AirTran MEC Chair message.

[PCL_128]

That doesn't make any sense, unless you are saying he WANTED us to turn down the first offer so he could take the money off the table without looking like the bad guy.

Bingo! Gary is brilliant. He knew that no MEC/pilot group with any self respect would take that first deal as far as the seniority went, so he offered all of the money in the first deal, knowing that it would be rejected, then he used the rejection as an excuse to take the money off of the table and try to blame us for "giving up" the money. A very well laid plan.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

From one BMT to the next, doesn't appear to be any real difference except that WN mgmt will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining and AT mgmt would have just said "Hey, I'm peeing on your leg, what are you going to do about it?".

 

[Lear70]

I would like to think there is a way to allow those in favor to make the transition to DL. I'm certainly no expert on the frag language but if it has any teeth, then I think Gary Kelly would be bound to send us with the planes. Or atleast make a legitimate attempt. One can only dream at this point I guess.

Therein lies the rub. "make a legitimate attempt". Actually, what the language says is "commercial best effort"... That can be twisted a lot of different ways.

And I agree with Lear, that bid would go fiarly senior. Indeed everyone would win that way.

Not quite "everyone". First, there's the fact that instead of hiring new-hires at first year pay, they'd inherit 1,000+ pilots at year 7-12 year maxed-out pay. That's a difference of MILLIONS in payroll per year. Delta management wouldn't want that. Then there's the Delta pilots - they are expecting to get those CA seats, so they certainly don't want a fair integration.

Would it be good for everyone else? Pretty much, except bear in mind what PCL said as well... with the bid going almost straight-line seniority if there's a fair integration, it might be a little more egg on their face than SWA management wants.

I would think Gary K would push pretty hard to make this happen!

I'm not holding my breath. Personally, I'm betting it's going to require a Sec 1 Scope grievance to enforce and from what I'm hearing, people have it lined up to file the second the full Agreement language with Delta is available if the pilots weren't negotiated to go with the planes.

I would argue that it does. I would say that the clause is actually triggered in 2014, the first full year of transfers.

I agree 100%.

Of course, I'm sure some very smart attorneys at Delta or Southwest could find some pretty good arguments that it doesn't. Such is the nature of contract language.

Yep, coupled with the fact that a Scope dispute is actually a "Major Dispute", so would bypass the normal grievance channels and go straight to D.C. By the way, you should answer your phone every once in a while...

 

[texman]

Wow! Maybe that's what is going on. Can you guys educate me on the sec 1 scope violation, you mean the AT contract?

 

[Lear70]

Yes, the AT contract.

Our Sec 1 language requires, if more than 30% of our existing block hours measured looking back one year are removed by the sale OR ASSIGNMENT of an aircraft to another certificated air carrier in one transaction or a series of transactions in any one year, that the company expend their "commercial best efforts" to negotiate the pilots to go with the aircraft.

That's why PCL and I are both saying the 2014 removal of 36 aircraft will trigger it. At that point, with a 1-year look-back on block hours, 36 aircraft will clearly reach that metric.

It does not say WHICH pilots, but the rest of those sections which include furlough and other language are all based on seniority, so it would arguably be a pure seniority bid across the system regardless of what plane you were currently flying.

A sublease is basically an assignment, and they have repeatedly said the deal is directly between Southwest and Delta, not SWA and Boeing, so it's very clear the language is triggered. What is not so clear is whether they DID negotiate something OR if they are going to say they tried their "commercial best effort" and Delta wouldn't take the pilots.

In that case, a grievance will be filed and they'll have to convince an arbitrator that it was, indeed, their commercial best effort when they weren't losing money with the plane, the AirTran operation, or the overall Southwest Corp financial statement, so there was no need to fire-sale/lease them without the pilots.

In the event the pilots did go with the planes per that section, it triggers Allegheny-Mohawk style negotiations per M/B and ALPA to ALPA merger policy, which both Delta and Northwest are obviously inclined to abide by if recent history is any indicator.

Again, the devil is in the details,,, we will see what is what by the end of the month.

 

[redflyer65]

Bingo! Gary is brilliant. He knew that no MEC/pilot group with any self respect would take that first deal as far as the seniority went, so he offered all of the money in the first deal, knowing that it would be rejected, then he used the rejection as an excuse to take the money off of the table and try to blame us for "giving up" the money. A very well laid plan.

