Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
AirTran MEC Chair message.
- Thread starter Quiet Flight
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Cometman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Posts
- 424
That is the problem with you and Lear70. You believe everything you read on this site. I am not with either airline. I guess you can call me a trouble maker. However, both of you are so easy. It goes to show you how smart you both really are.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Riiiiiiight.
lolI'd say you're pretty much busted. And even if you aren't, then by your own admission, you are only here to stir the pot, which is what you were accusing me of doing and disparaging my character because of it.
So either way, hypocrite, troll, or liar,,, or all three,,, welcome to my ignore list.
Cheers, :beer:
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
EngineThunder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Posts
- 221
Not true. It was just Peter Griffin look alike Gulstream grads on probation.
Do a search, there's pages and pages of the stuff, but long story short, about 48 hours after the MEC voted down SIA 1, Gary Kelly wrote a letter to the pilot group expressing his extreme displeasure that they didn't allow the pilots to have a say and said that, given those events, Southwest would begin to investigate "alternatives to integration", even though Paragraph 6.a of the Process Agreement very specifically said "...utilizing the foregoing procedures, Southwest will implement the combined seniority list and integrate the two companies".
This lead to a lot of heated back-and-forth where it basically came out that Southwest asserted that since they hadn't brought any unionized employees over and that since no planes had come over, that McCaskill-Bond had not been triggered and they were not forced to integrate operations if they chose not to do so. The attorneys said it was doubtful that would hold up, but would take years to fight if they really went that way.
It further came out that with our 717 leases expiring starting in 2017 (just six years from that point) through 2024, and with many of our 737's leased as well, the majority of our pilots might end up on the street while the whole thing worked itself out over many years (it took TWA 10 years to get their court battle heard and we know how many thousands of them have yet to be recalled to AA).
Our pilots were not willing to accept that kind of risk and several of the same pilots of ours who were writing Gary Kelly personally during talks for SIA 1 just begging for a staple, etc, started a drive to remove key union officers who lead the "No" vote push, replace them with their own people, and push for whatever we could get, up to and including a staple. Those people combined with the sudden influx of emails and phone calls saying, basically, "We won't accept this kind of a risk, do something" vastly overwhelmed the several hundred people who had emailed pushing for arbitration before we knew there was this "non-integration" risk.
The MEC, realizing we were about to implode as a union... again... directed the MC to go back out to Dallas and "get whatever they could get", which included a promise to put whatever we came up with out for pilot vote. The NC was then instructed to go out and get everything WE could get. The only thing we were allowed to say No to was a complete staple or probationary periods (and they actually did try to put us all on probation, it was the only thing we got up and walked out of the room for in that 2nd round).
Southwest management then put us under a time constraint, saying they had "400 people working on Plan B - non-integration, and had to report to the Southwest Board at the end of the week, so we have to have a deal on Thursday or we will recommend the non-integration path to the Board and start proceeding".
The Agreement we have now is the outcome of those talks. During the voting period, the Merger Committee on an all-pilot conference call said "If you want to work for Southwest, vote Yes. If you don't, vote No." and that pretty much sealed the deal. Too many people afraid of losing their jobs to fight.
There are a LOT of other details, but that's the long and short of it, and is why some people (gotta love Dicko's avatar) say we had a "gun pointed to our head" in this deal. Take the threat of non-integration out of it, and we'd have gone to arbitration. Maybe we'd have done better, maybe we'd have done worse, but it's over now and it's simply going to take a while for the angst to pass.
In the meantime we'll just keep on doing our jobs, achieving our 94% on-time and top baggage handling spot, and making money for everyone's profit sharing checks. Life goes on...
A threat of non-integration sounds like a pretty classless move from SWA management. I guess it isn't just roses and daisies even at SWA. Did SWAPA have anything to do with the non-integration threat, or was that all just SWA management?
RobZerbe
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Posts
- 23
The possibility of the 717 going away was discussed with SWAPA in the room. The conversation was nothing like you relate.
Cometman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Posts
- 424
Being a professional pilot you should be smarter enough to figure it out without asking. I cannot believe you guys believe everything on this site.
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
I guess I'm not smarter enough then, so be it.
We don't believe in everything, and now that you are busted, no one believes anything you or your imaginary poster friend says.
