AAI Pilots Beware!!

[GuppyWN]

And another thing.

Look at the arguments. Airtran guys want relative. What do they have to back that up? What can they "give" to make their lawyer backed argument worthwhile?

Now look at the WN guys and what we have to use in our arguments.

I actually HOPE for an arbitrator. I am 100% confident that a panel of arbitrators will understand the disparity in what each group brings.

Gup

 

[ivauir]

GK and his crew came to BF, knocked on the door and asked politely to buy airtran.

Actually, BF approached GK at least 6 times asking for the white hat routine ..

 

[RedDogC130]

And another thing.

Look at the arguments. Airtran guys want relative. What do they have to back that up? What can they "give" to make their lawyer backed argument worthwhile?

Now look at the WN guys and what we have to use in our arguments.

I actually HOPE for an arbitrator. I am 100% confident that a panel of arbitrators will understand the disparity in what each group brings.

Gup

Gup,

I am with you 100%. If you put every aspect into a quantitative measure.. ie.. career expectations which if precedent is used equals career earnings potential (not which window you look out of)...then SWA wins...if it is used for sced flexibility/QOL....SWA wins again...on and on....SWA wins. Numbers will have to be used to back up these arguments...and when then they put numbers to these things...SWA wins.

Airtran people have yet to make a valid argument except for I am a Captain hear me roar....I want my seat. I will roll with an arbitrator panel of 3 any day of the week.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

If you think I am afraid of an arbitrator you are sorely mistaken.

Matter of fact I think we'd do better with an arbitrator than with our own pilots voting on Airtrans future.

Gup

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
And as far as what's fair.....I'm sure you'll find 8000 arguments as to what's fair.

 

[RedDogC130]

Scope...

I think the correct term per B/M FAIR AND EQUITABLE

 

[funnyman12]

Question for the SWA guys. I have been at airtran 4 years and have 21% of the pilot group below me. I could survive 2 10% furloughs. If we got DOH I would have 11% of the combined list below me. A staple would yield a whopping 4% below me. Many will argue that SW has never furloughed. 1st question....if a situation come where SW was considering a furlough, what motivation would SW guys have to protect the airtran guys? I would guess very little. I would imagine an arbitrator would be looking at that. The reason for the "fair and equitable" thing is to prevent that. One million dollar salary mean nothing if im in the street. My understanding is that since SW is the acquirer none of the SW pilot should be negatively affected. If the airline has 6000 pilots and plans 10% growth, as an arbitrary number, or 8000 pilots there should be no difference in career expectations. On top of that Gary Kelly has said without Airtran zero growth for 2 years. Airtran pilots will probably lose a little relative seniority but not enough to increase the potential of airtran pilots on the street, whom without the merger would have kept their jobs in the event of extreme financial turmoil. Airtran is more healthy now than during the 2008 fuel spike.

 

[GuppyWN]

funnyman12,

Two things.

1. Airtran furloughed a couple hundred of your OWN pilots without regard of where their next meal was going to come from.

2. Gary Kelly has stated that he intends to grow after the acquisition. The furlough fodder will come in behind you. Every guy on the bottom of the list is worried about being furloughed. Does it stop them from taking the job?

What you guys don't get is this. We should have furloughed after 9/11. We were flying jets around with more crewmembers than passengers. We didn't furlough. We could have furloughed last winter when the economy really tanked. SWA paid the pilot contractual guarantee for 3 straight months so they wouldn't furlough.

Quit thinking about what your management would do and start realizing what our management DOES.

Gup

 

[funnyman12]

After AA/TWA the new law in the RLA came to be. I would imagine an arbitrator would be looking T those implications and apply them to this merger. I would guarantee that 6000 SWA pilots would be opposed to getting paid guarantee to keep a few hundred airtran guys on property. An arbitrator knows that.....aka TWA. BTW we furloughed 169 pilots not a couple hundred. Your pay rates mean nothing if 800 airtran pilots were without work due to a staple. There is a way to merge the lists where no SWA pilot is affected negatively and the airtran pilots gets fair shake. It will be fair and many of the FI guys on here will be upset.

 

[GuppyWN]

I would guarantee that 6000 SWA pilots would be opposed to getting paid guarantee to keep a few hundred airtran guys on property.

I guarantee you don't know this pilot group.

Once you're on property you are my brother and I will go to the mat for you. I am not alone.

