AirTran DRC - judgement !

[Remington]

Dang. Ya'll ever get tired of this?

 

[redflyer65]

Ty,

Paragraph two, he calls it 'hard bargaining'. His word, not mine.

 

[scoreboardII]

Apparently, you haven't read the Ruling from the DRC.

After the testimony from both sides, The Arbitrator found:

" . . . The Company further threatened to go to what was described as 'Plan B' if ALPA did not agree to Southwest Airlines 'take it or leave it' offer. Testimony

presented at the hearing indicates that the 'Plan B' that was spoken of was that

AirTran would be operated separately from Southwest Airlines following the

merger and would not be integrated in to Southwest Airlines in the future.

The implementation of this 'Plan B' was that eventually the AirTran side

of the Company would be allowed to 'die' and then the Southwest Airlines side

of the business would absorb those parts of AirTran that it wanted, such as

the valuable DC/La Guardia NYC slots and gates and AirTran's international

destinations such as Mexico and the Caribbean.

Then I guess you failed to read to the end where he says:


"The arbitrator rejects ALPA claim that the SLI was a contract of of adhesion"
"There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice."


and most important:

"ALPA gambled wrong"

 

[FlyinGuy]

http://youtu.be/S90VPU62_FM

 

[Wesb737fo]

I posted the part that was germaine to the discussion we were having, which was "Whether or not threats were made to the AAI Pilots".

Clearly, the Arbitrator stated that our jobs were indeed threatened.

Apparently, you now want to change the topic to "Should they have taken SIA #1?" which is, of course, a completely different subject.

You'll have to debate that one with someone else.

Dang it Ty! What the heck do the gall dang Germans have to with anything?

 

[Ty Webb]

Then I guess you failed to read to the end where he says:


"The arbitrator rejects ALPA claim that the SLI was a contract of of adhesion"
"There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice."


and most important:

"ALPA gambled wrong"

Sure we had a choice, just like when you get robbed at gun-point, you have a choice.

What's your point?

 

[Ty Webb]

Dang it Ty! What the heck do the gall dang Germans have to with anything?

Ho-GAN!!!!

:laugh:

 

[scoreboardII]

Sure we had a choice, just like when you get robbed at gun-point, you have a choice.

What's your point?

The point is, you can SAY they had a gun to your head all you want, but the TRUTH is THE arbitrator disagrees with that clich? by stating "There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice" and "it was hard bargaining" and best "ALPA gambled wrong". Unfortunate that ALPA gambled with pilots livelihoods. Maybe there is some sort of tort in the decision...

 

[JT12345]

So what kinda bargaining did the SWA pilots have to deal with?

First you cinderellas are running around like you lost your glass slipper all worried and depressed on the radio. You beg GK to take out the gun and show us with your hire not acquire stickers. Then you have the nerve to say there was no gun to our heads. Sure rub it in now and make it worse. Who are you really making it worse for in the future assho!e?

Unity. What a joke. I am already on board with concessions. You guys suck when Spirit is making more with 1/12th the fleet size.

You pick a great week to revive this.

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry, guys, but the SWA posters have it right on this one. While it may be true that a gun was held to our heads, the position of the arbitrator was basically that a gun is held to your head in negotiations all the time, and it's up to you to decide whether the party holding the gun is going to pull the trigger or not (or whether it's even loaded). That's just bargaining. "Hard bargaining," to be sure, but most labor negotiations in the airline industry falls under that category. Hardly a negotiation goes by without the company threatening to shut down the airline, furlough employees, fire employees, whatever. It's just part of the game.

 

[JT12345]

Sorry, guys, but the SWA posters have it right on this one. While it may be true that a gun was held to our heads, the position of the arbitrator was basically that a gun is held to your head in negotiations all the time, and it's up to you to decide whether the party holding the gun is going to pull the trigger or not (or whether it's even loaded). That's just bargaining. "Hard bargaining," to be sure, but most labor negotiations in the airline industry falls under that category. Hardly a negotiation goes by without the company threatening to shut down the airline, furlough employees, fire employees, whatever. It's just part of the game.

Coming from the guy who claims to not plan on staying in the first place.

 

[madjack]

JT,

Spirit is hiring, 3 year upgrade, $130ish/hr.,.go for it...

 

[JT12345]

Fek it all

 

[PCL_128]

Coming from the guy who claims to not plan on staying in the first place.

Which has what to do with my comment exactly?

 

[JT12345]

Some of the SWA guys are not saying what you say they are saying there PCL. They say there was no gun figuratively. It makes sense they do not understand that. Sadly it looks like in the future they will the way things are going with the pre bankruptcy legacy attitude I am seeing on the line and with our profits competitively.

 

[PCL_128]

I think most of them understand that there were some veiled threats made. I don't think they're denying that. They're just denying that anyone from SWA actually came out and said "you're not going to be integrated if you don't do XYZ." And that's a true statement. That was never actually said. It was always vague crap like "we're working on Plan B" and "there are risks to not accepting the offer." Frankly, it was all very tame compared to the very explicit threats that Kolski used to make. "You go on strike and we'll shut this f_cking place down, you spoiled f_cks!" A little more threatening, I would say. But, of course, the people who ran the union when he was making those threats had the sense and experience to know that it was just BS and not worth getting everyone worked up over. I wish the people who listened to the watered down pseudo-threats from SWA had had that much sense.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Wow. I actually agree with PCL on his last two posts. You nailed it!!

 

[vixin]

The fools on our side fell for the threats also. SWA played both sides with the threats and both sides fell for it. SWAPA got rolled again. That's status quo here. Or the SWAPullie sales jobs and withholding information to get SWA job done. Our association err union is a joke.

 

[PCL_128]

SWA played both sides with the threats and both sides fell for it.

That's why people like me keep trying to tell you that Southwest management under the leadership of GK and VdV is no different than any other airline management team. When GK goes to these silly "Message to the Field" events every year and tells you how much he loves you (gag), it's all a bunch of bullsh__. The SWAPA group should be preparing itself for a traditional labor/management relationship. Not this silly fantasy that people like waveflyer like to pretend exists.

 

[Ty Webb]

It was always vague crap like "we're working on Plan B" and "there are risks to not accepting the offer." Frankly, it was all very tame compared to the very explicit threats that Kolski used to make. "You go on strike and we'll shut this f_cking place down, you spoiled f_cks!" A little more threatening, I would say. But, of course, the people who ran the union when he was making those threats had the sense and experience to know that it was just BS and not worth getting everyone worked up over.

Yup. Ahh, the good ol' days.

What's SK up to these days? Can't exactly picture him in retirement . . . not exactly the "On Golden Pond" type. :laugh: