AirTran MEC Chair message.

[Lear70]

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

I think the number would be higher with a Date-of-Hire arbitration award with CA seat protections; if there was such a thing, it would go nearly straight-line seniority to the maximum number allowed to go.

MaxBlast being one of the few exceptions...

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.

I like the real questions and debate, it's good stuff, helps us understand each other and what really is going on, discussions on your SL14 are a good example too, I like to know what is going on over there since it looks increasingly like we all will need to row in the same direction.

To answer your question, first, it's not aircraft, it's block hours and the 717 has a higher block hour utilization than the 737 due to the fact that, often, when we reach a west coast or international city, the 737 stops flying until the redeye or the next day, whereas the 717 can keep hopping short hops all day until midnight then has the EMO the next morning.

Second, it's a single-year look-back. So right now, it's 88 717's and 52 737's after the ones already out of the equation. With them taking 16 717's in 2013, that leaves us with 72 717's and 52 737's, 124 aircraft worth of block hours to consider. Taking 36 717's away from 124 in 2014 is just over 30% in terms of block hours.

Hope that helps.

 

[PCL_128]

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

I would say that 1/3 of the pilot group would want to go even if it was a pure staple. Maybe even without longevity. If you make it a fair integration, then I think the number climbs to well over 1,000.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I hope it works like you think. It would be nice to have options. I have seen way too many people disappointed because of what they think our contract guarantees us. ALPA writes a contract based on what they think management is going to do. Management writes it based on what they are really going to do.

 

[Crash Pad]

DOH and 1700 want to go. Staple with zero longevity and 500 stapled FOs decide if a 20 year upgrade is better or worse than a ten year upgrade.

 

[Lear70]

I hope it works like you think. It would be nice to have options. I have seen way too many people disappointed because of what they think our contract guarantees us. ALPA writes a contract based on what they think management is going to do. Management writes it based on what they are really going to do.

LOL - that's the first thing I've agreed with you about in a while...

Like has been said, there's always legal wiggle room in "commercial best effort", but with a growing, thriving company, it's hard to say they didn't try to throw ANY money at the deal yet it was their "commercial best effort". I'm not expecting they worked something out, but we'll see.

 

[Lear70]

DOH and 1700 want to go. Staple with zero longevity and 500 stapled FOs decide if a 20 year upgrade is better or worse than a ten year upgrade.

Closer to a 14-year upgrade for me, 18 for PCL, staying at SWA.

Delta will retire 60% of their seniority list in the next 10 years. That's a fact, assuming age 65 doesn't turn into 68 or 70, in which case ALL bets are off, including at SWA.

Assuming only the bottom 500 wanted to go with a staple and no longevity (which doesn't include me, incidentally), they would upgrade at Delta in 12-14 years... sooner than they would at Southwest.

We've worked the numbers and have a pretty good feel for how many would want to go versus who would want to stay. Not sure PCL is right about his 500 number with a pure staple and NO longevity, basically a new-hire, but I'm sure you'd get at least a 1/2 of the people who were stapled. From a money standpoint, you'd be a fool not to go if you are under 35 with no kids. You'd have to want the SWA bases / culture, etc to stay in that case.

If it's all about the money, you'll make quite a bit more at Delta over your entire career if you're under 35. 35-40 it gets fuzzier. 45+, you stay at Southwest with your longevity in place.

 

[DonVerita]

DOH and 1700 want to go. Staple with zero longevity and 500 stapled FOs decide if a 20 year upgrade is better or worse than a ten year upgrade.

It's going to take more than that.

DOH or better AND CA seat protection = 1700 want to go, but it would be more like 1000 because that is the approx. number of 717 pilots on property now.

If it were staple with or without longevity, then only the most junior would go. Stapling is bad juju and bad karma in ALPA's book by the way. That wouldn't help SWA pilots because most of them are more senior due to the lopsided SLI. That wouldn't help ATN junior and mid-level CA's because it would just be trading one bad ride for another.

But...if ATN CA's are awarded the protections stated above, then it is a win/win. SWA gets to offload a big slice of pissed off ATN pilots. That in turn removes the downward pressure on SWA senior F/O's and junior CA's regarding base displacement/ROR as well as improves the upgrade time for SWA F/O's because the ATN pilots who leave will create a need for new-hires to fill the void. ATN pilots get the seniority and seat protection at DAL that they should have gotten at SWA and to boot get to stay on the same plane they are comfortable with (albeit with a probable equipment lock so as not to displace DAL pilots off of larger and better paying aircraft). DAL gets a highly experienced turnkey operation with almost no associated training costs other than basic indoc stuff. DALPA gets 88 planes that their people can get into if they want after some sort of equipment fence expires and since the ATN pilots come with the planes, there is no net loss of DALPA pilots or upgrade potential that wasn't there pre-merger.

