A Southwest pilot perspective

[madjack]

No One really knows the details of the new SL proposed by SWA do they? (Other than the NC/MC, MEC and SWAPA Execs)

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba, if, free from intimidation and threats, a negotiated settlement can't be reached, then it doesn't really matter what the AAI pilots think is a fair list, what's important is that there is a fair process for achieving a list and then implementing it.

If you truly believe in your position, then present it to a third party neutral, or panel of neutrals. Make your best case and then learn to accept the result. If your argument is solid, you have nothing to fear.

Once the list is determined, work together to integrate both pilot groups under the same contract as early as possible.

SWA can preserve the SWA culture by treating each pilot group in an even handed manner, not by picking favorites. SWAPA and the AAI pilots preserve the culture by treating each other with respect and dignity, not through extortion and threats of impeding integration if the majority group doesn't get a to impose it's unilateral interpretation of fair and equitable.

Already told you that I believe in my case and think a neutral would be able to see it as well. I personally do not fear arbitration. There's a lot of SWAPA guys who actually want arbitration (although for two main, but differring reasons). SWAPA prefers negotiatiion to arbitration because of the uncertainty factor. That's not MY personal opinion.

Also, in reality, the only intimidation and threats are coming from what ATN ALPA says is in the new offer. None of us has actually seen it; just like last time, all we know is what ALPA leaks. Maybe Gary et al threatened ALPA, maybe they didn't. I don't know; I wasn't there. All we know is that ALPA insiders leaked that there was a threat. For all -I- know, they just said that to inflame their constituents.

SWAPA is threatening nobody. ATN ALPA doesn't even claim they are. ALPA says management is. In fact, our militant minority is pissed that SWAPA is NOT threatening. Go figure.

The first AIP offered a SLI with DOH-4 for the top Airtran guys, working to DOH-3 for guys near my personal seniority (about 10 yrs), finally working to DOH-2 for the bottom guys. Plus a lot of protections (incl seat protection) and incentives. I probably would have voted for it (because it was negotiated, not imposed on us), but I really believe that neutral arbitrator would give us that much or better for SWA.

Remember, "total picture." I believe that SWA is a better company with much higher career expectations that any neutral would clearly see. ATN ALPA (or at least guys on this forum) believe that Airtran is exactly equal to Southwest and exactly equal to First Air.

Bubba

 

[e120pilot]

e120 pilot,

First, thanks for being civil. I'm not so much trying to push the opinion that SWA is superior, but rather get some of your most vocal posters to see OUR perspective. Their posts seem to think we're stealing from ATN since we don't agree with them (about equality, that is).

And I agree 100% with you about negotiations. This is where -I- feel ALPA was not acting in good faith. Let's talk about the negotiations: SWAPA shows up to the table with the industry-leading contract (in all respects; not just far superior compensation). ALPA shows up to the table with superior seniority (due to a lot of things: younger company, some turnover, etc.) Do you agree with that so far?

Anyway, SWAPA says let's negotiate. We'll trade some of ours for some of yours. Seems fair to me. We've got the money; you've got the seniority. Wait a minute, ALPA says. That's the company's money, not yours. We're entitled to it anyway. But these are our seats, and our seniority, and we want to keep it.

Do you see where I'm going? Either it's SWAPA's contract/money that we earned through years of hard work and negotiation, AND it's ALPA's seniority and seats, and let's make a trade; OR it all belongs to the company, and all us pilots are sitting around with our thumbs up our behinds. Pick one. ALPA can't say, "it's the company's money so you can't trade it, but it's our personal seats and seniority, so we don't have to trade it."

However, that's exactly what ALPA seems to be saying. I realize that's an ALPA national thing, and not necessarily what an average Airtran line pilot may believe. And please see my last post about a significant portion of your pilot group previously asking to be stapled to our list (by applying, that is); but now the same group seems to be demanding equality and their original seniority simply because ALPA says they can. That has nothing to do with "fair." Or negotiating, for that matter.

Thanks for listening and being civil. I really hope you understand that I'm just trying to explain what the view is from our side of the fence.

Bubba

SWA Bubba,

You make some very valid points, and I totally understand where you're coming from. Having said that, you really didn't answer my original question. If you feel that your position is so strong, what is wrong with making your case to a neutral arbitrator? This is exactly what SWAPA agreed to in the Process Agreement, why is it OK for you to now change your mind in the middle of the process? What US Air did with forming USAPA was a disgrace and what SWAPA/SWA are threatening (liquidating AT if we don't agree to whatever is put on the table) would make that look downright classy. SWAPA agreed to arbitration in the process agreement but now has decided that they will only accept the results if they find it acceptable.

As far as the points you made in your post. You clearly think that the AIP1 was a fair agreement. To be honest, I was not sure since I never got a lot of my questions answered. I think ALPA made a huge mistake not sending it out for a vote, but that ship has sailed. I think you can make a reasonable argument either for or against AIP1, and the ATN MEC decided it was too much of a seniority hit. While there were tons of protections in AIP1 to compensate for the seniority hit, there was also a lot of opportunity to take different interpretations down the road. Who was going to defend an ATN pilot if the the agreement wasn't implemented as advertised down the road?

The problem with AIP1 was that it assumes that SWA will always pay industry leading pay and have the best work rules. That may be the case, and I certainly hope it is. However, history has not been kind to airlines who appear to be king of the hill. SWA will certainly have a major challenge as it adapts from a high growth, low cost carrier to a more mature airline with far less growth opportunities and the higher costs that come with an aging airline. Contracts and pay rates come and go, that seniority number is forever.

I appreciate your civility as well, and wish more of us could have a normal discussion without it turning into a giant pissing match. It appears that the pilots of ATN (along with all the other work groups) have a gun to our heads. We can either sign on the dotted line or risk being liquidated if we want to follow the document that SWAPA and SWA have already agreed to.

