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.

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
Pure speculation....

I don't think there will be an offer for the AAI pilots to go with the planes, and I suspect Gary will work the numbers to avoid the CBA clause. That's my guess. It's going to get interesting for sure.
 
Lear,
Don't kid yourself, I will welcome every single AT pilot here- but most of swapa wins if AT pilots go with the airplanes to delta. I don't see anyone having angst over that. We're all a bit miffed that 2/3 of your fleet are being sold while we had to integrate all of you. Many of whom would rather be at delta.
In regards to the partition, ATALPa also is party to the transition agreement, that outlays the schedule for moving AT planes to swa. Since those aircraft were scheduled to come over at about the same rate, I don't see where that would trigger the language. Nothing really changes. Just instead of painting 717's and putting them in the system, we get new 73's. Though I wish you could get a choice out of it.
 
I don't think the Delta pilots have to worry about us going over there with relative senority. They will simply vote ALPA off the property.
 
Closer to a 14-year upgrade for me, 18 for PCL, staying at SWA.

Lear,

Just curious what info you are using to determine an approximate 14 year upgrade. I'm significantly more senior on the ISL than you, and the SWAPA upgrade projector used during the SLI voting showed me crossing the 50% line at @17 years. Assumed no growth and all retirements being replaced. No flame, just wondering.

Thanks.
 
mokitty, are you measuring from your original date of hire, or from right now? Lear70 is using time from right now, and his number matches what the seniority projector that we have is showing for me. I'll upgrade in 16 years, or about 22 years from original ATN date of hire.
 
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.
yes it does, sorry.
 
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.
I say have a nut, good luck!
 
mokitty, are you measuring from your original date of hire, or from right now? Lear70 is using time from right now, and his number matches what the seniority projector that we have is showing for me. I'll upgrade in 16 years, or about 22 years from original ATN date of hire.

Thanks. That answers my question. I was basing on my DOH at SWA.
 
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.
30% per year. So if it takes more than three years and results in 29% reduction per year, which is most likely how this deal goes down, now what? See, no problem.

I get it, try and get all you can, best of luck, I'd like to see you all go off to mother DAL just as much as you all want to go to mother DAL.
 
30% per year. So if it takes more than three years and results in 29% reduction per year, which is most likely how this deal goes down, now what? See, no problem.

The deal is already pretty clear. Airplanes are all gone in 2015. He may be able to stretch it a little bit to avoid hitting the trigger in 2014, but then he hits it in 2015 no matter what.
 
Lear,
Don't kid yourself, I will welcome every single AT pilot here- but most of swapa wins if AT pilots go with the airplanes to delta. I don't see anyone having angst over that. We're all a bit miffed that 2/3 of your fleet are being sold while we had to integrate all of you. Many of whom would rather be at delta.
Thanks for the welcome and yes, I'd imagine you would be... This is more in line with what I thought most SWAPA pilots would think of the issue.

In regards to the partition, ATALPa also is party to the transition agreement, that outlays the schedule for moving AT planes to swa. Since those aircraft were scheduled to come over at about the same rate, I don't see where that would trigger the language. Nothing really changes. Just instead of painting 717's and putting them in the system, we get new 73's. Though I wish you could get a choice out of it.
Because we specifically waived protections to our CBA (1.D.2 is what covers what you're talking about) in OUR side letter for the SLI, and limits those aircraft coming to Southwest.

It's the transfer to an outside 3rd party certificated air carrier that triggers the language.

I know that the MEC leadership is discussing it with management. We'll just have to wait and see what comes of it in the coming weeks.
 
30% per year. So if it takes more than three years and results in 29% reduction per year, which is most likely how this deal goes down, now what? See, no problem.
I think you missed the announcement: 88 total aircraft, 16 in 2013, 36 in 2014, the last 36 in 2015.

It's not going to take more than 3 years. It's going to take 2 1/2 and, as I said, I don't think they'll try to say the language wasn't triggered, I think they'll say they tried and Delta said No (which is what they've already said at the round-table and have said in the crew room visits).
 
Last edited:
No AT pilots are going to DAL with the planes and any grievance filed will be a loser because of the words "best effort." "Well Mr. arbitrator we gave it our best effort but DAL said no to taking any pilots with the planes and furthermore nobody is losing their job so what's the big deal?" Case closed, "best effort" or even "commercial best effort" is not the same as the word "will," it's one of those feel-good words that makes one party feel like they negotiated something of value while giving the other party an escape clause. You have no chance with that grievance......zero, I would guess that SW probably did give it their best effort because they would be happier with zero longevity new hires from a cost standpoint.

The intent of that language is clearly to mitigate job losses and unless something changed job losses aren't going to happen. It would be great if some of the AT pilots had the option to go to DAL with seniority, seats and longevity but the DAL pilots (and DAL management for that matter) don't want any part of that. Go ahead and file, it never hurts to swing for the fences, but be prepared to be disappointed with the outcome, it's a loser from the word go.
 
"commercial best effort"
Can you define that? Maybe they already gave their best effort and came to an agreement already.

Arbi: Did you Mr Kelly give your best effort?
Mr Kelly: Yes
Arbi: Did you Mr Anderson give your best effort?
Mr Anderson: Yes
Arbi: AAI ALPO give it a rest already.
 
Last edited:
What if Delta takes the planes and parks them in the desert replacing them with -900s. Want to go with the planes then?
 
Lear 70.... You actually think its going to happen? Give me odds?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top