 

[waveflyer]

The point is Don, your pilots would have to make the choice before knowing what kind of seniority deal you'd get. But I actually love that you guys are seriously considering this. A choice is always better in these kinds of situations.

 

[Citrusflyer]

My guess is that if the DAL TA is really tied to the 717's coming over (of which I have my doubts, but it's the stated 'fact') AND along with that the DAL pilots are going to get a significant slice of AT pilots to go with it, they'll flush this thing in a NY minute.

To play devil's advocate ... if there's a choice to go DAL and the scenario plays out that the AT guys are basically stapled, what happens (from an ALPA standpoint) IF not enough AT pilots want to go to Delta? Do they then have to force guys over there to meet whatever fragmentation limits are set? There's still potential to jump right out of the frying pan and straight into the fire ...

 

[Lear70]

But...if ATN CA's are awarded the protections stated above, then it is a win/win.

For everyone except Delta and DALPA. I explained this a bit above.

DAL gets a highly experienced turnkey operation with almost no associated training costs other than basic indoc stuff.

And inherits 1,000 pilots at year 6-12 longevity instead of new-hires. That's a lot of money.

DALPA gets 88 planes that their people can get into if they want after some sort of equipment fence expires and since the ATN pilots come with the planes, there is no net loss of DALPA pilots or upgrade potential that wasn't there pre-merger.

That's not what DALPA will see. DALPA is selling the 717 deliveries to their membership as upgrades for all their senior F/O's. If we come with the planes with CA protections, those CA seats for their senior F/O's are gone, not to mention their F/O's will have us slotted in through their ranks. It doesn't increase their upgrade times significantly because our planes come with us, but it does dilute their bidding power.

They aren't going to see that as a "win" when they're expecting all those CA seats and new-hires below them to fill those F/O seats. That's going to be a fight, just like it was with Southwest. Guaranteed.

Which is why I still continue to believe it wasn't included in the deal...

 

[PCL_128]

Stapling is bad juju and bad karma in ALPA's book by the way.

Don, the problem is that it's not an ALPA issue. Southwest management already made a deal with Delta without following the requirements of our CBA to negotiate a way for our pilots to go with the planes. Delta management had a reasonable expectation that Southwest was bargaining in good faith and complying with all of its legal obligations. Delta isn't responsible for our CBA, because they aren't a party to it. Therefore, they have a deal in place to take the airplanes without the pilots. That means that our grievance is with Southwest, not with Delta. If Delta doesn't want to take the pilots, they don't have to. Southwest (or ALPA) would have to go, hat in hand, to Delta to try to get our pilots positions. Failing that, Southwest would be on the hook for whatever penalty an arbitrator awarded for violating our fragmentation protections. Trying to force Delta into an arbitrated seniority integration won't work. They're under no obligation to do so.

 

[Lear70]

My guess is that if the DAL TA is really tied to the 717's coming over (of which I have my doubts, but it's the stated 'fact') AND along with that the DAL pilots are going to get a significant slice of AT pilots to go with it, they'll flush this thing in a NY minute.

It's not. The DALPA reps are telling people it's planes, and not pilots, which is certainly being driven by management telling them those things.

If it were any other way, I agree, the reps would be screaming and the T.A. would probably die a short, loud death. The upgrades for those pilots are certainly a good size carrot in the T.A. What's unknown is, even if the T.A. is voted down, if the planes are going to Delta anyway (my hunch is yes).

To play devil's advocate ... if there's a choice to go DAL and the scenario plays out that the AT guys are basically stapled, what happens (from an ALPA standpoint) IF not enough AT pilots want to go to Delta? Do they then have to force guys over there to meet whatever fragmentation limits are set? There's still potential to jump right out of the frying pan and straight into the fire ...

You'd have to have the list of who is going BEFORE you went to arbitration or, as you point out above, it screws up what happens afterwards.

To muddy the waters, you have a problem that per the SLI, we all have seniority numbers at Southwest. So let's continue with your devil's advocate approach, and we DON'T have a "hard list" BEFORE arbitration, the arbitration goes badly, they try to force a set number to Delta, and those guys say "No, we have a seniority number at Southwest per prior agreement, we will sue to stay".

It could get really messy REALLY fast if you didn't have the list set in stone with people giving up their seniority rights at Southwest BEFORE the SIA with Delta was worked out...

That's another reason I don't think they included a deal for us to go with the planes even though they are required by our CBA to do so. It's messy. Better from a management perspective to deal with the grievances if/when they come, see how many people are affected, what the financial cost is, and the best way to mitigate that cost after the fact.

