLI, whether you feel they were good or bad, were made on the local level. That's one of the benefits of ALPA representation: tons of resources, but local control.