AirTran MEC CYA

[Phlintstone]

No phred.

I don't agree with his staple comment-

But the angst from AT is ABSOLUTELY the out of touch unrealistic expectations.

I've heard from way too many AT pilots who honestly believed DOH would be their worst case scenario.

That's not rational.

I've heard that from many CAs too. I really do not think that would've been the award either but...we will never know. No use debating it. But AT guys are not the entire problem. People like him (on boths sides) are the problem.

Phred

 

[PCL_128]

I've heard from way too many AT pilots who honestly believed DOH would be their worst case scenario.

That's not rational.

We'll see. These past couple of weeks, the CAL Merger Committee has essentially been making the exact same arguments that your side was making. "We were in much better financial shape." "Our balance sheet was much stronger." "We were paid a lot more." "The contract gains that they got from the merger were significant." And so on, and so on. The same stuff you were saying. And from these arguments, they've crafted a proposal that gives most UAL pilots a significant relative seniority hit. So, we'll see in a few short months how much those arguments really hold up in front of a panel of three very experienced arbitrators, including the very same chairman of the panel that we would have had in our case. My prediction? The same thing that would have happened in our case: ratio by status and category.

Your arguments are being put to the test in a real arbitration scenario. Want to place any wagers on their effectiveness?

 

[waveflyer]

Apples to oranges PCL
Let me research it more to see the applicability-

But offhand, a) united had lots of furloughs at the time
b) the discrepancy between contracts wasnt as great as ours were
c) no airline compares to SWA- nobody else has pilots leave legacy widebody jobs to come work for a 737 operator, no other 737 size operator makes the money we make (widebody wages for the pilots and sustained profitability as a company)

I see continental and united as much more equitable jobs than SWA v AT

But I'm sure that will be labeled arrogant

We all know these things cycle, especially among alpa carriers bc pattern bargaining is their design-
SWA has almost always been a good company, but not always the best job-
What it is now and has been for sometime before the acquisition is the best passenger flying job in aviation- key words- at the time of the purchase-

You got a good deal PCL- your self created outrage is a joke

And so is the idea that you would've got relative

(Ty- see?^^^^)

 

[canyonblue]

Apples to oranges PCL
Let me research it more to see the applicability-

And how many guys left United to go to Cal. Apples and oranges would at least be around the same size fruit. I would go with an Apple to a grape.

 

[Skyboy722]

PCL,
Arbitrators have already heard the SWA vs AT arguments, with all the other work groups that went to arbitration. We already know how that turned out.

 

[PCL_128]

But offhand, a) united had lots of furloughs at the time

Which means that the CAL argument is only more sound, not less. And yet, I'm betting the panel will put little emphasis on the arguments that UAL was a weaker carrier.

b) the discrepancy between contracts wasnt as great as ours were

CAL narrowbody pilots had better payrates than UAL widebody pilots. The JCBA saw 30% pay raises for many UAL pilots, while raises were modest for CAL pilots.

But to your point, while the CBA discrepancies weren't as big as they were between SWA and ATN, the seniority proposal that they're making isn't as onerous, either. While SWAPA would have had our pilots lose more than 32% relative seniority, the CAL proposal only results in UAL pilots losing something like 10%. So while the CBA discrepancies are less significant, the proposed relative seniority hit is proportional to them. If your arguments were going to have merit before a panel, then the CAL argument should prevail, and the UAL pilots should take a relative seniority hit. My prediction is that the average loss of relative seniority comes out to less than 2%, meaning that the panel puts virtually no weight on your style of arguments.

c) no airline compares to SWA

But I'm sure that will be labeled arrogant

You answered that one for me.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,
Arbitrators have already heard the SWA vs AT arguments, with all the other work groups that went to arbitration. We already know how that turned out.

Are you not aware that arbitral precedent is different in other crafts and classes? Are you not aware that seniority affects the lives of pilots differently than it affects that the lives of dispatchers?

 

[redflyer65]

We'll see. These past couple of weeks, the CAL Merger Committee has essentially been making the exact same arguments that your side was making. "We were in much better financial shape." "Our balance sheet was much stronger." "We were paid a lot more." "The contract gains that they got from the merger were significant." And so on, and so on. The same stuff you were saying. And from these arguments, they've crafted a proposal that gives most UAL pilots a significant relative seniority hit. So, we'll see in a few short months how much those arguments really hold up in front of a panel of three very experienced arbitrators, including the very same chairman of the panel that we would have had in our case. My prediction? The same thing that would have happened in our case: ratio by status and category.

Your arguments are being put to the test in a real arbitration scenario. Want to place any wagers on their effectiveness?

UAL/CAL similiar to SWA/AAI.

You've got to be kidding me.