Not saying it's legal per our CBA, I'm just thinking from a management perspective and how things seem to have gone lately.

 

[scoreboardII]

Southwest management already made a deal with Delta without following the requirements of our CBA to negotiate a way for our pilots to go with the planes. .

False logic, You have no expectation of this ever happening if SWA swaps the jets for other jets and you still have a job at SWA. They only need to negotiate with you if they intend to get rid of the jobs that go with the jets. That is not whats happening.

Lear stated:That's another reason I don't think they included a deal for us to go with the planes even though they are required by our CBA to do so

Trust us, we'd love to help ya'll go on over to DAL, but thats not whats happening, your jobs are safe here, therefore you have no right to claim you have a right to go with the jets.

Management has a right to manage, if they want you flying a C150 filled with rubber dog doodoo out of Singapore, thats what you will be flying instead of 717's. If they didn't have a job flying c150's, then your CBA would be triggered.

 

[Full of LUV]

DAL gets a highly experienced turnkey operation with almost no associated training costs other than basic indoc stuff. DALPA gets 88 planes that their people can get into if they want after some sort of equipment fence expires and since the ATN pilots come with the planes, there is no net loss of DALPA pilots or upgrade potential that wasn't there pre-merger.

Not nearly enough to placate DAL or DALPA on that deal. Why would the company inherit a bunch of pilots with longevity when they could staff the airline with newhire FO's? Turnkey operation???? They already operate over 9 different types including the 717's prehistoric predecessor the DC9.

Fact is NOBODY cares about the ATN pilots pay, QOL, morale, commute, experience, or happiness except the ATN ALPA! Not DAL, not DALPA, not SWA and not SWAPA.
Best of luck.
LUV

 

[Cometman]

Delta is not taking any pilots and all this talk about grieving it and having SWA either pay Airtran pilots or give them SWAPA pay is not going to happen. Where in the world do you 2 (Lear and PCL) guys come up with this crap. Will you ever be happy or will this be on your mind forever? Do you really think the money will buy you happiness? It will be there soon enough. I would bet after you get the SWAPA money you will still not be happy.

 

[PCL_128]

False logic, You have no expectation of this ever happening if SWA swaps the jets for other jets and you still have a job at SWA. They only need to negotiate with you if they intend to get rid of the jobs that go with the jets. That is not whats happening.

Wrong. Our contract is with AirTran Airways, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest. Southwest's aircraft and block hours on your side of the partition do not pertain to our contractual fragmentation language. Replacing 717s by putting new airplanes on the other side of the partition doesn't comply with our scope language.

 

[Lear70]

Wrong. Our contract is with AirTran Airways, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest. Southwest's aircraft and block hours on your side of the partition do not pertain to our contractual fragmentation language. Replacing 717s by putting new airplanes on the other side of the partition doesn't comply with our scope language.

Correct.

If they were adding planes on the AirTran side of the partition, and block hours weren't decreasing on the AirTran side of the partition, you'd have an argument.

But it's very clear that this will trigger our 1.F.1 Scope language. That's not the argument, your own management has said they tried and Delta didn't want to take us and start another seniority battle. What remains to be seen is whether their "commercial best effort" and ours are the same thing.

If not, there will be a grievance. SWAPA would 100% defend your contract, I don't see what your angst is in us defending ours. Again... it's not personal, it's business. Just like you tell us the SIA was "just business" for SWAPA and its members.

Can't have it both ways. You fight for your best interests. We fight for ours. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Lear70]

Fact is NOBODY cares about the ATN pilots pay, QOL, morale, commute, experience, or happiness except the ATN ALPA! Not DAL, not DALPA, not SWA and not SWAPA.
Best of luck.
LUV

True dat... lol :beer:

I don't blame anyone for doing what was best for themselves and their members, even if I don't like the outcome.

Just don't ask us to do any less... fair 'nuff?

 

[PCL_128]

Hell, remember SWAPA filing the grievance because of the sticker that was put on one of our 737s the day of corporate closing? None of us bitched about that. I don't see any reason why a SWAPA pilot should bitch about us filing a grievance to enforce our agreement, especially when it has zero negative effect on any SWAPA pilot.

 

[Lear70]

False logic, You have no expectation of this ever happening if SWA swaps the jets for other jets and you still have a job at SWA. They only need to negotiate with you if they intend to get rid of the jobs that go with the jets. That is not whats happening.

That's not what our language says.

It doesn't say "if furloughs are triggered", it simply says if 30% of the block hours in a one-year look-back are sold or transferred, every "commercial best effort" will be made to transfer the pilots with the planes.

There is no caveat for job loss in there. The language is triggered; I highly doubt they'll argue that. What they'll likely say is they expended their "commercial best effort" and it didn't happen.