AirTran DRC - judgement !

[StopNTSing]

Re: paycuts or not, how about we ALL just STFU and start the discussion again come Jan 2016 when all the fATN pilots have had at least a year on the SWA side? At least then we'll all have REAL numbers to work with.

 

[RLAblows]

Re: paycuts or not, how about we ALL just STFU and start the discussion again come Jan 2016 when all the fATN pilots have had at least a year on the SWA side? At least then we'll all have REAL numbers to work with.

What makes you so certain that all pilots will be over by January 2015?

 

[Tripower455]

"Where did these magical upgrades come from?"............

Great question. Can you answer it? How in the world, in a period of absolutely no growth, could SWA justify upgrading 300+ Captains this year and over 500 for next year? Where did that magical 800 number appear? You got it cupcake.... the great seat grab from the senior Captains at Airtran. The lock out of the left seat until 2015 was the only way that SWAPA could steal the seats from the FAT Captains that were in the top half of the new combined seniority list. The 2004 RSW hires that are the new Captains will be on reserve for years to come (5-8 minimum). As they tire of the reserve rules they will bid back to the right seat and then the FAT FO's in the top half will move into the vacancies created. With the "flattish" growth in the future the seniority will adjust to the a true picture of what the the integrated list should have looked like without the seat grab. That is where your 800 upgrades is coming from. That is the reality. Stop living in your purple haze.

Steal?

84% of your group voted for this deal, which included giving up those seats. This was AFTER you turned down an offer that kept them, and would've gotten you SW pay and a ton of other stuff beneficial to the AT guys.

 

[humveedriver]

Unkle!!! Ok, all AT pilots are gonna lose 40k per year and will have to commute to reserve in OAK forever. All SWA pilots will get a quick upgrade from the seats that were stolen from AT cappys. GK, SWAPA, and all it's pilots conspired and duped the AT pilots to concede everything that they had at their worldclass top tier airline. Heck, they even paid off the arbitrator and the trannies were denied justice once again. They never had one say in his whole deal. That just sucks!!

You forgot we have to pay for parking now too

 

[Ty Webb]

Steal?

84% of your group voted for this deal, which included giving up those seats. This was AFTER you turned down an offer that kept them, and would've gotten you SW pay and a ton of other stuff beneficial to the AT guys.

I wonder what concessions GK could have gotten 84% of your pilots to make, if he had threatened your jobs?

We may find out some day, unfortunately.

 

[Tripower455]

I wonder what concessions GK could have gotten 84% of your pilots to make, if he had threatened your jobs?

We may find out some day, unfortunately.

It doesn't change the fact that 84% of your guys gave away those seats. SW pilots didn't "steal" them.

BTW, I'd love to see some actual proof that GK threatened you guys. Every time it's been asked for, nobody can seem to find a copy.

I'd place my bets on ALPA using the (possibly implied) "threat" as a way to cover it's mistake in not letting you guys vote on the first one.

 

[Ty Webb]

BTW, I'd love to see some actual proof that GK threatened you guys. Every time it's been asked for, nobody can seem to find a copy.
.

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.

 

[Dan Roman]

BTW, I'd love to see some actual proof that GK threatened you guys. Every time it's been asked for, nobody can seem to find a copy.
.

Well this could be a game changer. Are you saying that the AirTran pilots were NOT told that if they didn't accept door number 2 they would not be merged into SWA?

 

[Tripower455]

Apparently, you haven't read the Ruling from the DRC. The Arbitrator wrote:

"During negotiations, the Company withdrew numerous benefits, which

had been on offered for AirTran pilots and threatened to take punitive measures

against AirTran pilots in the event that an SLI Agreement was not reached.

In particular the Company withdrew the Southwest Airlines rates of pay as of

January 1, 2013, and said that Southwest Airlines rates of pay would only kick in

on April 15, 2015 (although this was later brought back to January 1, 2015).

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.

I did not read the DRC resolution.

My bad.

Who said this, was it ALPA, GK or SWApA?

FWIW, How do you think it would've worked out had you guys been able to vote on the first offer?

 

[Tripower455]

Well this could be a game changer. Are you saying that the AirTran pilots were NOT told that if they didn't accept door number 2 they would not be merged into SWA?

I don't know. I am saying that I have not seen any proof of this threat.

The AT guys claim that a threat was made, but have offered no verifiable proof of such. The above quote is, as far as I can tell, someone's personal testimony at the DRC hearing.

I wouldn't put it past ALPA to embellish or even fabricate this "threat" in order to save face after rejecting the first offer without a membership vote.