Just my opinion PCL, but I think Gary may have been naive enough to think that both parties would pass the first deal. I don't think he nefariously planned on pulling a plan B out of the hat after he PLANNED on deal A not passing. Even the rank and file AAI guys were shocked that it didn't make it too them. I think he put everything into Plan A expecting it to pass. All he had to go on was what both NCs were telling him. They came up with the list, he threw the money on the immediate pay parity. He thought it was a done deal.

I think the way it went down, he felt like he had egg on his face. It most likely pissed him off, but I don't know that for sure, just pure speculation. But we knew if it was voted down on either side, there would be some serious changes.

 

[PCL_128]

By the way, you should answer your phone every once in a while...

Yeah, I know, I'm horrible about answering the phone. I'll give you a call tomorrow.

 

[Simon Says]

From AT MEC Chair...

Fellow Southwest Pilots (Uh, what?!),

Yes, I just did that, and for good reason. We are all Southwest pilots. (No WE are not.)

I know what you’re thinking, so before you start sending me nasty e-mails threatening my dog, let me explain.

Think back to the SWAPA Round-ups and the presentations made during the road shows for the seniority integration agreement. The overriding theme was that when we had an SIA, and after the Date of Corporate Closing (DOCC) and after the Single Operating Certificate (SOC) was granted, that we would be Southwest pilots and treated as such. However, the reality doesn’t look like what we expected. (Things change.)

We don’t feel like Southwest pilots. (You shouldn't because you're not. Comprende?) Or at least we don’t feel like we think Southwest pilots should feel (I'm sorry Oprah, what was that?), and that’s not good. It’s not good for us; it’s not good for the Company.

We are all too familiar with the history of the seniority integration process, and the contentiousness that it brought. There were many arguments, even among close friends, and many scars from that engagement. At times it felt like civil war.

Eventually, with a transition plan in place, things began to settle down. Despite our future loss of seniority (here we go...), I think we began to move on. There were a few small improvements to our quality of life: reduced insurance costs, a kinder-gentler scheduling department, new leadership in the training department, and Rob Amsler in the Chief Pilot’s Office. It was just a morsel of the Southwest culture.(You were lucky to get those considering you're not Southwest pilots.)

But then, as it often seems to do, the other shoe dropped. Southwest announced the B-717 sublease tentative agreement with Delta. (If this came as a surprise to any of you, you deserve to feel like a moron.)

In an instant, all of the goodwill and trust that management had worked to cultivate with our pilots vanished. Gone. Kaput. (Guess it wasn't true "trust" in the first place.) On top of that, some of the messaging from SWAPA on the day the B-717 deal was announced was read by many of our pilots as gloating. (You guys appear more and more sensitive with each passing day.)

Can these problems be fixed? I hope so — and believe so — not for only for our sakes, but for the sake of our Company. (At the rate the Tranny's are screwing up in transition training and failing IOE, it's doubtful there will be enough of you left to do any noticeable harm.)

First of all, we are all Southwest pilots. (Hasn't this been covered already?) It is time that we are recognized as such. (Why? You work for Critter therefore you are not SWA pilots.) There is only one master seniority list, and our names are on it, intertwined with our friends and colleagues across the partition. We are not in a “pool” waiting for a seniority number — we already have one; we fly Southwest owned and leased airplanes with a different paint scheme; and, our corporate address is no longer Orlando, Florida — it is Love Field, in Dallas, Texas, the home of our (Not yours) company, Southwest Airlines.

The MEC has tasked our Negotiating Committee with engaging the company (read: begin whining more loudly NC!) to ease the burden of this transition on our pilots — the Southwest pilots represented by ALPA. (For the record, there are currently NO SWA pilots represented by ALPA. There never have been.) Yesterday, the NC started that process by meeting with management in Dallas. The conversation was wide-ranging and overall could be described as fairly productive. To continue our talks, we are making arrangements to schedule a follow-up meeting in the coming weeks.

