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

[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.

 

[UALX727]

Just to throw some numbers out there....AirTran currently has 1632 pilots. Assuming Southwest has 6000 pilots.....

4 to 1 integration=top 1,500 AirTran guys being feathered in and bottom 132 guys being stapled...now with 7600 pilots total the 132 on the bottom moves the bottom SWA guys relative seniority up 1.7% from where they are now currently.

5 to 1 integration=top 1,200 AirTran guys being feathered in and bottom 432 guys being stapled...now with 7600 pilots total the 432 on the bottom moves the bottom SWA guys relative seniority up 5.6% from where they are now currently.

6 to 1 integration=top 1,000 AirTran guys being feathered in and bottom 632 guys being stapled...now with 7600 pilots total the 632 on the bottom moves the bottom SWA guys relative seniority up 8.3% from where they are now currently.

By way of comparison, the SWA/Frontier staple job would have put 718 Frontier pilots on the bottom of a 6000 pilot group, thus creating a 6718 new SWA group. In this scenario, the bottom SWA pilot would have moved up 11.9% relative to where they were pre-merger.

Not advocating any approach to this, just putting some info out there. I know there is no way the AirTran pilot group would ever go for a staple job.

 

[m80drvr]

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?

Refer to the Usair/America West. Relative seniority, is the only fair way. That's what the new merger law says, that's what your arbitrator would say.

But what do I know.

 

[Lear70]

Pilots like you are the reason why AAI has all the internal problems.

You know not what you speak of. People like PCL are part of the SOLUTION, not part of the problem. But if you were at AAI, you'd probably understand that better since you'd have first-hand experience of this management group.

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.

I'll take that bet. How much you want to put on it? We have Member Ratification in our Constitution and Bylaws, as well as the fact that in the UNLIKELY even that SWA tried to purchase AirTran, SWA management would likely need an agreed SLI just like F9, rather than deal with an arbitrator-eforced ruling that pi$$es everyone off for a decade to come.

Therefore, it WOULD go to member vote here at AirTran WHEN a deal was reached, and we've already hashed this out on our internal message board during the last week and a half after the F9 train wreck; there will be NO staple agreed to. Our pilots have unanimously spoken that we'd refuse any such offer.

That said, I believe a 3:1 MIGHT work out equitably, with 5 - 7 year fences for our current Captains at AAI and a 10 year non-furlough clause for ALL pilots. Anything less than that (4:1 or worse) and the bottom 129 guys (or more) would get hosed... again... (these are the same guys that were threatened with termination just last summer just because they were still on probation, then were fuloughed anyway - I'd say they're ready to STFD... or are they part of the problem, too since they're pi$$sed and militant over how they've been treated?)

Remember, you are a small operation. You only have 1700 members. You are a little pea in a big pot

This is the kind of arrogance I'm talking about when I see some of the posts on this board. I'm thankful guys like you are in the minority. We may only be 1/4 your size in terms of pilot group size, but who's making money right now and who's losing it? I betcha that might figure more than a little into an arbitrator's decision when considering career potential and progression.

Don't get me wrong, I think Southwest buying AAI would be great, but I just don't see it happening since the AAI employees won't bend over and a bankruptcy filing isn't in our immediate future.

 

[Cometman]

You know not what you speak of. People like PCL are part of the SOLUTION, not part of the problem. But if you were at AAI, you'd probably understand that better since you'd have first-hand experience of this management group.


I'll take that bet. How much you want to put on it? We have Member Ratification in our Constitution and Bylaws, as well as the fact that in the UNLIKELY even that SWA tried to purchase AirTran, SWA management would likely need an agreed SLI just like F9, rather than deal with an arbitrator-eforced ruling that pi$$es everyone off for a decade to come.

Therefore, it WOULD go to member vote here at AirTran WHEN a deal was reached, and we've already hashed this out on our internal message board during the last week and a half after the F9 train wreck; there will be NO staple agreed to. Our pilots have unanimously spoken that we'd refuse any such offer.

That said, I believe a 3:1 MIGHT work out equitably, with 5 - 7 year fences for our current Captains at AAI and a 10 year non-furlough clause for ALL pilots. Anything less than that (4:1 or worse) and the bottom 129 guys (or more) would get hosed... again... (these are the same guys that were threatened with termination just last summer just because they were still on probation, then were fuloughed anyway - I'd say they're ready to STFD... or are they part of the problem, too since they're pi$$sed and militant over how they've been treated?)

This is the kind of arrogance I'm talking about when I see some of the posts on this board. I'm thankful guys like you are in the minority. We may only be 1/4 your size in terms of pilot group size, but who's making money right now and who's losing it? I betcha that might figure more than a little into an arbitrator's decision when considering career potential and progression.

Don't get me wrong, I think Southwest buying AAI would be great, but I just don't see it happening since the AAI employees won't bend over and a bankruptcy filing isn't in our immediate future.

ou have some good points. However if you look at the ratio of 1700 vs. 5900 it actually would come out to about 3.5-1. So, 4-1 is not that far off. As far as a 10 year forlough clause. If they could get that it would be good for both carriers. So, in the end it would not be a staple and 4-1 would be accepted if there was a vote. If you would go for 3-1 and the actual figure is 3.5-1 then 4-1 would be good.

As far as making money you need to look at more than the last year. SWA has a history of profits for the last 35 years. There is no comparison between the two carriers. Would they make a good fit. I think so. Your members allow management to get away with things. Switching unions did not nothing. ALPA is not the answer. SWAPA is at least 6000 strong.