I like your ratio and status mantra. It probably would have been around 8:1 ratio with the arbitration and the 'status' on the 717 would have quickly drifted away along with the aircraft.

So in your world PCL, this was a merger of equals?

 

[PCL_128]

I like your ratio and status mantra. It probably would have been around 8:1 ratio with the arbitration and the 'status' on the 717 would have quickly drifted away along with the aircraft.

We both know that you don't believe that, or you wouldn't have been so adamant to avoid arbitration. Your desperate attempts to short-circuit the process belie your bravado.

So in your world PCL, this was a merger of equals?

Absolutely. One group of narrowbody pilots merging with another.

 

[redflyer65]

PCL,

Let me be very clear....I never feared arbitration. I was much more comfortable arguing the case of career earnings and overall company differences to an arbitor. Just like the other work groups did and you see exactly how that turned out.

So with your narrowbody vs narrowbody arguement, you would feel the same way if Airtran would have bought....maybe Allegiant? All things being equal...right? or better yet Kalitta (and they have widebodies!)

The arbitration panel would have easily seen thru a very, very thin arguement like that and looked at the facts. Not even close to equals. They would have definitely factored in how many apps were on file at both carriers from the other. Those are actually relevant facts in a case like this. It plainly shows how many AAI guys were willing to give their AAI employee number away and be stapled voluntarily. (and there were alot)

The evidence presented would have overwhelmingly favored SW and you are smart enought to know that.

 

[labatt]

Quote:
So in your world PCL, this was a merger of equals?

Absolutely. One group of narrowbody pilots merging with another.

If that were true, you'd have at least a few SWA guys applying and leaving for ATN. To the best of my knowledge, that had never happened. How many ATN guys had apps in at SWA and were prepared to leave? Probably several hundred.

The day before the merger announcement, you interview 100 regional pilots and "give" them an identical class date at SWA & ATN. 95 would pick SWA.

 

[PCL_128]

So with your narrowbody vs narrowbody arguement, you would feel the same way if Airtran would have bought....maybe Allegiant? All things being equal...right? or better yet Kalitta (and they have widebodies!)

Absolutely. And this isn't just an academic question. Joe Leonard was in the process of purchasing Midwest, and you didn't hear a peep from our pilots about anything but a fair integration. No rhetoric about how their carrier was failing, how their pilots were leaving for other carriers, etc. The expectation from our pilots was largely relative seniority. Why? Because we actually understand what the golden rule really is.

The evidence presented would have overwhelmingly favored SW and you are smart enought to know that.

We both know how wrong that is. Again, if you actually believed it, you would have been thrilled to go to arbitration instead of spending your every waking moment here on FI trying to convince us to cave.

 

[redflyer65]

The only thing I've been saying since day one is that Airtran MC should have made the best agreement up front.....because the CEO said on many occasions that he wanted a negotiated deal. You guys where tone-deaf I gues because the only thing you could see was arbitration. That's all you cared about. That didn't work out well for you, and I'm saying that sincerely. You guys should have never lost your CA seats but that...unfortunately is what happened.

How would your arguement have gone about the stability and career earnings at SW vs AAI?

 

[PCL_128]

The only thing I've been saying since day one is that Airtran MC should have made the best agreement up front.....because the CEO said on many occasions that he wanted a negotiated deal.

Yes, and AirTran's CEO said many times that he wanted us to work for less than industry standard wages, work rules, and benefits. What management "wants" means nothing to me. What they agreed to is what matters. And Gary agreed to a process that included arbitration.

You guys where tone-deaf I gues because the only thing you could see was arbitration. That's all you cared about. That didn't work out well for you, and I'm saying that sincerely.

How exactly did it not work out well for us? We didn't even get an opportunity to try it. What didn't work out well for us was putting an inexperienced MEC in place, an inexperienced Merger Committee, and recalling or pushing for resignations of almost everyone who actually did have experience. That was the mistake.

How would your arguement have gone about the stability and career earnings at SW vs AAI?

Based on past arbitral decisions, it would have factored virtually nothing into the panel's decision, so your question is irrelevant.

 

[texman]

Absolutely. And this isn't just an academic question. Joe Leonard was in the process of purchasing Midwest, and you didn't hear a peep from our pilots about anything but a fair integration. No rhetoric about how their carrier was failing, how their pilots were leaving for other carriers, etc. The expectation from our pilots was largely relative seniority. Why? Because we actually understand what the golden rule really is.



We both know how wrong that is. Again, if you actually believed it, you would have been thrilled to go to arbitration instead of spending your every waking moment here on FI trying to convince us to cave.

Well of course you guys wanted a fair integration with Midwest. The pilot group was so small it would work in your favor. With SWA not so much.