On Monday, Captain Jim Gallagher and I will join ALPA executive administrator Capt. Tim Canoll and ALPA Directors Bruce York and Jon Cohen in Dallas for a meeting with SWAPA to move forward the process of transferring representation. While I believe the events of the past few weeks demonstrate the benefit of ALPA to our pilots, it is in the long-term interest of all Southwest pilots to have a single voice (This is actually a valid point. So you're up to 1 now.), regardless of the color of the airplane they are flying. It is also important that SWAPA recognize that former AirTran pilots will soon comprise almost a quarter of their membership, and it is to their benefit to consider the impact of their actions and statements on the future of the organization in a post-SOC world. (Was that a threat?)

I spent most of this week meeting with the MEC, discussing these issues. For a while, we were joined by Southwest Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Mike Van de Ven as well as Southwest Executive Vice President & Chief Commercial Officer Bob Jordan. We shared with them all of the feedback that you have given us over the past few weeks, both good and bad. We were brutally honest and I think they appreciated it. I also think they now understand that there is a unique opportunity for the Company to demonstrate the values for which it is famous, not the least of which is its commitment to its employees. (Good thing you cleared that up for them. Amazing they were able to do it for 40+ years without you Jim.)

Having spent four years in Missouri, the “Show Me State,” I learned a good deal about Midwestern values and skepticism. True character is displayed through action, not words. (If this is true, could you ask your pilots to shut up and color? Come to work as a SWA pilot AFTER completing transition training and IOE with hat in hand like the rest of us did. Be quiet, play nice, fly, get paid and go home.) This is the time for Southwest management to show me, and you, that we are all an integral part of the team. I trust that they will. (Don't count on it.)

I’ll see you at the airport.

Capt. Jim Morris, Chairman
Your ATN Master Executive Council (ATN? Thought you said you were SWA ALPA...)

I am embarassed for you. I hope one of your peers sees to it that you get educated on respect.

BTW, if you want to be a douch bag....how is your PFT working out for you. Buying your type and all so you could work for Southwest?

 

[texman]

Yes, the AT contract.

Our Sec 1 language requires, if more than 30% of our existing block hours measured looking back one year are removed by the sale OR ASSIGNMENT of an aircraft to another certificated air carrier in one transaction or a series of transactions in any one year, that the company expend their "commercial best efforts" to negotiate the pilots to go with the aircraft.

That's why PCL and I are both saying the 2014 removal of 36 aircraft will trigger it. At that point, with a 1-year look-back on block hours, 36 aircraft will clearly reach that metric.

It does not say WHICH pilots, but the rest of those sections which include furlough and other language are all based on seniority, so it would arguably be a pure seniority bid across the system regardless of what plane you were currently flying.

A sublease is basically an assignment, and they have repeatedly said the deal is directly between Southwest and Delta, not SWA and Boeing, so it's very clear the language is triggered. What is not so clear is whether they DID negotiate something OR if they are going to say they tried their "commercial best effort" and Delta wouldn't take the pilots.

In that case, a grievance will be filed and they'll have to convince an arbitrator that it was, indeed, their commercial best effort when they weren't losing money with the plane, the AirTran operation, or the overall Southwest Corp financial statement, so there was no need to fire-sale/lease them without the pilots.

In the event the pilots did go with the planes per that section, it triggers Allegheny-Mohawk style negotiations per M/B and ALPA to ALPA merger policy, which both Delta and Northwest are obviously inclined to abide by if recent history is any indicator.

Again, the devil is in the details,,, we will see what is what by the end of the month.

Thanks for the info. Remember that song! Things that make ya go hummmmmmmm!

 

[maxblast72]

Gary might be concerned at how it would look for his company if the bid went ultra-senior and almost every AirTran pilot was bidding for Delta instead of the supposedly utopian Southwest. Honestly, I'm halfway up the FO list, and I doubt I could hold a Delta slot if they took even 1,000 pilots.

You can count me as one pilot senior to you that won't be bidding to go to Delta. $1 billion per year in interest expense and a $600-800 million yearly pension expense (and a total underfunded pension obligation of over $11 billion).

I will stick with the airline that has $200 million in annual interest expense and zero pension obligation. I still got 27 years to go in this crazy industry. Greater chance of another Delta restructuring than SWA's first restructuring.

 

[Just thinking]

The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (Jobs Council) was created to provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.