Gup

 

[funnyman12]

I hope you are correct and thank you for that. An arbitrator will look at history and find examples of that not being the case with a majority of other airlines. I understand the great culture SW had but proving that a bad SLI for airtran would not result in TWA esk situation would be hard to prove. The courtroom will most likely not consider the great culture at SW as a justification for an unfair SLI. The law was passed for a reason....to prevent, at any merger/acquisition, a repeat of the TWA scenario. TWA was in bankruptcy and the law still came to be.

 

[ivauir]

After AA/TWA the new law in the RLA came to be. I would imagine an arbitrator would be looking T those implications and apply them to this merger. I would guarantee that 6000 SWA pilots would be opposed to getting paid guarantee to keep a few hundred airtran guys on property. An arbitrator knows that.....aka TWA. BTW we furloughed 169 pilots not a couple hundred. Your pay rates mean nothing if 800 airtran pilots were without work due to a staple. There is a way to merge the lists where no SWA pilot is affected negatively and the airtran pilots gets fair shake. It will be fair and many of the FI guys on here will be upset.

The concept that relative seniority would be a wash for SWA pilots is deeply flawed.

The airplanes you bring with you need to be refinanced. Increasing our debt to equity ratio.

Your fleet is unhedged. Which increases our exposure to rising fuel costs.

Your group is younger. Absorbing you will dilute the effect of our substantial retirements.

Just a short list, but an arbitrator will consider all of the factors that affect career expectations. Including the substantial gap in compensation. I don't purport to know "the" answer, but relative seniority wouldn't even approach the threshold of "fair".

 

[funnyman12]

Our percentage of fuel hedged and price is very comparable , if not, almost identical to SW. Check our SEC filings.

 

[PapaWoody]

Was that a part of the Delta and NWA SLI arbitration? Delta has always had that crazy psych test. Did the arbitrators take that into consideration? I doubt it. The arbitrators will look at what each airline brings to the table, and then decide on something that is fair. I heard once that Southwest has a lot of Blue Angels and Thunderbirds flying for them. Does that mean the arbitrators should staple the Airtran guys because of that? Big deal. You SWA pilots had better look into recent SLIs and see what the arbitrators looked at. I think a lot of it is online. Do it.

I luv how you guys always quote DAL/NWA merger, when that doesn't even come close to bearing any relation to this acquisition. The thing about "precedent" is, there has to actually be similarities to the situations, which except for the fact that we all fly airplanes, there aren't many more with DAL/NWA. Of course, there's a lot more similarities to Chautaqua/Shuttle America but I don't expect you to actually acknowledge that.

Anyhoo...my point about the hiring mins is that it has a definite effect on the makeup of the separate lists. Lower hiring mins at AAI means guys can get hired there first, having an artificially inflated DOH at the lesser carrier. More turnover on your list (ie more guys leaving AAI to go to other airlines) plus younger carrier means that you have far less retirements as a percentage than we do on the horizon. Combine your earlier hiring opportunities with your younger ages with our forthcoming retirements, even DOH has a negative effect on every SWA guy's expected career progression. Meanwhile, your "career expectations" just took an unexpected leap, one that exceeds any realistic expectations that you ever had at AAI. And those are things that an arbitrator will consider in rendering his decision.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

Now Papa, You know the Airtran guys aren't going to agree with you, because what you say actually makes sense! If we want to know how the SLI is going to go we need to ask Ty or Lear. They seem to know everything.

 

[dicko]

I luv how you guys always quote DAL/NWA merger, when that doesn't even come close to bearing any relation to this acquisition. The thing about "precedent" is, there has to actually be similarities to the situations, which except for the fact that we all fly airplanes, there aren't many more with DAL/NWA. Of course, there's a lot more similarities to Chautaqua/Shuttle America but I don't expect you to actually acknowledge that.

Anyhoo...my point about the hiring mins is that it has a definite effect on the makeup of the separate lists. Lower hiring mins at AAI means guys can get hired there first, having an artificially inflated DOH at the lesser carrier. More turnover on your list (ie more guys leaving AAI to go to other airlines) plus younger carrier means that you have far less retirements as a percentage than we do on the horizon. Combine your earlier hiring opportunities with your younger ages with our forthcoming retirements, even DOH has a negative effect on every SWA guy's expected career progression. Meanwhile, your "career expectations" just took an unexpected leap, one that exceeds any realistic expectations that you ever had at AAI. And those are things that an arbitrator will consider in rendering his decision.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

Evening Papa,

He doesn't work for AirTran, nor does he represent the views of our pilots.

