AirTran MEC: Whine on!

[HowardBorden]

The information that was put forth by SWA to us, both in meetings and in the press, was that the 717 fleet would remain until the leases ended, which began in 2017.

BIG difference between ending them in 2017 and 2014. Hence the DRC's.

I would think that would be easy to understand.

Nope, not buying it. Multiple articles in the press said the exact opposite and a letter was sent by GK to the AT pilots that said the future of the 717 was tenuous at best. You can't rewrite history.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...boeing-717-not-part-of-future-fleet-plans.ece
It?s not different enough or unique enough that it really brings any advantage beyond what a 737 would do,? Kelly said at the Boyd Group International aviation conference at a resort near Albuquerque.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/08/southwest-boeing-717/545260/1
Kelly noted that Southwest didn't see a need for anything smaller than its 137-seat Boeing 737-700s before deciding in 2010 to buy AirTran. Southwest operates 25 Boeing 737-500s, which has 122 seats, but hasn't bought any that size in two decades.

http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2...17s-will-be-phased-out-because-of-fuel-costs/
Kelly said the reason for his change in attitude comes down to fuel prices. The 717, which has fewer seats than the 737, works well for short-haul flights, but the higher fuel prices go, the more customers get priced out of short-haul markets, he said.

http://worldairlinenews.com/2011/08...advantage-of-keeping-airtrans-88-boeing-717s/
Southwest Airlines? (Dallas) CEO Gary Kelly, according to this article by Flightglobal, told the attendees at the International Aviation Forecast Summit (hosted by the Boyd Group) that the Boeing 717 does not ?bring any unique benefit that Southwest cannot get with the 737″.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c4f94beb-1199-4f21-9dbe-5423110c0db6
But in the time since, Southwest has decided it will eliminate some smaller markets that were served by AirTran, and CEO Gary Kelly now says the company sees no advantage in keeping the smaller planes.

 

[scoreboardII]

Exactly, when we voted we were told the 71 would stay until the leases were up. I think the voted would have been a lot different on both sides had we been told the truth.

Lets be totally honest, that's what you wanted to hear, and SWA is excellent at getting unions to hear what they want to hear.

What was actually said, was something totally different, and in fact the language supports the departure of the 717, not when the leases are up but at anytime, a huge difference. Referencing the post above, AT pilots had every opportunity to know GK had every intention of offloading the 717 before lease end. The 717 departure harms me, your senior dudes climbing all over my seniority, if those 717's stayed they could have been a faster upgrade for me.

Welcome to the love.

 

[scoreboardII]

No, that's not what I voted for.

All the no voters are yes voters now. It's called a union.

 

[scoreboardII]

Definitely.

The vote would've been a lot different on the SW side had we known that you guys were only coming over with 1/3 the aircraft.

And there would have been a firestorm on this side if we had been told this truth.

 

[Tripower455]

And there would have been a firestorm on this side if we had been told this truth.

I think that might've just squeaked out a 50%+ 1 no vote on this side.

 

[Phlintstone]

Yuuuuuup!

Phred

That's what you voted for.

Is there a point to your comment?

Phred

 

[K-Mart]

The information that was put forth by SWA to us, both in meetings and in the press, was that the 717 fleet would remain until the leases ended, which began in 2017.

BIG difference between ending them in 2017 and 2014. Hence the DRC's.

I would think that would be easy to understand.

I can understand your angle and resentment, along with the DRC.

 

[Ty Webb]

Nope, not buying it. Multiple articles in the press said the exact opposite and a letter was sent by GK to the AT pilots that said the future of the 717 was tenuous at best. You can't rewrite history.

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

 

[vixin]

And there would have been a firestorm on this side if we had been told this truth.

Sad thing is the union knew about it.

 

[Tripower455]

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

We were told the same thing, and voted accordingly.

Had we all known about the loss of 2/3 of AT's airframes, the vote would've gone a lot differently on our side. I bet the vote would've been the same on the AT side though.