 

[PCL_128]

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.

You must not have been reading my posts for the past 7 years. I'm not a fan of independent unions at all.. In order for pilots to have maximum leverage to improve our profession, we need all pilots under one union. I have as much say in my representation under ALPA as I would have with SWAPA, but I have the added benefits of a voice on capital hill, at ICAO, at IFALPA, etc... SWAPA has no power. ALPA has plenty. Ask yourself why Age 65 didn't happen until John Prater said so, even though SWAPA had been fighting for it for years and years. The answer is clear.

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.

Again, DOH means nothing to me. Relative position on the seniority list is what affects line bidding, vacation bidding, seat/equipment position bidding, etc... In other words, your entire work life is centered around your relative position on that seniority list. Why on earth would our #1 pilot who gets his #1 choice of lines every single month from now until retirement ever agree to suddenly become #2,000? The whole idea is absurd.

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?

I fly stand-ups. I block 35 hours a month, get paid 70 hours, fly 3 nights a week, and spend every day at home. You show me an SWA schedule like that, I'll be interested. Until then, Airtran provides it, and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not at all interested in 4-day trips with 5 legs a day. And yes, I realize not all of your trips are like that, but none of them are stand-ups, either.

SWAPA is at least 6000 strong.

ALPA is 54,000 strong. You can keep your SWAPA, thanks.

 

[Fubijaakr]

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

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

I have the ONLY fair SLI plan for this scenario (see below).

Relative seniority.

Please. You know that's not fair. Just as relative seniority with F9 wasn't fair (see below),

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?

This is the crux of the matter (see below).

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.

Well, you're part right (see below).

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.

Then you blew it by saying this tripe.

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

Again, not fair. I'll show you why (see below).

...merge with Alaska. I have no desire to have anything to do with SWA.

Even if we did merge with you guys, the SLI scenario would be the same due to the age of the respective airlines. Remember, one of the prime requirements of both ALPA merger/frag AND Allegheny/Mohawk is NO WINDFALLS. A straight ratio SLI merger with EITHER Alaska or SWA would be a huge windfall for AAI pilots.

So here's the only fair deal:

1. No bump/no flush. Everyone who is currently a Captain at their respective airlines maintains their position.

2. All pilots hired PRIOR to October 1994 (the day Valujet flew their first flight) maintain their seniority.

3. All remaining pilots are ratioed together. Since the top of the list would be SWA/AS the senior AAI pilot would be added to the list. Then 2/3/4 (whatever the remaining ratio is) SWA/AS pilots would be added. Then an AAI pilot, then 2/3/4 more SWA/AS pilots.

4. All subsequent vacancies would be filled from the new seniority list. That means ALL AAI pilots who hold Captain positions in ATL would continue to hold then until they VOLUNTARILY bid out of the base.

5. No base fences. Fences should only apply to Heavy vs. non-heavy equipment because of pay differentials. Assuming all AAI pilots would transition to the SWA/AS payscales then the need for fences is negated. If people really want to protect their base (ATL) perhaps there should be language in effect that if you bid ATL you go in at the AAI payscale. That would keep the SWA bubbas out for sure.

There is PLENTY of past practice to support this kind of SLI. AS/Jet America and the Nicolau Award at USAir are merely two examples that come immediately to mind.

Flame away...

 

[Cometman]

You must not have been reading my posts for the past 7 years. I'm not a fan of independent unions at all.. In order for pilots to have maximum leverage to improve our profession, we need all pilots under one union. I have as much say in my representation under ALPA as I would have with SWAPA, but I have the added benefits of a voice on capital hill, at ICAO, at IFALPA, etc... SWAPA has no power. ALPA has plenty. Ask yourself why Age 65 didn't happen until John Prater said so, even though SWAPA had been fighting for it for years and years. The answer is clear.



Again, DOH means nothing to me. Relative position on the seniority list is what affects line bidding, vacation bidding, seat/equipment position bidding, etc... In other words, your entire work life is centered around your relative position on that seniority list. Why on earth would our #1 pilot who gets his #1 choice of lines every single month from now until retirement ever agree to suddenly become #2,000? The whole idea is absurd.



I fly stand-ups. I block 35 hours a month, get paid 70 hours, fly 3 nights a week, and spend every day at home. You show me an SWA schedule like that, I'll be interested. Until then, Airtran provides it, and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not at all interested in 4-day trips with 5 legs a day. And yes, I realize not all of your trips are like that, but none of them are stand-ups, either.



ALPA is 54,000 strong. You can keep your SWAPA, thanks.

ALPA 54,000. The only ones you can count on are the ones that work with you. And then you cannot even depend on all of them. The other 52,500 won't help you. Do you really think that if you took job action the other 53000+ will be behind you. Your dreaming son. Get use to it. AAI won't be bought by SWA. They will wait until you are on the way out before they would buy your assets.

 

[Richard Gozinya]

Don't forget about that permanent fence around Atl.........to keep all the Atl people in.

Donning my fire suit!

Dick

 

[johnsonrod]

One word: staple. And you AirTran pilots will be soooooo lucky that SWA "saved" you and your dismal careers....

 

[Pilot Knob]

One word: staple. And you AirTran pilots will be soooooo lucky that SWA "saved" you and your dismal careers....

What a TOOL!