scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
You are right, because thats worked so well for USair.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Former Tranny bidding SW Captain prior to 2015?
- Thread starter Kharma Police
- Start date
- Watchers 43
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
I'm sorry, did you have a vote in this?
Seriously?
I hate to break it to you but FltInfo is not a SWA specific website, it's a website for people from ALL airlines to voice opinions. In fact, it's good to hear different perspectives from pilots from different backgrounds, you can actually learn something. But again, do you really think you have some kind of SWA exclusivity on here? Don't you guys also have your own internal site? You really think you can voice your opinions from a SWA perspective only and not expect input from anyone that doesn't agree with you?? On an industry wide web board, Really? Sounds like unchecked warrior spirit to me.
Mergers and how they go down are in fact, everyone's business. I actually was hoping SWA would come up with a more civil version. You didn't. So far DAL/NWA has been the fairest in recent years. The way SWA handled it will obviously have consequences, as well it should. If SWA had come up with a more equitable merger they would have had greater harmony, the path they took was at the expense of a more cohesive pilot force. Some will accept it and move on some simply will not forget being screwed by "Gary" and SWAPA. That was SWA's choice.
But the bottom line is your little warrior spirit seems to have blinded you from the fact that other people can and are entitled to have an opinion on this, even if it is different from yours.
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
Lear, from another thread- can you respond to this? I know you say you have secret notes, but doesn't public trump private? And most I know here say they've never known swa to flat out lie to employee groups.. Which is what you're saying since all the execs have stated numerous times they intended from the beginning to opt out of the 71's when possible.
Alpa on the other hand..., but I digress- below is proof swa and both AT and swa pilots knew from the beginning that 71's were going away.
Alpa on the other hand..., but I digress- below is proof swa and both AT and swa pilots knew from the beginning that 71's were going away.
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
Dan, aren't you simply afraid swa will buy Hawaiian? And like PCL years before, you also don't believe your pilots would do well in an acquisition situation?
Isn't that the deal- you've put your eggs in a niche carrier that is a takeover target and don't like the leverage you have in that situation....
I mean that's it, right? You want more than the leverage you have would give.
Isn't that the deal- you've put your eggs in a niche carrier that is a takeover target and don't like the leverage you have in that situation....
I mean that's it, right? You want more than the leverage you have would give.
SWA was so concerned about the culture going into this that I hope they didn't f&^k it up handling the merger the way they did. I try not to be a negative Nelly on here, but moral and spirits really suck on this side of the fence. And the animosity seems to be getting worse. What a total cluster ....
Kharma Police
Don't mess with Texas
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2004
- Posts
- 2,099
I do love sarcasm, it didn't work because one side decided to not honor the binding agreement.
Citrusflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 252
As soon as they sanitize the results to make things look like they're all kumbaya-kosher-oneluv-lookin'-happyasaclam-employee group. Probably another 60-90 days or so...
I'm sure he's not worried about that. Unlike our pilots, I'm sure the HAL pilots would stand up for themselves. Unfortunately, that's bad for the ATN pilots (again), because we would end up under all of them as well after they get a fair integration. Personally, I'm hoping and praying that Gary decides organic growth is better for the next 20 years.
Too funny, I'm getting under your skin wave? Don't mean too, but my perspective does come from a personal interest in how mergers go down. I've said that myself on here a couple times. That's why it IS 'other" peoples business on here.
As far as SWA buying Hawaiian? I'm not in the least concerned about that. Somehow I don't see SWA getting into the long haul A330 Pacific flying business as a way to expand their niche, in fact what we do (our niche) is so different in anyway to the SWA business plan that our merging is probably the least likely matchup in the industry. In fact you guys approached us about a codeshare after ATA went down and it was deemed by both sides (as I understand it Mark Dunkerley and Gary Kelley are friends) that the two airlines business's were simply too different to codeshare. We are in a whole different type of business model than you, both work but they don't mix. Besides, you guys now have a track record with mergers that couldn't go down in Hawaii.
