AirTran DRC - judgement !

[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.

 

[Remington]

Dang. Ya'll ever get tired of this?

 

[redflyer65]

Ty,

Paragraph two, he calls it 'hard bargaining'. His word, not mine.

 

[scoreboardII]

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.

Then I guess you failed to read to the end where he says:


"The arbitrator rejects ALPA claim that the SLI was a contract of of adhesion"
"There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice."


and most important:

"ALPA gambled wrong"

 

[FlyinGuy]

http://youtu.be/S90VPU62_FM

 

[Wesb737fo]

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.

Dang it Ty! What the heck do the gall dang Germans have to with anything?

 

[Ty Webb]

Then I guess you failed to read to the end where he says:


"The arbitrator rejects ALPA claim that the SLI was a contract of of adhesion"
"There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice."


and most important:

"ALPA gambled wrong"

Sure we had a choice, just like when you get robbed at gun-point, you have a choice.

What's your point?

 

[Ty Webb]

Dang it Ty! What the heck do the gall dang Germans have to with anything?

Ho-GAN!!!!

:laugh:

 

[scoreboardII]

Sure we had a choice, just like when you get robbed at gun-point, you have a choice.

What's your point?

The point is, you can SAY they had a gun to your head all you want, but the TRUTH is THE arbitrator disagrees with that clich? by stating "There is no meaningful evidence supporting ALPA claim they had no choice" and "it was hard bargaining" and best "ALPA gambled wrong". Unfortunate that ALPA gambled with pilots livelihoods. Maybe there is some sort of tort in the decision...

 

[JT12345]

So what kinda bargaining did the SWA pilots have to deal with?

First you cinderellas are running around like you lost your glass slipper all worried and depressed on the radio. You beg GK to take out the gun and show us with your hire not acquire stickers. Then you have the nerve to say there was no gun to our heads. Sure rub it in now and make it worse. Who are you really making it worse for in the future assho!e?

Unity. What a joke. I am already on board with concessions. You guys suck when Spirit is making more with 1/12th the fleet size.

You pick a great week to revive this.

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry, guys, but the SWA posters have it right on this one. While it may be true that a gun was held to our heads, the position of the arbitrator was basically that a gun is held to your head in negotiations all the time, and it's up to you to decide whether the party holding the gun is going to pull the trigger or not (or whether it's even loaded). That's just bargaining. "Hard bargaining," to be sure, but most labor negotiations in the airline industry falls under that category. Hardly a negotiation goes by without the company threatening to shut down the airline, furlough employees, fire employees, whatever. It's just part of the game.