The Jobs Council is made up of members appointed by the President from among distinguished citizens outside the Federal Government, including citizens chosen to serve as representatives of the various sectors of the economy to offer the diverse perspectives of the private sector, employers, and workers on how the Federal Government can best foster growth, competitiveness, innovation, and job creation.

I wonder if gk even read this before accepting the appointment from obama

 

[waveflyer]

Ok, timeline involved- would the bid to go to delta have to happen before the MB SLI is done?
Seems like a lot of process to get through before the 1st airplane goes

 

[SWA/FO]

how is your PFT working out for you. Buying your type and all so you could work for Southwest?

About $225,000 per year (thats working for me.) How is your non PFT job paying you?

So PCL and Lear 70 think: "a bombshell announcement" by the end of the month if the Delta boyz vote "yes"?

 

[Lear70]

About $225,000 per year (thats working for me.) How is your non PFT job paying you?

So PCL and Lear 70 think: "a bombshell announcement" by the end of the month if the Delta boyz vote "yes"?

No.

I don't think SWA negotiated a provision for the AT pilots to go with the planes, even though our Sec 1 Scope language clearly requires it.

I could be proven wrong, but I don't think so, it will be grieved, and will take several months to go through even the Major Dispute grievance process.

We shall see...

 

[PCL_128]

The real question is what an arbitrator would award if we won that grievance. Delta isn't party to our CBA, so they aren't the ones with an obligation. An arbitrator can't force them to take us. SWA is party to our CBA. Would the arbitrator stop SWA management from going through with the transaction? What if the final documents are already signed with Delta by that point? They probably will be. Expedited arbitration still isn't that quick. That means that the likely remedy would be a financial remedy that SWA management would be required to pay all aggrieved AirTran pilots. SWA needs to make a calculation about whether that possible remedy would be more expensive than just throwing some money at us to make the whole issue go away.

 

[texman]

So what Lear said earlier, 1/3 of the pilot group would love to go to delta. That's about 575 pilots.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

They would love to go to delta WITH relative seniority which they think will happen because of a ALPA merger policy. I think they would be lucky to get pref interviews and then watch the numbers tumble. If there is one group that historically has not liked us it is first and foremost Delta pilots.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Not to stir the pot (that's Dan's job!), but I have a question for you in-the-know Airtran ALPA guys. I believe you said if "30% of planes or seatmiles go in a single year..." is the language that triggers the clause in your CBA. Is that right?

If you started with 88 717s and 55-odd 737s, and no more than 36 717s go to Delta in any single year, is that even triggering that clause? Thirty-six airplanes in a year sounds like about 25% of 143 aircraft, not 30%. I realize that assumes the same utilization rate between the two fleets, if seatmiles is indeed the applicable metric, but I'm just spitballing here. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks for your input; I'm more curious here than anything.

Bubba

 

[JT12345]

SWA Bubba.

I don't read all your posts, but I look forward to flying with someone like you. As for some others on here I am surprised they could make it through the vetting process at SWA or AAI.


It blows my mind some of the posts on here. Do you really think there is no way to trace who you are?

 

[Lear70]

They would love to go to delta WITH relative seniority which they think will happen because of a ALPA merger clause.

I don't think anyone would expect pure relative seniority. It was an easier argument to make with Southwest because there were no equipment differences, a narrow-body-to-narrow-body airline merger. It was the salary differences there that made a date-of-hire list much more realistic and palatable.

With Delta/Northwest there were still fences of widebodies for several years, and other provisions in the arbitrator's ruling, which was a relative seniority / date of hire hybrid. ALPA merger policy USED to mandate Date of Hire, and is still seen as the "Gold Standard" except in extreme cases (buying a bankrupt airline with thousands on furlough is a good example). In our case, a Date-of-hire list with widebody fences for a few years would make perfect sense as a solution.

But yes, given a REASONABLE negotiated/arbitrated award that doesn't staple 1/3 of the pilot group to the bottom of the list and TRULY keeps Captains in their seats (which is a completely reasonable expectation when you compare EVERY OTHER MERGER INTEGRATION in the last decade or so) and the bid for Delta would go senior.

I think they would've lucky to get pref interviews and then watch the numbers tumble. If there is one group that historically has not liked us it is first and foremost Delta pilots.