And for the record, I think we would do very well in any merger. In fact, the simple fact is, we all are pretty happy with the flying we do, inter-island or transpac, which is of course is our career expectations. so that's our legal starting point in any merger.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Well certainly, that's an easy one. Let me highlight a few things from that and put it into perspective of not ONLY what was said in closed session negotiations, but what was ALSO said at our road shows by Southwest management and which we also have on video. We video taped a couple road shows with the intentions of posting the videos online to pilots who couldn't get to them but Legal said (for various reasons) it would be best not to post it, but we still have them with the SWA execs on tape answering questions about the 717 deal, saying said they would be around until at least their lease terminations, which is what we based the deal on and what our pilots based their vote on. The bolded excerpts from the public announcement you posted reflect NO change from that stance of 717 retention until lease termination:
So again, to recap, Gary Kelly publicly reiterated the lease expirations beginning in 2017 through 2024, which is what execs ALSO told us in closed session negotiations, which is ALSO what execs told pilots at road shows.
Then he went on to say that he doesn't see the aircraft remaining for the next 20 years. Exactly what Southwest management told us. "When the leases are up, the aircraft will go".
Then lastly from the USA Today, you get a quote that they will leave "Sooner than later". Again, that is in NO way, shape, or form a change in stance that they will start going away when their leases are up beginning in 5 years. From an airline that's been in business decades, a 5 year plan to START retiring an aircraft is pretty quick, relatively speaking, and fits the "Sooner than later".
717's were going away? Certainly... starting in 2017. I disagree completely that it's proof of ANYTHING else in any way, shape, or form. Find me a quote, during negotiations for the SLI, that said, VERY specifically, "We are looking for a way to remove the 717 from our operations prior to their lease expiration dates".
Just one.
It has to SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT, because all the other references you've listed do is vaguely outline that they "HAVE NO LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THE 717" which we most certainly knew going in, but they never, ever said they were looking for an early-out solution prior to lease termination.
Come on, you can't HONESTLY think that we'd base AN ENTIRE FREAKING SLI and THE ONLY PROTECTIONS WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN on an aircraft that they had told us was going to go away before we could even transition? Really? That was the only way our CA's got protected; they get to SWA as CA's, then as the airplanes start going away when the leases expire and are replaced with 737's they can transition to 737 CA (if their seniority can hold it), and most were seat protected throughout the entire 717 draw-down per the original leases. That was the intent of the Seniority Integration Agreement and nothing anyone says can alter that. Period. End of the discussion.
And I never said they flat-out lied. I'm saying that they told us the planes were remaining until the leases expired. They said it in negotiations. They said it at road shows ON TAPE. Then they negotiated a deal with Delta that has effectively gutted almost EVERY provision of the entire SLI and left only what Allegheny-Mohawk and McCaskill-Bond already allow, plus a date (that will be missed by almost a year) that it's supposed to be done, plus a no-furlough clause. That's not a lie, that's changing their minds on what was agreed after the fact, which means they need to address the changes with us.
Basically, except for a position on a list and a no-furlough clause, there might as well not even BE an SIA with the elimination of the 717; everything else is guaranteed by law now that pilots and assets have started transitioning.
Quite simply, people are smoking crack if they think we negotiated that deal with even a HINT that the 717 would go away prior to the lease expirations.
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
You made my point, your opinions are just ramblings, no positive input to the discussion.
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
Wave, I'm surprised from you. Take that as a compliment you certainly have had a more mature response record than the tankerclown outerlimits etc SWA folks on here (although I'm not clear were you stand on the whole RJ debate
). That said, do you really think the AirTran pilots were made fully aware of what SWA had planned for them AFTER the SLI was rammed down their throats? Clearly they weren't aware of that or they would have negotiated accordingly. Obviously SWA was in a hurry to get the SLI so they could proceed with divesting themselves of the 717's because of the money involved, at the expense of letting a fair integration work out. I guess you could say it's just business, but it has consequences.
humveedriver
M1165A1
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,005
Terry Maxon writes about the local airline scene in hi blog for the Dallas Mornjng News. Note that the article for the 717 goin away is 30 Aug. The previous article he wrote featured another interview with Gary Kelly (one week prior). This one also sheds light on SWA's task and purpose to get rid of the 717 ahead of schedule. Please tell me if anyone finds this just mere coincidence.
Home > Airline Biz Blog
Gary Kelly talks about AirTran pilot leaders turning down seniority integration agreement
*****0*****0*****comments (0)
By tmaxon
tmaxon@dallasnews.com
2:56 pm on August 22, 2011 | Permalink
Last week, the Air Line Pilots Association leadership at AirTran Airways decided not to send a seniority integration agreement to its members. The Master Executive Council at AirTran rejected the deal negotiated between ALPA, Southwest Airlines and the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Assocation.