Cometman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Posts
- 424
Thats OK because I never post any facts because I do not have any. I just read what some quote as facts and then question it. It helps put another twist to the question.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
That must have been a different conversation, possibly with just the Merger Committee present, because I have it in my notes, when it was, where we were, and who was in the room.
It was one of our final conversations just before we signed off on the deal at the end of the week. I pointed out to our group that we were pretty much hanging everything on one airplane... all the seniority, all the protections, everything, and what happened if the airplane went away early, so Jack posed the question to Russ, and that's the answer we got.
I asked if we could get it in writing, and the Merger Committee didn't want to ask, said we had already gotten our answer, said it would cost too much for them to go away, the leases weren't that long, it would be fine, etc, etc. Guess it didn't work out that way.
If that had not been our understanding, we wouldn't have built pretty much THE ENTIRE ROAD SHOW around the 717 protections, which is how we mainly sold the deal to the pilot group.
But if you, SWAPA, had another understanding of the fate of the 717, then you were given information we were not. It's just that simple.
scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
Because you are an admitted liar, welcome to the ignore list:
This message is hidden because Cometman is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because Cometman is on your ignore list.
EngineThunder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Posts
- 221
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
I wouldn't say they didn't "want" to get it in writing, they didn't think they'd be able to (they might even have asked, I didn't ask them if they had already asked or not), and didn't want to focus on something they didn't think was likely.
Like a lot of us, they believed what we were told. Problem is, plans change, especially in business, and if you didn't get it in writing, you're left holding the bag.
Like a lot of us, they believed what we were told. Problem is, plans change, especially in business, and if you didn't get it in writing, you're left holding the bag.
EngineThunder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Posts
- 221
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
The first deal was going to be the best. It was said on here many, many times. The AAI MEC thought they knew better. It's tough when your on the wrong side of the table when it comes to SW management. They always play hardball for the best deal for them.
More than a few times I said that the AAI NC/MEC wasn't just negotiating with SWAPA, they were negotiating with SW itself as well as the thousands of shareholders. Many of which are SW employees.
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
We need more of that and less stink eye. Is that similiar to swamp ass?
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
One great thing about swa is that it's the first airline I've been a part of where life is pretty good for the junior. The parity between junior to senior schedules is much more equal- most other places it's all about the haves and have nots. Which seems to be the case at AT by the two schedule examples above. Most= awful vs great, swa= good vs better. Of course it is better being senior, but the bottom is good too. If you can't hold a base- well that's just life in the airlines and I won't argue again the merits of the SLI bc I got f^cked by the deal you b^tch about.
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
Opinions vary...
You're d*mn right I did. The first deal sucked. The second deal still sucks, it just sucks less for seniority than the first one, but sucks worse for pay. Even the Merger Committee and the rest of the NC during both road shows and voting said the same thing. "The deal sucks".
The problem was, and two members of the MC and I went rounds over this on more than one occasion, was that NO ONE was detailing the "threats" BEFORE the first vote. NO ONE was... at least not to us. .
Wrong. I WAS. And I can name a good half dozen on here more qualified than me who were saying the same thing. You were poking your finger at the 800lb gorilla and expecting no consequences. Playing serious and detrimental games.
Please think about that letter every time you think to play more games- SWA will do what's in the best interests of it people and it's business.
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
So, it's like a few good men? Where they tell you one thing in front of all the witnesses, then another behind closed doors??
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
First, it's not a game. It's real people. It's real money. It's real lives. And I have to live with the outcome just like everyone else.
Secondly, I don't think asking a company that signed a Process Agreement in good faith to abide by it as "playing serious and detrimental games". We didn't like SIA 1 and wanted to go to arbitration. Southwest signed an agreement in good faith that said we could if we didn't come to an agreement AND THAT THE LIST PRODUCED BY ARBITRATION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AND INTEGRATED (6.A). Then they changed their mind. They now have 1,742 pilots who won't ever forget that some people evidently make deals they have no intention of following through on. I wouldn't say it's US playing the "games".
Lastly, as you can see by other airline pilots' response when we tell them what happened like my narrative earlier, it's simply astonishing to people. To go from the spirit at the roundups we were having, the feel-good letters that were coming from Dallas, and the Process Agreement which laid everything out, to what happened after the MEC vote... Other people can't believe it, and we couldn't, either.
