AirTran MEC CYA

[Ty Webb]

No one advocated our top guys next to yours. A blended list would have started around 1996. That's all water under the bridge, but let's not rewrite history.

 

[waveflyer]

No one advocated our top guys next to yours. A blended list would have started around 1996. Water under the bridge, but let's not rewrite history.

Should I quote PCL from a week or 2 ago?

And if you didn't want relative and didn't think DOH was your worst case scenario, why the heartburn-

 

[Ty Webb]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

 

[scoreboardII]

PCL,

Explain to me how you envision "the golden rule" playing out through an SLI process.

Demanding a third party review violates the tenet of golden rule... They don't get it.

 

[GoodTimes]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

Well said.

 

[waveflyer]

I can't speak for him, but I know what was said at the time.

Look, you guys don't like it, we don't like it, but it is what it is. . . . We all just have to live with it. We're all professionals . . . All we can do from here is move forward, and hope for the best.

Regds,
Ty

I'll drink to that, but lets also not forget that it's usually the AT folks on here b/tching about the SLI.

Go on and b/tch about the transition- I can understand that-
But when you guys complain about the actual SLI,you forget there's several thousand on this side none too happy about that either, for opposite reasons

 

[Phlintstone]

I'll drink to that, but lets also not forget that it's usually the AT folks on here b/tching about the SLI.

Go on and b/tch about the transition- I can understand that-
But when you guys complain about the actual SLI,you forget there's several thousand on this side none too happy about that either, for opposite reasons

I'll drink to that too. I might be considered one of the guys complaining about the SLI. On either list, I was stapled. I was not senior enough to bid SWA 737FO. Heck I could not even hold ATL 717FO. The only difference for me was the pay. That is not something I can complain about to the SWA guys, they held no sway in that area. What I do complain about are the half truths that are spread only quoting the good parts of SL9 and not including the whole package.

I have moved on and am trying HARD to just smile and be happy. Just this morning, I was on the crew van with an entire SWA and AT crew. Everyone was smiling and talking except for the SWA FO who sat silently stewing in his disgust for us... uke: I tried really hard to be in his path after he got his suitcase so that I could say good morning to him. The greeting was not returned and he just walked by. It made me smile.

Phred

 

[wood pecker]

Don't want to interrupt the bickering but I would love to see some of those pay figures for a swa 8-9 year FO that just flies monthly guarantee of 85-89 TFP.

For me it will be a raise so I'm happy.

 

[waveflyer]

Phred,
Patience is a virtue- but not always easy- on either side-

"Career expectations" always reminded me of that joke

Bill collector: "Sir, when can we EXPECT payment?"

Me: "You can EXPECT it anytime"

 

[717capt]

From an article WELL before the vote:

Posted: 5:36 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2011

Pilots from AirTran Airways and their counterparts at Southwest Airlines will soon vote on a deal to combine their seniority lists, a critical step forward in the merger of the two airlines.

Southwest executives have also said they do not plan to permanently keep AirTran's Boeing 717s, which could affect pilot jobs.

Negative fallout from the failed first deal led to an ongoing vote among AirTran pilots on whether to recall some of their union leaders.

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/airtran-southwest-pilots-to-vote-on-seniority-deal/nQMGG/

A genius, no. A mind reader, no. A sage, no. But capable of reading a news article, yes. Capable of reading and comprehending an e-mail from the CEO of SWA, yes.

And to be clear NO I DO NOT BELIEVE EVERY WORD THAT COMES OUT OF MANAGEMENT'S MOUTH. Especially during negotiations I am a firm believer of trust but verify. If they aren't willing to put it in writing you can't count on it happening.

And the next day http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2011/09/southwest-ceo-717s-will-be-phased-out-because-of-fuel-costs/

"the odds are we will be operate those airplanes for a while" [sic]

See howard, we were told, right up to the vote by the way, that the 717's would remain until at least the leases expired 2017-2029 time frame. Now no one figured that they would still be on property until 2029 but at least for another 7-8 years. Yeah I know, for every article that says they were gonna keep them there's at least one that says they wanted to get rid of them. Yeah I get that and actually I'm not really upset about them going away. It's a great airplane and quite frankly if it wasn't for the 717's, more than likely, there would not have been an airtran for you guys to buy. What really gets me.. I mean what really makes me question the decision is not so much leasing them to DL, a formidable competitor, but also shelling out $140 million on top of it and not getting anything in return from DL. I don't know man. Maybe it's the way were brought up as pilots, that when you negotiate something and you give something up, you get something in return. Yeah I also get that they believe $140 million is nothing compared to what they thought it was gonna cost to keep them, but ********************.. get something in return.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe they are gonna be pushovers in this section 6 negotiations. I'm sure Richard Anderson certainly thinks so.
Oh and also. Seeing as how you say the writing was on the wall and you were kind enough to share a link to a story that said the 717's were going away before the vote, why would they continue with the vote. I mean it's in black and white right there. Before the vote, sw said the 717's are going away. Then why continue with the vote? Why even have a tpa 717 domicile option if there were not going to be 717's on the property? Not really sure what she meant, or what sw management meant. Did they mean they will be gone by 2015 or did they mean they will be gone when the leases expired? Like we were told. Before the vote. Wonder how an arbitrator would interpret that?