AirTran MEC CYA

[Ty Webb]

No one advocated our top guys next to yours. A blended list would have started around 1996. That's all water under the bridge, but let's not rewrite history.

 

[waveflyer]

No one advocated our top guys next to yours. A blended list would have started around 1996. Water under the bridge, but let's not rewrite history.

Should I quote PCL from a week or 2 ago?

And if you didn't want relative and didn't think DOH was your worst case scenario, why the heartburn-

 

[Ty Webb]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

 

[scoreboardII]

PCL,

Explain to me how you envision "the golden rule" playing out through an SLI process.

Demanding a third party review violates the tenet of golden rule... They don't get it.

 

[GoodTimes]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

Well said.

 

[waveflyer]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

I'll drink to that, but lets also not forget that it's usually the AT folks on here b/tching about the SLI.

Go on and b/tch about the transition- I can understand that-
But when you guys complain about the actual SLI,you forget there's several thousand on this side none too happy about that either, for opposite reasons

 

[Phlintstone]

I'll drink to that, but lets also not forget that it's usually the AT folks on here b/tching about the SLI.

Go on and b/tch about the transition- I can understand that-
But when you guys complain about the actual SLI,you forget there's several thousand on this side none too happy about that either, for opposite reasons

I'll drink to that too. I might be considered one of the guys complaining about the SLI. On either list, I was stapled. I was not senior enough to bid SWA 737FO. Heck I could not even hold ATL 717FO. The only difference for me was the pay. That is not something I can complain about to the SWA guys, they held no sway in that area. What I do complain about are the half truths that are spread only quoting the good parts of SL9 and not including the whole package.

I have moved on and am trying HARD to just smile and be happy. Just this morning, I was on the crew van with an entire SWA and AT crew. Everyone was smiling and talking except for the SWA FO who sat silently stewing in his disgust for us... uke: I tried really hard to be in his path after he got his suitcase so that I could say good morning to him. The greeting was not returned and he just walked by. It made me smile.

Phred

 

[wood pecker]

Don't want to interrupt the bickering but I would love to see some of those pay figures for a swa 8-9 year FO that just flies monthly guarantee of 85-89 TFP.

For me it will be a raise so I'm happy.

 

[waveflyer]

Phred,
Patience is a virtue- but not always easy- on either side-

"Career expectations" always reminded me of that joke

Bill collector: "Sir, when can we EXPECT payment?"

Me: "You can EXPECT it anytime"

 

[717capt]

From an article WELL before the vote:

Posted: 5:36 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2011

Pilots from AirTran Airways and their counterparts at Southwest Airlines will soon vote on a deal to combine their seniority lists, a critical step forward in the merger of the two airlines.

Southwest executives have also said they do not plan to permanently keep AirTran's Boeing 717s, which could affect pilot jobs.

Negative fallout from the failed first deal led to an ongoing vote among AirTran pilots on whether to recall some of their union leaders.

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/airtran-southwest-pilots-to-vote-on-seniority-deal/nQMGG/

A genius, no. A mind reader, no. A sage, no. But capable of reading a news article, yes. Capable of reading and comprehending an e-mail from the CEO of SWA, yes.

And to be clear NO I DO NOT BELIEVE EVERY WORD THAT COMES OUT OF MANAGEMENT'S MOUTH. Especially during negotiations I am a firm believer of trust but verify. If they aren't willing to put it in writing you can't count on it happening.

And the next day http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2011/09/southwest-ceo-717s-will-be-phased-out-because-of-fuel-costs/

"the odds are we will be operate those airplanes for a while" [sic]

See howard, we were told, right up to the vote by the way, that the 717's would remain until at least the leases expired 2017-2029 time frame. Now no one figured that they would still be on property until 2029 but at least for another 7-8 years. Yeah I know, for every article that says they were gonna keep them there's at least one that says they wanted to get rid of them. Yeah I get that and actually I'm not really upset about them going away. It's a great airplane and quite frankly if it wasn't for the 717's, more than likely, there would not have been an airtran for you guys to buy. What really gets me.. I mean what really makes me question the decision is not so much leasing them to DL, a formidable competitor, but also shelling out $140 million on top of it and not getting anything in return from DL. I don't know man. Maybe it's the way were brought up as pilots, that when you negotiate something and you give something up, you get something in return. Yeah I also get that they believe $140 million is nothing compared to what they thought it was gonna cost to keep them, but ********************.. get something in return.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe they are gonna be pushovers in this section 6 negotiations. I'm sure Richard Anderson certainly thinks so.
Oh and also. Seeing as how you say the writing was on the wall and you were kind enough to share a link to a story that said the 717's were going away before the vote, why would they continue with the vote. I mean it's in black and white right there. Before the vote, sw said the 717's are going away. Then why continue with the vote? Why even have a tpa 717 domicile option if there were not going to be 717's on the property? Not really sure what she meant, or what sw management meant. Did they mean they will be gone by 2015 or did they mean they will be gone when the leases expired? Like we were told. Before the vote. Wonder how an arbitrator would interpret that?