 

[SWA Bubba]

SWA Bubba,

You make some very valid points, and I totally understand where you're coming from. Having said that, you really didn't answer my original question. If you feel that your position is so strong, what is wrong with making your case to a neutral arbitrator? This is exactly what SWAPA agreed to in the Process Agreement, why is it OK for you to now change your mind in the middle of the process? What US Air did with forming USAPA was a disgrace and what SWAPA/SWA are threatening (liquidating AT if we don't agree to whatever is put on the table) would make that look downright classy. SWAPA agreed to arbitration in the process agreement but now has decided that they will only accept the results if they find it acceptable.

As far as the points you made in your post. You clearly think that the AIP1 was a fair agreement. To be honest, I was not sure since I never got a lot of my questions answered. I think ALPA made a huge mistake not sending it out for a vote, but that ship has sailed. I think you can make a reasonable argument either for or against AIP1, and the ATN MEC decided it was too much of a seniority hit. While there were tons of protections in AIP1 to compensate for the seniority hit, there was also a lot of opportunity to take different interpretations down the road. Who was going to defend an ATN pilot if the the agreement wasn't implemented as advertised down the road?

The problem with AIP1 was that it assumes that SWA will always pay industry leading pay and have the best work rules. That may be the case, and I certainly hope it is. However, history has not been kind to airlines who appear to be king of the hill. SWA will certainly have a major challenge as it adapts from a high growth, low cost carrier to a more mature airline with far less growth opportunities and the higher costs that come with an aging airline. Contracts and pay rates come and go, that seniority number is forever.

I appreciate your civility as well, and wish more of us could have a normal discussion without it turning into a giant pissing match. It appears that the pilots of ATN (along with all the other work groups) have a gun to our heads. We can either sign on the dotted line or risk being liquidated if we want to follow the document that SWAPA and SWA have already agreed to.

e120Pilot,

I guess I didn't answer your question in the post to you, but I did answer it in others. Please go back and read some of my posts above. The answer is that I don't have a problem making my case to a neutral arbitrator. I really don't. I'm not changing my mind in the middle of the process. Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I believe a true neutral would see where I'm coming from as far as company, quality of life, etc. are concerned. And I really believe that a neutral arbitrator would make a list as good or better for SWA pilots. I really believe that, and am ready to make that argument when the time comes. However arbitrated lists tend to piss everyone off.

Also, to be honest, I never said I thought AIP was "fair." My personal opinion is that ATN gave up too little for what they got (remember, a negotiation is give and take; and also remember that I believe that SWAPA was trading our contract and money for some of your seniority). However, it was close enough to what -I- thought was fair, that I probably would have voted for it because it was negotiated not imposed. It was extremely complicated, and, like you, I hadn't fleshed out all the details and ramifications yet (roadshows never done), but I was leaning to vote yes.

Maybe you have a gun to your head now, maybe you don't. ALPA says you do, but that's a leak, not anything official. In any case, it's not MY gun. It's not SWAPA's gun. If there's a gun, it's Gary's gun. Maybe he pulled out his "gun" because he believed ALPA wasn't acting in good faith. I don't know. I haven't seen the gun. I would be happy (well, maybe not happy) to go to arbitration, because I think my case is stronger. And perhaps we WILL go to arbitration. But in any case, that's all we can do. The rest is not up to us.

Thanks for not flaming me or taking cheap shots. Good luck to us all.

Bubba

 

[jbDC9]

... you're really rehashing what's already been futilely hashed, rehashed, smothered and covered.

Hmm, suddenly I have a craving for Waffle House...

 

[waveflyer]

What is missing is that it's not a gun GARY'S pointing it's the reality that this deal gets a LOT less profitable if every work group goes exercises the full length of their PA's. So it's back to history- Steven's aviation had every legal recourse available to take SWA to court- but instead the Malice in Dallas ensued and a mutually beneficial agreement was had that didn't include the complete waste of paying lawyers.
We are the highest paid employees on the property, Gary asked us to come to an agreement- it's our responsibility to set that example for other work groups.
Again, Gary doesn't have a gun- drawing it out just creates a less valuable deal and natural consequences will occur. But good lord- no one is shooting anyone.

 

[Hamburger]

Instead of hearing that Fornaro sold ATN to SWA, instead he announced that ATN had bought Great Lakes Airlines. SWA was nowhere in the mix. Further, he was commited to keeping all the employees and providing "fair and equitable" integration.

Your definition of "fair and equitable" in this scenario is that Great Lakes pilots can't upgrade for 10 years? Got to admit that my "Are they serious?" meter pegged out on that one.

 

[scoreboardII]

and if you found out current upgrade times were 20 years what would you think then?

 

[Hamburger]

and if you found out current upgrade times were 20 years what would you think then?

I might think different. Of course, not being retarded, I understand that your statement is either the work of someone who has no concept whatsoever of fact, or is so woefully committed fabrication, that they don't understand how easy it is to look up fact.

Your '20 year upgrade' may be compelling if it had any basis in reality.

It doesn't.

APC says, as of today, (post merger, post age 65) that the most junior Captain was hired in 2001. How does this reality translate to your "what if" fantasy of 20 year upgrades?

Try to base your position on reality. Adding an extra 10 years to reality. (doubling it!) to make your point is evidence of failure on your part.
If your position had actual merit, you wouldn't need to horribly exaggerate facts to support it.

 

[GuppyWN]

Bro you're bitter and full of hate.

Just so you know we have guys hired early in 2001 that upgraded in just over 6 years while guys hired in the fall of 2001 have yet to upgrade. I blame Age 65 as much as a slow economy.

Gup