AirTran DRC - judgement !

[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.