Of course I could be wrong, and if so, welcome proof.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Maybe we could come up with a way to get all FAT pilots some pizza coupons or something. I mean hey, who doesn't like pizza?

 

[madjack]

Ty,

Don't leave out the part where he states that ALPA lost CP protections from the first agreement when it attempted to gain more concessions from SWA...you would be a CP for years more at SWA pay if ALPA had let the mbrship vote on SL9 but that's ancient history you shouldn't revisit...

 

[slaquer5]

Well this could be a game changer. Are you saying that the AirTran pilots were NOT told that if they didn't accept door number 2 they would not be merged into SWA?

That is a fact Dan.

You wanted a yes or NO answer.

The answer is NO .SWA did not make that statement .

For someone who hates SWA so much, you might want to get your facts correct.


I recommend PMing 128 before you post. He at least has correct info.

 

[Dan Roman]

That is a fact Dan.

You wanted a yes or NO answer.

The answer is NO .SWA did not make that statement .

For someone who hates SWA so much, you might want to get your facts correct.


I recommend PMing 128 before you post. He at least has correct info.

Not told sure why all the venom. From reading on here I was under the impression AirTran was told take it or leave it. Tripower said no it wasn't. I thought that that was interesting that perhaps I was wrong from what I am hearing on here? So I asked? How is that hating on SWA???
I've been over this many times. No I don't hate SWA. I do like to stay on top of the merger mentality for obvious reasons. Just because I have a different perspective on some things then you doesn't make me a hater.

 

[Ty Webb]

What I posted was from the Arbitrator's findings.

A neutral party, who ruled in your favor, clearly states that these threats were indeed made . . . . yet some of you still don't accept it as fact?

Wow.

 

[Tripower455]

Not told sure why all the venom. From reading on here I was under the impression AirTran was told take it or leave it. Tripower said no it wasn't. I thought that that was interesting that perhaps I was wrong from what I am hearing on here?

I didn't say it wasn't. I said I have not seen any proof of the "threat".

Ty's post is the closest to an official statement that I've seen, and I still haven't seen it in context. If I get some time, I'll go over the DRC resolution.

 

[Just thinking]

"It doesn't change the fact that"...............

It also does not change the fact that SWA has not increased the flying or purchased new aircraft to warrant the number of upgrades that they have completed for this year and the planned upgrades for next year. Why would they upgrade the number of Captains from the RSW side without the requisite growth? Because they are making every effort to capture every left seat they possibly can to undermine the combined seniority list. After 1 January there will be little to no growth for years. The master seniority list is skewed and the middle third is upside down and inside out. For the senior 717 folks that are still there after 1 January the school house is saying they will be min guarantee until they get trained (at SWA rates). RSW pilots are now squabbling about being able to "bid" for that right. Imagine the humor in a RSW pilot on their high horse blustering about seniority........

 

[Kermit_D_Frog]

Ty-

. . . . and our 737NG orders/options will go to replace your geriatric pop-tops. . . . So, what's your point, again?

No they won't. Used aircraft will be filling this role.

What I posted was from the Arbitrator's findings.

A neutral party, who ruled in your favor, clearly states that these threats were indeed made . . . . yet some of you still don't accept it as fact?

Wow.

And the arbitrator also said that ATALPA "bet wrong" by turning down the first offer.

And finally,

I wonder what concessions GK could have gotten 84% of your pilots to make, if he had threatened your jobs?

We may find out some day, unfortunately.

We already found out. He'll put hundreds of employees above original SW employees.

 

[redflyer65]

What I posted was from the Arbitrator's findings.

A neutral party, who ruled in your favor, clearly states that these threats were indeed made . . . . yet some of you still don't accept it as fact?

Wow.

Nice cherry picking Ty. I'll post more of the neutral parties remaining comments on what went down (the part you decided to leave out)..

"Nonetheless, all that evidence shows is that ALPA gambled wrong in the first SLI agreement when it rejected the terms of the Agreement in the hope of extracting more favorable terms from the company. When Southwest responded with what ALPA considered a draconian 'take it or leave it' offer, ALPA wound up with little leverage to negotiate terms in the second SLI agreement.

Still, the use of 'hard bargaining' in contract negotiations does not necessarily mean there was coercion or duress required to reach the agreement."

So there you have it. He clearly states thatALPA over reached and he just called it like he saw it. Not too hard to follow. Many of us on this very forum told those on the AirTran side that Southwest was capable of 'hard bargaining' if pushed into a corner. Remember Gary saying he wanted a negotiated settlement? We all found out that he really meant that, but most on the SW side took him at his word. ALPA? Not so much. End of story.

 

[Ty Webb]

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.