Ummm... No. That's not how arbitration would work. First, you'd have to have a bid for who was going. You can't negotiate or even arbitrate a seniority list without knowing the EXACT starting point of the list. Then, whoever was going would be involved first in negotiations then in a BINDING arbitration with no "escape clause" for Delta, and there would be no "preferential interviews", and everyone who bid to go would go, regardless of what the final list looked like, even if it sucked, you're stuck with it.

You do, however, had what PCL said earlier:'

The real question is what an arbitrator would award if we won that grievance. Delta isn't party to our CBA, so they aren't the ones with an obligation. An arbitrator can't force them to take us.

Exactly. If Southwest didn't negotiate it in the EXISTING deal they have with Delta for the 717's, then our grievance is with Southwest, not with Delta. The only thing Southwest could do, after the fact (and it wouldn't surprise me if this is in their back pocket), is go back to Delta and try to negotiate something that truly DOES have a commercial (read "economic") impact in terms of actual dollars. Delta would have to agree and, in that case, it's doubtful there would be arbitration, it would be something like "allow up to XXX number of AirTran pilots to go to Delta with their longevity and no probation but stapled to the bottom of the list and Southwest to pay Delta the difference in salary, which they then save by hiring a new-hire anyway, so it's break-even for Southwest, satisfies the AirTran pilots who want to go, satisfies Delta management by not having an increased salary cost because Southwest would pay for it, and satisfies Delta pilots by still getting the CA seats and only new-hires in terms of seniority.

But again, unless they negotiated it as part of the existing 717 deal (which I doubt), I seriously doubt we will ever see an arbitrated list with Delta. Then you have what PCL said next which is also 100% accurate:

SWA is party to our CBA. Would the arbitrator stop SWA management from going through with the transaction? What if the final documents are already signed with Delta by that point? They probably will be. Expedited arbitration still isn't that quick. That means that the likely remedy would be a financial remedy that SWA management would be required to pay all aggrieved AirTran pilots. SWA needs to make a calculation about whether that possible remedy would be more expensive than just throwing some money at us to make the whole issue go away.

Financial remedies... let's talk about that for a second. Take a pilot in PCL's shoes, 6th year pay, 25% total seniority which, even from a Date of Hire standpoint at Delta, puts him solidly in widebody international line holding F/O at Delta, pretty close to SWA pay. He can hold upgrade to narrow-body DAL CA in 7 years, which is only 10% less than SWA CA pay, but in HALF the time he would hold it at SWA.

In real dollars that's a loss of 7 years at an additional $50k a year for a total of $350k. Then you have him able to hold widebody Int'l CA for the last 15 years of his career for a 30% override over max SWA CA rates. That's $60k for 15 years = $900k. So not being allowed to go to Delta is over $1.2 Million dollars he would lose by virtue of not having a widebody plane to fly. Even a staple job he'd still lose almost $800k over his career at SWA versus going to Delta.

Now multiply that times the approx 1,000 pilots our 717 is staffed for.

Granted, he's young and that's an extreme case, but it's still over $750k per pilot affected. That's a very real number to give to an arbitrator, and if the arbitrator doesn't see a GENUINE attempt by Southwest in their notes and emails during negotiations for the existing 717 deal to attempt to satisfy that clause in our Scope language, there could be some very real money they have to pay out in a grievance, which is why what PCL said is correct:

If SWA doesn't plan on sending the pilots with the planes, then they really should look at the potential cost of this grievance and see what it's worth to make it go away. That's what I meant earlier by saying there's legal avenues to pursue. With integration well underway and every AirTran pilot now on the SWA master seniority list and a no-furlough clause in place, with Southwest Corp turning a profit and without a 9/11 type of event, there's really little risk/downside for the MEC to play a little hardball in negotiations moving forward and some very real financial implications for Southwest if they don't do something.

It's still my hope they will voluntarily do something; it would go a LONG way towards repairing damaged feelings and instilling a Southwest Warrior Culture in our pilots (it's easier to fight for someone you feel values you), but if they won't, then our MEC will do whatever is legally available to offset the losses from our agreed deal in the SLI.

I would expect SWAPA would do the exact same thing. It's not personal. It's business.