AirTran MEC: Whine on!

[Ty Webb]

.....

 

[maxblast72]

Yes, please go over, we are tired of your BS over here.

Actually, the benefit is we will get to stay at AirTran a little longer. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[737tanker]

The AT MEC isn't supposed to communicate with it's membership?

The AT MEC can communicate all they want but if they believe that their contract has been violate they would be better off filing a grievance. Sending a letter to the membership won't get SWA to change what they are doing.

 

[B73av8r]

Actually, the benefit is we will get to stay at AirTran a little longer. Sorry to disappoint.

Oh your previous and continued actions combined with what you did to the Airtran pilot group have gone way beyond disappointment.

 

[PCL_128]

The AT MEC can communicate all they want but if they believe that their contract has been violate they would be better off filing a grievance. Sending a letter to the membership won't get SWA to change what they are doing.

The equivalent of a grievance has already been filed through the DRA process. The SWAPA crybabies refused to hear anything of it, claiming that AirTran pilots didn't have access to the DRA process. So we went to a different arbitration to force SWAPA to act like adults and acknowledge that people on both sides of the partition have access to the DRA process. An answer should come from that arbitrator soon, and then we'll proceed with the real arbitration that would have happened last year if Steve Chase hadn't had so much sand up his vagina.

 

[madjack]

The angry 27 AAI guys are back...crying all the way to the bank...

 

[redflyer65]

I'm glad the mighty ALPA is stepping in to right the wrongs. Yawn.

Talk about blowhards. How's that 2800 dollar dinner going to be expensed? Maybe just say it was all Avian water.

 

[737tanker]

The equivalent of a grievance has already been filed through the DRA process. The SWAPA crybabies refused to hear anything of it, claiming that AirTran pilots didn't have access to the DRA process. So we went to a different arbitration to force SWAPA to act like adults and acknowledge that people on both sides of the partition have access to the DRA process. An answer should come from that arbitrator soon, and then we'll proceed with the real arbitration that would have happened last year if Steve Chase hadn't had so much sand up his vagina.

You do realize that ship has sailed as no arbitrator can redo the seniority list. So other than a redo of the SLI just what is it that you are hoping to get out of arbitration?

 

[Tripower455]

You do realize that ship has sailed as no arbitrator can redo the seniority list. So other than a redo of the SLI just what is it that you are hoping to get out of arbitration?

They are (rightfully) ticked off that the deal changed after the 717 went away. They bid thinking that they were staying on the property much longer than they are now. Making up for their loss of pay due to much lower line totals until 1/1/15 isn't too much to ask for, IMHO.

As for the possibility of redoing the list via arbitration.... The AT folks are not bringing anywhere near as many seats to the party as they were when "we", overwhelmingly, agreed to this SLI.

Supposing we go to arbitration to redo the SLI, then wouldn't the lack of 717s be considered by the arbitrator too? What % of the AT fleet was comprised of 717s? More than 51%?

Would Bond McCaskill have even been a consideration if we knew about the 717s going away before the SLI?

Oh, and PCL, why do you even care? You're not coming over anyway, right?

 

[27 driver]

They are (rightfully) ticked off that the deal changed after the 717 went away. They bid thinking that they were staying on the property much longer than they are now. Making up for their loss of pay due to much lower line totals until 1/1/15 isn't too much to ask for, IMHO.

As for the possibility of redoing the list via arbitration.... The AT folks are not bringing anywhere near as many seats to the party as they were when "we", overwhelmingly, agreed to this SLI.

Supposing we go to arbitration to redo the SLI, then wouldn't the lack of 717s be considered by the arbitrator too? What % of the AT fleet was comprised of 717s? More than 51%?

Would Bond McCaskill have even been a consideration if we knew about the 717s going away before the SLI?

Oh, and PCL, why do you even care? You're not coming over anyway, right?

I don't think we are trying to get a redo on the SLI. That is what it is. I think it has more to do with capt seats, displacement rights, etc. The list won't be changed. For the bottom half of the AAI list the DRC won't make much if any difference at all.
I don't think Bond Mckaskil has anything to do with this particular arbitration. Many have already transitioned. That ship has sailed as well.
Time to sit back and watch the show. We should find out if it will even go to arbitration in the next few weeks. The wheels turn slow.