 

[waveflyer]

Maybe you should be a swa negotiator 717capt. I mean since your big heartburn is how they do business and not how it affects you-
What were they supposed to do? Not plan on keeping airplanes they had leases on, BEFORE a deal was actually done?

And you want to talk about leverage and negotiating?

Don't kid yourself about who the people are that negotiate for us-
They're very good and they are as honest with us they can afford to be.

 

[717capt]

Yeah but deal was done in May 2012 and the transitions had already started by then. It would've been nice to know for sure. According to Howard, everything said the 717's were going away. According to Russ M. and Co., they will be around for a while. Everyone bid accordingly.
I know they are good negotiators. After all they are airline management. They have to be. But they could have gotten something. Many of us thought at first that perhaps a gate swap. Get all of C and send ASA/DL to D. Of course after last weeks announcement of de-hubbing ATL, that was not even at play. I wouldn't be surprised if SW gave up half the gates at c. Parked only on say the even numbered gates. DL gets the odd number gates and flies the 717's against us on the same routes. Still don't think I shouldn't have heartburn?

 

[DougCorp-9]

You need me to 'trot out' your pre-SW payscale? I wrote it down the day the announcement was made for future reference. Somehow I knew it would be an issue going forward.

I believe the top FO payscale was around 79/hour and the CA's topped out at 152.

Losing your base and seniority at the smaller carrier sucks and I completely get that part of it. There should have been fences.

Here is repost of what I told roomwithaview back in March.

I am so sick of people spewing this BS. The payrates we have today are the same as what was negotiated in the 2007 TA that we turned down. Southwest did not walk in and give us anything more than what we had already negotiated long ago. Did they force our management to speed up the process? Sure. But SWA didn't give us anything. So please stop proclaiming things that you know nothing about.

 

[madjack]

"Did they force our management to speed up the process? Sure. But SWA didn't give us anything. So please stop proclaiming things that you know nothing about."

UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[HowardBorden]

And the next day http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2...17s-will-be-phased-out-because-of-fuel-costs/

"the odds are we will be operate those airplanes for a while" [sic]

See howard, we were told, right up to the vote by the way, that the 717's would remain until at least the leases expired 2017-2029 time frame. Now no one figured that they would still be on property until 2029 but at least for another 7-8 years. Yeah I know, for every article that says they were gonna keep them there's at least one that says they wanted to get rid of them. Yeah I get that and actually I'm not really upset about them going away. It's a great airplane and quite frankly if it wasn't for the 717's, more than likely, there would not have been an airtran for you guys to buy. What really gets me.. I mean what really makes me question the decision is not so much leasing them to DL, a formidable competitor, but also shelling out $140 million on top of it and not getting anything in return from DL. I don't know man. Maybe it's the way were brought up as pilots, that when you negotiate something and you give something up, you get something in return. Yeah I also get that they believe $140 million is nothing compared to what they thought it was gonna cost to keep them, but ********************.. get something in return.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe they are gonna be pushovers in this section 6 negotiations. I'm sure Richard Anderson certainly thinks so.
Oh and also. Seeing as how you say the writing was on the wall and you were kind enough to share a link to a story that said the 717's were going away before the vote, why would they continue with the vote. I mean it's in black and white right there. Before the vote, sw said the 717's are going away. Then why continue with the vote? Why even have a tpa 717 domicile option if there were not going to be 717's on the property? Not really sure what she meant, or what sw management meant. Did they mean they will be gone by 2015 or did they mean they will be gone when the leases expired? Like we were told. Before the vote. Wonder how an arbitrator would interpret that?

Did you even read the article you cut and pasted? In the very article you quote it also said this: "But in recent months, he?s changed his tune, making it clear that the 717s? days in the Southwest fleet are numbered."
In the click-able link that article states:"Southwest CEO Gary Kelly says the Boeing 717s acquired in his airline's acquisition of AirTran will disappear from the company's fleet sooner than later."