I would bet that in the last eight years the number of pilots hired with less than 1000 hours of 121 TPIC is less than 2-3 %. Apparently it happened however the numbers are tiny. I know one of them and she is exceptional. When I was hired you could not get an interview without far greater than 1000 121 TPIC. As I said there were a few small exceptions.

The insinuation that one pilot group is better than the other because of an arbitrary number is a little insulting; to an entire group of pilots that you will one day fly with. We both know that the numbers never tell the whole story of a pilot.

I think the discussion of who is most qualified demeans us all a little bit. I understand that you feel you're defending. I respect that. I think the comparison of our value as pilots is a destructive path. For us all.

Have a good New Year

D.

 

[jonjuan]

The insinuation that one pilot group is better than the other because of an arbitrary number is a little insulting; to an entire group of pilots that you will one day fly with. We both know that the numbers never tell the whole story of a pilot.

Bingo- once the arbitrator finds out that papalimpy took 6 years to graduate from a state college where he managed to slip into flight school, finished last in his class, and got his parents to pay for his 737 type and managed not to stutter an entire day during an interview, he'll laugh and toss out any idea that pic hiring "quals" of one group over the other means exactly jack squat.

Senior AAI dude right after 1992 hires. All else in straight ratio. Take it to the bank.

 

[PapaWoody]

Evening Papa,

He doesn't work for AirTran, nor does he represent the views of our pilots.

I would bet that in the last eight years the number of pilots hired with less than 1000 hours of 121 TPIC is less than 2-3 %. Apparently it happened however the numbers are tiny. I know one of them and she is exceptional. When I was hired you could not get an interview without far greater than 1000 121 TPIC. As I said there were a few small exceptions.

The insinuation that one pilot group is better than the other because of an arbitrary number is a little insulting; to an entire group of pilots that you will one day fly with. We both know that the numbers never tell the whole story of a pilot.

I think the discussion of who is most qualified demeans us all a little bit. I understand that you feel you're defending. I respect that. I think the comparison of our value as pilots is a destructive path. For us all.

Have a good New Year

D.

Those are good points D. And just to be clear, I am not trying to imply that our pilot group are better pilots or people. I am just suggesting that the lower minimum qualifications coupled with the higher turnover (guys leaving for other carriers) could be part of the reason that the AAI pilot group is significantly younger, on average, than the SWA pilot group. But I can see how it would seem like I am trying to denigrate the AAI guys; not my intention, and I agree that if we get into that type of argument, no one wins. Especially since we will have to all try to work together and play nice after this is said and done. Happy New Year to you also.

Cheers,
PapaWoody

 

[PapaWoody]

Bingo- once the arbitrator finds out that papalimpy took 6 years to graduate from a state college where he managed to slip into flight school, finished last in his class, and got his parents to pay for his 737 type and managed not to stutter an entire day during an interview, he'll laugh and toss out any idea that pic hiring "quals" of one group over the other means exactly jack squat.

Senior AAI dude right after 1992 hires. All else in straight ratio. Take it to the bank.

Wow, JJ, nice personal attack. Did I hit a nerve with actually making a valid argument? I must have since your "toss out any idea that pic hiring "quals" of one group over the other means exactly jack squat" actually is exactly what I think an arbitrator will do - he will toss out the "idea that pic hiring quals mean jack squat", and agree that they do mean something, not jack squat. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Or was that just your inept use of the English language to make your point rearing its ugly head?:laugh:

PapaWoody

PS You really nailed my profile...thank god I have rich parents

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Scope...

I think the correct term per B/M FAIR AND EQUITABLE

I'm not disagreeing with you.
What you'll find is 8000 versions/definitions of it.

 

[puddlejumper101]

Bingo- once the arbitrator finds out that papalimpy took 6 years to graduate from a state college where he managed to slip into flight school, finished last in his class, and got his parents to pay for his 737 type and managed not to stutter an entire day during an interview, he'll laugh and toss out any idea that pic hiring "quals" of one group over the other means exactly jack squat.

Senior AAI dude right after 1992 hires. All else in straight ratio. Take it to the bank.

i think that's what will happen also, realistically speaking. the question will be what ratio will be used...that makes a big difference. Also, two year fence, and then a system re-bid...then a free-for-all and SLI will be officially over. Left seat only if your seniority can hold it...no seat protection, no base protection. That's realistic.