AAI & WN.....what's that gonna look like?

[Dude]

I am just curious. Let's say that a fair integration is negotiated and everybody's happy.........which union stays? SWAPA that represents 6000, or ALPA that represents 1600?

WN and AAI guys, what say you?

 

[airlinepilot]

I JS to BWI every week. The Air Tran crews are always great. But, you can keep ALPA, I wouldn't want any part of it. SWAPA all the way.

 

[shearedshaft]

Q: What will it look like?
A: Something very ugly.

AAI is junior, SWAPA is senior, how do you mesh the two?

 

[PCL_128]

I am just curious. Let's say that a fair integration is negotiated and everybody's happy.........which union stays? SWAPA that represents 6000, or ALPA that represents 1600?

WN and AAI guys, what say you?

SWAPA would never agree to the integration we would demand, so this is just mental masturbation anyway. But, to answer your question, it's right on the borderline of whether a representational vote would be required by the NMB or not. If AAI shrunk any or WN grew a bit, then a vote wouldn't even be required, and we would be stuck with SWAPA. Otherwise, it would go to an NMB vote of the combined group to determine which union stayed. You can bet we'd fight as hard as we could to convince SWA pilots to vote for ALPA.

 

[PCL_128]

Q: What will it look like?
A: Something very ugly.

AAI is junior, SWAPA is senior, how do you mesh the two?

Relative seniority.

 

[GuppyWN]

Relative seniority.

I'll play along. Our most junior captain was hired around May 2001. How about yours?

Our most senior captain was hired around 1977. How about yours?

Gup

 

[freightdogfred]

You could use my patented, proven method...

You invert the WN list, and staple it to the bottom of the FL list.
You've just made 75% of the guys happy, which is a damn sight better than any arbitrator or judge could do.

 

[Raskal]

You could use my patented, proven method...

You invert the WN list, and staple it to the bottom of the FL list.
You've just made 75% of the guys happy, which is a damn sight better than any arbitrator or judge could do.

Genius!

 

[Cometman]

Relative seniority.

Since there are about 1700 pilots at AAi and 59oo pilots at SWA you merge the list 4:1. You start when the senior pilot started at AAI and work down until you staple the rest.

You cannot expect the senior AAI that was hired in 1995 to be the number 2 at SWA where the senior guy has been there for 30+ years.

If the take over a carrier in BK then you staple just like F9. That is all they should get. They should be thankful to keep a job.

 

[ivauir]

Relative seniority.

Your seniority and our pay rates?

Good luck with that.

 

[PCL_128]

I'll play along. Our most junior captain was hired around May 2001. How about yours?

Our most senior captain was hired around 1977. How about yours?

Gup

Don't really care. DOH is irrelevant. We have similar operations with similar fleets. That's all that matters. Our #1 guy should still be #1 or #2 when it's all said and done. He shouldn't get bumped out of his great seniority just because of your DOH. DOH doesn't determine schedules, vacation, etc... Only relative seniority affects that.

Since there are about 1700 pilots at AAi and 59oo pilots at SWA you merge the list 4:1. You start when the senior pilot started at AAI and work down until you staple the rest.

I don't think so.

You cannot expect the senior AAI that was hired in 1995 to be the number 2 at SWA where the senior guy has been there for 30+ years.

Actually, I'd expect him to be #1, but I'd be willing to let an arbitrator sort out which guy gets the top spot.

If the take over a carrier in BK then you staple just like F9. That is all they should get. They should be thankful to keep a job.

You just saw what everyone thinks of that ridiculous idea. Bye-bye merger.

Your seniority and our pay rates?

Good luck with that.

Good luck? I couldn't care less, to be honest. I'd rather stay on our own or merge with Alaska. I have no desire to have anything to do with SWA.

 

[freightdogfred]

Your seniority and our pay rates?

Good luck with that.

quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur

 

[PCL_128]

Take vestri balanus of hire quod rutila is.

 

[Cometman]

Don't really care. DOH is irrelevant. We have similar operations with similar fleets. That's all that matters. Our #1 guy should still be #1 or #2 when it's all said and done. He shouldn't get bumped out of his great seniority just because of your DOH. DOH doesn't determine schedules, vacation, etc... Only relative seniority affects that.



I don't think so.



Actually, I'd expect him to be #1, but I'd be willing to let an arbitrator sort out which guy gets the top spot.