The article then went on to say: "Kelly said the reason for his change in attitude comes down to fuel prices. The 717, which has fewer seats than the 737, works well for short-haul flights, but the higher fuel prices go, the more customers get priced out of short-haul markets, he said. ?Fuel affects the viability of some of the smaller markets,? he said, adding that using a smaller plane simply isn?t cost effective these days.

And don't forget this part: "Knowing the plane has no future, it?s likely Southwest will negotiate a way out of at least some of those leases."

ALL THAT FROM THE ARTICLE YOU QUOTED! But your take away was: "the odds are we will be operate those airplanes for a while" How long is "a while" by the way? Maybe a while means from 2011 until 2015. Sometimes the handwriting is clearly displayed on the wall but you just don't want to see it.

 

[redflyer65]

Here is repost of what I told roomwithaview back in March.

I am so sick of people spewing this BS. The payrates we have today are the same as what was negotiated in the 2007 TA that we turned down. Southwest did not walk in and give us anything more than what we had already negotiated long ago. Did they force our management to speed up the process? Sure. But SWA didn't give us anything. So please stop proclaiming things that you know nothing about.

Wait a minute. You voted against it before you voted for it? Genius!

Your payrates, like everything else, were taken as a snapshot the day the purchase was announced. Whether you were one month away from a new contract on your own, or 4 years away.

The work rules and pay package is what you were working under right? If you want to distort the facts, then have at it. That's when I call BS.

 

[scoreboardII]

Yeah but deal was done in May 2012 and the transitions had already started by then. It would've been nice to know for sure. According to Howard, everything said the 717's were going away. According to Russ M. and Co., they will be around for a while. Everyone bid accordingly.
I know they are good negotiators. After all they are airline management. They have to be. But they could have gotten something. Many of us thought at first that perhaps a gate swap. Get all of C and send ASA/DL to D. Of course after last weeks announcement of de-hubbing ATL, that was not even at play. I wouldn't be surprised if SW gave up half the gates at c. Parked only on say the even numbered gates. DL gets the odd number gates and flies the 717's against us on the same routes. Still don't think I shouldn't have heartburn?

I think you are forgetting to consider what its NOT going to cost SWA to let the 717's go. My understanding is even though we are paying Big D to take them, we make out ahead by what we don't have to shell out to run them (second airframe training MX, leases, fuel, schedule problems etc.). Hundreds of millions is my understanding, pushing half a Bil in savings by paying D to take them off our hand. Sort of like a short sale on the house you want to get out from under.

 

[redflyer65]

I think you are forgetting to consider what its NOT going to cost SWA to let the 717's go. My understanding is even though we are paying Big D to take them, we make out ahead by what we don't have to shell out to run them (second airframe training MX, leases, fuel, schedule problems etc.). Hundreds of millions is my understanding, pushing half a Bil in savings by paying D to take them off our hand. Sort of like a short sale on the house you want to get out from under.

The number I saw was a savings of over 100 million every year that we don't have them on property.

Pilot, Mx, FA training. The cost of possibly moving the sims. The second line of maintenance and the parts required to sustain another fleet. It's a pretty big number that goes away with the Delta deal....even after you factor in the cost to re-brand them for Delta.

 

[HowardBorden]

That is the number I have heard as well: 100 million savings every year they are NOT on property. Of course that number takes into account those airframees being replaced by 737's. So, delay some 300's from retiring and fish for some more used 700's on the open market that combined with the deliveries of 737's already coming as firm orders and you are way ahead financially as opposed keeping them.

 

[717capt]

Yeah I read it Howard. I was just trying to get your post numbers up. Looks like I'm doing a good job. You know I heard when you get to a 1000 you get a free blender or something. Just kidding. You're actually one of the few on here that backs up their statement with print or facts.

I know the article or blog or whatever mentions over and over their going. And yes a while could be 1 day or 1 year or 10 years and in this case your right. As it turns out, it meant 4 years. I guess the big question is and what we're all really talking about here is what the arbitrator will say. Also in response to the $$$ savings in getting rid of the airplanes. Yeah that's probably an accurate number and yeah it does make business sense, but don't forget that these guys are accountants. They can make 1+1 equal to whatever they want. In any event, we've beaten this thing to death. Although I think that there is still a little bit of life left in this horse. Hell you should read our internal forum. Hey btw.. who did you fly metro's for? Was it for Atlantic City express or Bader Express or whatever the name was?