On Monday, Southwest Airlines chairman and CEO Gary Kelly answered questions about the vote when a couple of reporters talked to him by phone. The call was to talk about Southwest’s announcement that it will enter the Atlanta market, but we of course digressed.
Among other things, Kelly said Southwest has withdrawn the financial inducements it offered to win approval for the seniority integration. He valued those inducements as worth tens of millions of dollars in 2012. Those sweeteners were in the three-way agreement between the unions and the company, with AirTran pilots the primary beneficiaries
Media: What was your reaction to the ALPA MEC’s decision not to send the agreement out to a vote by members?
Kelly: “Well, first of all, I’m appreciative of all the hard work that has gone into a seniority list integration agreement between the Southwest pilots and the AirTran pilots. In fact, it is unprecedented that we actually were able to come to an agreement in principle among the company and the two pilot unions.
“The Southwest pilot union had unanimously approved the deal to send it out for a vote. I was disappointed last week that the ALPA MEC chose not to send it out, in effect rejected that deal.
“So at this point we’ll move forward. There is a process agreement in place that allows for mediated sessions and then ultimately binding arbitration if we merge the two airlines. We’re going to take a step back and evaluate all of our operations.
“We had a very generous offer economically on the table. So we have pulled that offer. Now, it’s just a different environment with the economy and also with very high fuel prices. We’ll just consider all options and ultimately we’ll do what’s best for the Southwest Airlines’ culture as well as the Southwest Airlines business.”
Media: So the financial sweeteners are no longer on the table? You won’t initially participate in mediation?
Kelly: “Correct. Obviously if asked, we’ll join the mediated sessions. We can’t improve upon what was offered. In fact, at this point I don’t feel comfortable, since we don’t have a deal, I don’t see any reason … well, we pulled the offer.”
Media: What was the annualized cost of what Southwest offered to get the deal?
Kelly: “Well, it was certainly tens of millions of dollars in 2012, and annualized it would obviously be more than that. That’s my best estimate off the top of my head.”
Media: Does this push back the timetable for getting a single operating certificate that covers both Southwest and AirTran?
Kelly: “No. They’re separate issues. All of that will have to be coordinated with the FAA. But in other words, as you well know, this is a multi-month if not multi-year conversion process.
“The target date for the single operating certificate is March 1. Well, we were not going to have one airline at that point, as you guys know. It really has no bearing. What this does is it will slow down the integration process and perhaps change the integration process.
“We were willing to put some money on the table to get an expedited seniority list, and since we have not been able to do that, well, it just gives us an opportunity to reconsider how we want to move forward.”
*****0*****0*****
Home > Airline Biz Blog
Gary Kelly talks about AirTran pilot leaders turning down seniority integration agreement
*****0*****0*****comments (0)
By tmaxon
tmaxon@dallasnews.com
2:56 pm on August 22, 2011 | Permalink
Last week, the Air Line Pilots Association leadership at AirTran Airways decided not to send a seniority integration agreement to its members. The Master Executive Council at AirTran rejected the deal negotiated between ALPA, Southwest Airlines and the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Assocation.
On Monday, Southwest Airlines chairman and CEO Gary Kelly answered questions about the vote when a couple of reporters talked to him by phone. The call was to talk about Southwest’s announcement that it will enter the Atlanta market, but we of course digressed.
Among other things, Kelly said Southwest has withdrawn the financial inducements it offered to win approval for the seniority integration. He valued those inducements as worth tens of millions of dollars in 2012. Those sweeteners were in the three-way agreement between the unions and the company, with AirTran pilots the primary beneficiaries
Media: What was your reaction to the ALPA MEC’s decision not to send the agreement out to a vote by members?
Kelly: “Well, first of all, I’m appreciative of all the hard work that has gone into a seniority list integration agreement between the Southwest pilots and the AirTran pilots. In fact, it is unprecedented that we actually were able to come to an agreement in principle among the company and the two pilot unions.
“The Southwest pilot union had unanimously approved the deal to send it out for a vote. I was disappointed last week that the ALPA MEC chose not to send it out, in effect rejected that deal.
