Southwest Line on Credit?

[PCL_128]

It means for each year you had at Airtran, you get 2 years of seniority at SWA.

There number one pilot can flip a coin w/ Rice to see who bids number one.

Not quite. First, seniority across carriers can't be expressed in terms of years. Using years as a measurement only works when looking within a single airline. It is meaningless when combining carriers.

Second, it is entirely possible that an arbitrator's award or a negotiated settlement could have included separate categories, such as aircraft with 117 seats or less and aircraft with more than 117 seats. Doing so would dramatically change the outcome.

 

[HowardBorden]

Not quite. First, seniority across carriers can't be expressed in terms of years. Using years as a measurement only works when looking within a single airline. It is meaningless when combining carriers.

Second, it is entirely possible that an arbitrator's award or a negotiated settlement could have included separate categories, such as aircraft with 117 seats or less and aircraft with more than 117 seats. Doing so would dramatically change the outcome.

I could have lived with whatever the arbitration panel decided if that was where it ended up. We could have made that happen if the agreement did not get member ratification on either side. Don't forget that ALL parties agreed in the process agreement that arbitration was not the preferred route to solving this.

 

[PCL_128]

I could have lived with whatever the arbitration panel decided

Same here. I think everyone on the AirTran side could. Unfortunately, Steve Chase and like-minded people made it quite clear that they would burn the place to the ground if an arbitrator awarded something they were unhappy with, and there can be no doubt that such threats heavily influenced Gary's decision to get involved in a situation that he had no business getting involved in.

Don't forget that ALL parties agreed in the process agreement that arbitration was not the preferred route to solving this.

Of course. Arbitration is never a preferred method of resolving a dispute. But when a solution cannot be agreed upon between the parties themselves, it's the only fair way to deal with it. Having a CEO issue threats and ultimatums is not the path to labor harmony and company prosperity. Having an arbitrator be the "bad guy" and make the decision would have been the smart move.

 

[HowardBorden]

Unfortunately, Steve Chase and like-minded people made it quite clear that they would burn the place to the ground if an arbitrator awarded something they were unhappy with, and there can be no doubt that such threats heavily influenced Gary's decision to get involved in a situation that he had no business getting involved in.

Actually, Chase said the exact opposite. He stated in no uncertain terms that SWAPA would abide by an arbitrated settlement. If you are saying his private comments were different than his public statements, I will counter that posturing and rhetoric are a part of the bargaining process. Public statements hold more water because they are the ones which state the true intentions. Kelly was involved because he was directly invited in the process agreement. If ALPA didn't feel he should have a seat at the table, why in the world was he invited in the process agreement that all parties signed?

 

[HowardBorden]

But when a solution cannot be agreed upon between the parties themselves, it's the only fair way to deal with it.

But a solution was agreed upon. It was voted in by 83% on both sides. All it would have taken was a no vote by either side and arbitration would have been the next step.

 

[PCL_128]

Actually, Chase said the exact opposite. He stated in no uncertain terms that SWAPA would abide by an arbitrated settlement.

Yeah, sure he did. And I'm sure we also imagined all of the SWA pilots posting here saying that they wouldn't accept an arbitrated award if it gave us something DOH or better.

I will counter that posturing and rhetoric are a part of the bargaining process.

On that, we agree. Which is why I always favored ignoring the threats from both Chase and Kelly and moving forward with the process.

If ALPA didn't feel he should have a seat at the table, why in the world was he invited in the process agreement that all parties signed?

Being a part of the process is not the same thing as issuing threats and ultimatums.

 

[PCL_128]

But a solution was agreed upon. It was voted in by 83% on both sides. All it would have taken was a no vote by either side and arbitration would have been the next step.

An agreement when a gun is held to your head is not truly an agreement.

 

[HowardBorden]

An agreement when a gun is held to your head is not truly an agreement.

But you just said: "On that, we agree. Which is why I always favored ignoring the threats from both Chase and Kelly and moving forward with the process."

 

[HowardBorden]

Being a part of the process is not the same thing as issuing threats and ultimatums.

Actually that is the major portion of most negotiation processes. The ones that are truly good at it are the ones able to sort through all the rhetoric to determine the true intentions.

 

[PCL_128]

But you just said: "On that, we agree. Which is why I always favored ignoring the threats from both Chase and Kelly and moving forward with the process."

Yes, I did just say that. Which is why I voted NO. I didn't believe the threats, and apparently 17% of the other pilots didn't either. But the vast majority did, and they were scared ^&*%less. A lot of the blame for that lies with the MEC and MC for not properly educating the membership and explaining to them that this was nothing more than bargaining tactics. Hell, the MC joined right in and said idiotic things like "vote yes if you want to work for SWA, and vote no if you don't." When people without experience are steering the ship, hitting an iceberg is inevitable.

 

[scoreboardII]

An agreement when a gun is held to your head is not truly an agreement.

Got a picture of that gun? Thought not. Look, just be honest, you pussied out and voted yes because of a rumor of something bad, if you had any conviction, you would have voted no, knowing you would have had the full weight of the courts on your side in arbitration.

But stop saying you had a gun to your head, that's childish.

 

[PCL_128]

Got a picture of that gun? Thought not. Look, just be honest, you pussied out and voted yes because of a rumor of something bad, if you had any conviction, you would have voted no, knowing you would have had the full weight of the courts on your side in arbitration.

You must have missed it the first 500 times I said it: I voted NO!

But stop saying you had a gun to your head, that's childish.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to make you understand what the yes voters were thinking. Whether you or I think the threats were real or credible is irrelevant. In their minds, they were most assuredly real, and they thought their jobs were on the line.

 

[maxblast72]

Hell, the MC joined right in and said idiotic things like "vote yes if you want to work for SWA, and vote no if you don't."

I thought you were going to have a heart attack in the other room when our favorite Texan uttered those words on a P2P conference call

Don't forget the other Chief Manager of Expectations. The former MEC rep that incessantly scared the crap out of AirTran pilots by stating the AirTran pilots were going to suffer a similar fate to the ATA pilots. He tried to pull a 180 in June 2011 but it was a little too late to turn the ship around by that point.

 

[WOWIdidntKnow]

PCL_128,

Which is why I always favored ignoring the threats from both Chase and Kelly and moving forward with the process.

Yes, threats from Chase can and were ignored.

However, with Kelly, he never threatens -- never. He merely states what will happen when a labor unit has a decision to make.

Gary rarely takes a position, but when he does, you ignore it at your own peril.

 

[PCL_128]

Yeah, sure. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.