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.