You just saw what everyone thinks of that ridiculous idea. Bye-bye merger.



Good luck? I couldn't care less, to be honest. I'd rather stay on our own or merge with Alaska. I have no desire to have anything to do with SWA.

Pilots like you are the reason why AAI has all the internal problems. That is why SWA is concerned with merging. They do not want a bunch of militants messy things up. It is a shame but I guess every group has individuals like you. I would bet that if there was a vote of your members they would vote to go with SWA even with a 5:1 or higher. Remember, you are a small operation. You only have 1700 members. You are a little pea in a big pot

 

[AA717driver]

SWA wouldn't DARE go into ATL. Delta would crush them like the cockroaches they are. It would be carn...Oh, sorry, I thought I was General Lee for a moment.

Never mind.

TC

 

[Dude]

PCL,

Why would you consider yourself "stuck" with SWAPA? We've got a good group; you'd have more say on your representation; and we represent our pilots well.

As to your "our #1 should go to SWA #1 or 2 is ridiculous. However, putting them more inline with their DOH is more reasonable. Besides, what would be the most senior guy, about a '92/'93 hire? Is it reasonable to expect them to be as senior as our 1974 hire? Our first 1600 folks only go to 1996, so...........what gives? I say feather folks in, but be reasonable. Before you claim we were unreasonable, remember we were only given a short timeframe to negotiate an integration. If you had been in the room during the negotiation, you may change your tune about our "irrational" offer.

Regarding your lack of interest in flying at SWA, why is that? Do you think that all of the banter on this chicke$hit, anonymous board is representative of our pilots? I think we have a good thing going here. No furloughs at WN. No concessions at WN. Great QOL at WN. Pretty good treatment from the company. I know a bunch of your dudes and think they could fit nicely.........why don't you want anything to do with us? After pay, QOL, corporate relationships, indy pilot association with access, and almost no difference in operations; what, exactly, is left to be concerned about?

 

[ATLplt]

Pilots like you are the reason why AAI has all the internal problems. That is why SWA is concerned with merging. They do not want a bunch of militants messy things up. It is a shame but I guess every group has individuals like you. I would bet that if there was a vote of your members they would vote to go with SWA even with a 5:1 or higher. Remember, you are a small operation. You only have 1700 members. You are a little pea in a big pot

Are you reading what you type before you click submit?? Little pea in a big pot? Your arrogance reinforces my disdain for your group's seemingly collective attitude. We have militants here because of the way we've been treated. If you constantly got kicked in the nuts you'd fight back too.

I can bet you all the tea in china a staple job will NEVER happen. Talk about militant...you haven't seen militant (think worse than LCC). How can you not fairly integrate a group who's airline is actually posting record profits? Relative senority is the only thing anyone here would agree with, sooo...mentally masturbate on this all you'd like. It ain't happenin'. Alaska makes a lot more sense than SWA ever would anyway.

 

[eaglesview]

The bigger airline would carry the vote so they would be SWAPA. Then DOH would be the only fair way. Plus as an added bonus there could be years of infighting and endless numbers of threads on the topic!!!!

In the end I have to respect SWAPA for having the exact attitude any union should have. PROTECT the jobs of the SWA pilots, period. God knows we could use some of that at UAL but we are handcuffed by our union that also represents the pilots recieving our flying while our 10 + year guys are shown the door.

 

[Cometman]

Are you reading what you type before you click submit?? Little pea in a big pot? Your arrogance reinforces my disdain for your group's seemingly collective attitude. We have militants here because of the way we've been treated. If you constantly got kicked in the nuts you'd fight back too.

I can bet you all the tea in china a staple job will NEVER happen. Talk about militant...you haven't seen militant (think worse than LCC). How can you not fairly integrate a group who's airline is actually posting record profits? Relative senority is the only thing anyone here would agree with, sooo...mentally masturbate on this all you'd like. It ain't happenin'. Alaska makes a lot more sense than SWA ever would anyway.

First of all I do not work for SWA. Secondly, if you read my previous post I suggested a rational merger. Something online with 4:1 or 5:1 starting at the year of your senior guy.

 

[Penguin46]

It would be a good mix

LUV gets more pricing control and AAI gets better managment and compensation (as a whole). With a better working environment, the employees will probably be more productive too. LUV may provide a more financially stable company less likely to buckle come the next spike in oil.
But what do I know? I haven't made any money in this industry.