It simply flies in the face of everything people believe Southwest to be, at least from the outside looking in. So what was coming way back then may have been no surprise to Southwest pilots, who have seen behind the looking glass and know what Corporate is capable of, but it shocked the hell out of all of us, just like it shocks other uninvolved 3rd parties when you tell the story.
Last edited:
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
I don't know, that's the question.
I know what was told to our entire Merger and Negotiating Committee in Dallas that week regarding the future of the 717, as I've posted here before and Rob is challenging.
I haven't chatted with our Merger Committee members about it since the deal's announcement (one of them won't return my call because he lost a bet about it) but I do know THEY were surprised as well. How do I know?
One of them (MaxBlast727) was on our internal board claiming right up to the week before the deal was announced that they weren't going anywhere and another one of them now across the partition owes me a C note about the 717's going away. (When I started hearing things from contacts I have about them going away a few months ago, I bet him that they were leaving before 1/1/15. He took the bet, saying it wasn't going to happen).
As far as our team goes, what I am saying Southwest management told us is their recollection, too, and if SWAPA knew it was coming, then they were told something we weren't. It's just that simple.
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
By detrimential games, do you also mean how your MEC tried hard to 'Run out the Clock'? It took them what, almost a month to vote on the first agreement. That was pretty pathetic as well.
Bottom line, the MEC should have let the members decide. The result is hundreds of thousands in lost wages and a loss of furlough protection. I'm still scratching my head. (not saying anyone gets furloughed, just making a point)
Bottom line, the MEC should have let the members decide. The result is hundreds of thousands in lost wages and a loss of furlough protection. I'm still scratching my head. (not saying anyone gets furloughed, just making a point)
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
I wasn't involved at that point, but the MEC only had 4 days to review the entire agreement and vote on it... it wasn't even back from Dallas with the ink dry on revisions until the Monday before the MEC meeting and the MEC meeting was at the end of the week. The AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE was reached 3 1/2 weeks before the MEC meeting, but it took another 2 1/2 weeks to finish up the specifics, similar to AIP 2 which took a week and a half to work out the specifics after the initial SLI was hammered out, using SIA 1 as a basis, otherwise it probably would have taken almost 3 weeks, too.
In retrospect, you're absolutely right.
If we'd have KNOWN Southwest was going to do an end-run around the Process Agreement and threaten non-integration, I can almost guarantee you it would have gone out for vote. Obviously that letter had its intended effect, so issuing it earlier in the process would have been the best way to ensure SIA 1 went to vote, but GK elected not to do that.
p.s. There's still a no-furlough clause in there but yes, the first furlough protection in SIA 1 was better. In truth, with the 717's going away, there's little left of the SIA except what M/B already gave us, a slightly better place on the list, and furlough protection.
Last edited:
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
You're saying Gary Kelly didn't say clearly on multiple occasions that he wanted an agreed on list w/o the pilots, as leaders of all employees, fighting for every scrap to the length of their process agreement?
He expected us as the highest paid group to show leadership.
Then there is the reality that this purchase simply becomes less profitable if groups go fighting tooth and nail in an extended arbi. You'd be hard pressed to say there'd be less animosity given an arbitrated list (aka am west/usair)-
I can show you where he said all these things and they were public and often.
Believe me, I think Swapa members would have done better in arbitration as well and would find it easier to live with- but that's not what Gary asked.
You guys were openly defiant in the face of that - where we understood where he was coming from and so, we're more agreeable to it.
Btw, how is it you say you aren't "rebel rousing" when you're calling our CEO, who for all his faults as a numbers guy, is doing his best to take care of all employees, a flat out liar?
He expected us as the highest paid group to show leadership.
Then there is the reality that this purchase simply becomes less profitable if groups go fighting tooth and nail in an extended arbi. You'd be hard pressed to say there'd be less animosity given an arbitrated list (aka am west/usair)-
I can show you where he said all these things and they were public and often.
Believe me, I think Swapa members would have done better in arbitration as well and would find it easier to live with- but that's not what Gary asked.
You guys were openly defiant in the face of that - where we understood where he was coming from and so, we're more agreeable to it.
Btw, how is it you say you aren't "rebel rousing" when you're calling our CEO, who for all his faults as a numbers guy, is doing his best to take care of all employees, a flat out liar?
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