“So at this point we’ll move forward. There is a process agreement in place that allows for mediated sessions and then ultimately binding arbitration if we merge the two airlines. We’re going to take a step back and evaluate all of our operations.
“We had a very generous offer economically on the table. So we have pulled that offer. Now, it’s just a different environment with the economy and also with very high fuel prices. We’ll just consider all options and ultimately we’ll do what’s best for the Southwest Airlines’ culture as well as the Southwest Airlines business.”
Media: So the financial sweeteners are no longer on the table? You won’t initially participate in mediation?
Kelly: “Correct. Obviously if asked, we’ll join the mediated sessions. We can’t improve upon what was offered. In fact, at this point I don’t feel comfortable, since we don’t have a deal, I don’t see any reason … well, we pulled the offer.”
Media: What was the annualized cost of what Southwest offered to get the deal?
Kelly: “Well, it was certainly tens of millions of dollars in 2012, and annualized it would obviously be more than that. That’s my best estimate off the top of my head.”
Media: Does this push back the timetable for getting a single operating certificate that covers both Southwest and AirTran?
Kelly: “No. They’re separate issues. All of that will have to be coordinated with the FAA. But in other words, as you well know, this is a multi-month if not multi-year conversion process.
“The target date for the single operating certificate is March 1. Well, we were not going to have one airline at that point, as you guys know. It really has no bearing. What this does is it will slow down the integration process and perhaps change the integration process.
“We were willing to put some money on the table to get an expedited seniority list, and since we have not been able to do that, well, it just gives us an opportunity to reconsider how we want to move forward.”
*****0*****0*****
Last edited:
IMO this is absolutely correct. Dan knows someone will buy Hawaiian. Gonna mess up all the gravy he wanted to mop up flying past 60...
Yeah you are...
Just accept what SWA is giving, for now. Play it smart, and make sure in the SWA BK that happens in 5-10 years you each have your own representative in the proceedings. ALPA will probably help with this. PCL: You'll have your work cut out for you, old guys like Dan will be reluctant to take the high road. Watch him close...
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Again, a quote to a media outlet saying they will be gone sooner than later, with NO SPECIFIC DATES (that's zero, zilch, nada, NONE) and then EXPRESS PROMISES, both to the Negotiating Committee AND at MULTIPLE road shows to our pilots, by Southwest Executives, that the 717 would remain until the leases terminated, thus upholding all the terms of the SIA, are two completely, separate things.
One is a general, non-specific statement to the media.
The other is a promise to a pilot group and the basis of a Legal Agreement.
You guys are taking the ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS position that we would KNOWINGLY negotiate NO protections for ANY of our Captains then, along with Southwest Management representatives, go out on the road and sell them to the pilot group, along with aircraft retirement charts and graphs, how many Captains are protected, how many are not (not to even mention the "To Be Announced" 717 2nd base that has NO loophole to be canceled in the SIA).
It's a ludicrous position to say "You knew the 717's were going away, but you negotiated dozens of pages about it in an Agreement and negotiated no other protections". It's asinine. Really, listen to yourselves... it sounds ridiculous enough being on the inside, much less to anyone else that's not a Southwest employee. I can't believe I'm still having to explain this to people...
I know it's hard to admit that this might actually be something that was handled poorly but really, if you're an AirTran Captain who went to a road show, had a Southwest management representative tell you that you were keeping your Captain seat, the Agreement says you will keep your Captain seat, and that the planes are staying until 2017, then suddenly they're not and you lose between $250,000 and $500,000 (that's half a Million Dollars, by the way), before you can re-upgrade... you think that's not offensive?
There's 3 inflexible things in the Seniority Integration Agreement that are based on the 717 that CANNOT BE NULLIFIED. It's going to cost Southwest almost $50 Million dollars if we do not give them relief from those provisions. Now tell me, if Southwest thought the airplane was going away early, do you think those provisions would be so inflexible?
And yes, Southwest has already asked for relief on those items. We said No, until we get a major bone thrown towards our Captains or pay parity for the entire group. If it doesn't happen, no relief will be given. That's why negotiations continue every few weeks... they need relief and we ain't giving it until they figure out how to make this right. Can't change the seniority list, so it will have to be money.
Not angry; it's just business and what happens when you change an agreement that adversely affects one party.
Last edited:
K-Mart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Posts
- 317
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
