AirTran MEC: Whine on!

[roughneck]

No, our last vote gave us 510 captain seats on the 717 with atl and tpa as bases. That was what WE voted for.

It gave you exactly the number of captain seats required to fill the 717 until 2015. If there are no 717's you have no seats. That is what you voted for.

 

[scoreboardII]

didn't this get covered two years ago? One year ago? Six months ago?

 

[Britpilot]

Yuuuuuup!

Phred

That's what you voted for.

 

[fletch717]

It gave you exactly the number of captain seats required to fill the 717 until 2015. If there are no 717's you have no seats. That is what you voted for.

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.

 

[PCL_128]

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.

Eh, I'm not so sure. People were voting purely out of fear, so if they knew the outcome of the 717s, they probably would have been even more afraid and would have voted the same way.

 

[roughneck]

Eh, I'm not so sure. People were voting purely out of fear, so if they knew the outcome of the 717s, they probably would have been even more afraid and would have voted the same way.

So quit whining, you get what you vote for and in this case it is SWA 737 FO.

 

[roughneck]

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.

If there was a promise of aircraft it would have been included in the deal. It wasn't because there were no promises. What was included in the deal was the plan for who would get the captain seats if there were no 717's prior to 2015. Those captain seats go to pre-merger SWA pilots. That is what you voted on. That is what is happening now.

 

[PCL_128]

So quit whining, you get what you vote for and in this case it is SWA 737 FO.

No, that's not what I voted for.

 

[Ty Webb]

It gave you exactly the number of captain seats required to fill the 717 until 2015. If there are no 717's you have no seats. That is what you voted for.

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.

 

[Tripower455]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[27 driver]

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.

It probably would have passed by a smaller margin but it would have passed. The transition bid would looked considerably different though. The whole bid was a farce.

 

[doh]

That is a question. Why don't they redo the transition bid? That would at least let people plan for the new reality.

 

[fam62c]

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.

The minimum number of crews for a TPA base was negotiated? What written agreement is that in? What written agreement mentions TPA anywhere? Do you mean TBA....which could have been anywhere SW wanted it to be?

 

[ATLplt]

I bet the vote would've been the same on the AT side though.

Any why do you think that would be the case?

 

[Phlintstone]

The minimum number of crews for a TPA base was negotiated? What written agreement is that in? What written agreement mentions TPA anywhere? Do you mean TBA....which could have been anywhere SW wanted it to be?

SLI1 had negotiated overnight crews for ATL but none in SLI2 that I recall. TPA was never negotiated, it was 717TBA. TPA was announced prior to the vote though.

Phred

 

[Tripower455]

Any why do you think that would be the case?

I that case, I believe that 2/3 of the AT guys would've been even more worried about keeping their jobs, and rightfully so, since effectively, SW is only integrating roughly 1/3 of the aircraft.

The SW guys would've viewed it as a partial asset purchase, which, as it turns out, is effectively the case with the departure of the 717s (WRT SLI stuff). IIRC, this wouldn't trigger the Bond McCaskill SLI provisions.

You guys thought you had a "gun to your head" when 100% of your AC were coming over, how would you have felt knowing that 2/3 of the AC weren't going from the beginning?

"Synergies" and other Kompany BS aside, this SLI leaves us grossly overmanned. I sincerely hope I am wrong, and the company starts putting some more AC on the ramp to replace the lost airframes.

 

[Just thinking]

"WHEREAS, on September 26 , 2010, Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) and AirTran
Holdings, Inc., parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc. (together “AirTran”) entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, under the Merger Agreement, effective on the Merger Closing Date,
Southwest – through a series of simultaneous transactions - will acquire all of the stock of
AirTran and AirTran will become a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Southwest,
conditioned on approval of the shareholders of AirTran, receipt of regulatory clearance, and customary closing conditions; and
WHEREAS, the McCaskill-Bond Act provides that in the event of a transaction between
air carriers in which one air carrier acquires fifty (50) percent or more of the stock of
another air carrier in a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a
single air carrier, the seniority lists of the employees of the air carriers shall be integrated pursuant to the provisions set out in Sections 3 and 13 of the CAB’s decision in Allegheny-Mohawk, 59 CAB 22 (1972); "...............

silly little thing that said 50% or more of the stock triggered the MB

 

[HowardBorden]

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.

I will concede that you were originally told that the 717's would remain until 2017 if you will concede that GK changed that tune after AIP1 was not sent to membership ratification. Prior to the vote you were told there was a distinct possibility that the 717 would exit much more quickly.

The presentation to AirTran pilots notes that Southwest executives briefed union leadership on Plan B after the first deal was rejected. Executives said Southwest must reexamine its options due to a softening economy, high jet fuel costs and "unforeseen difficulties with AirTran integration." Those issues include "difficulty weaning" AirTran from $200 million a year in revenue from baggage fees and difficulty integrating AirTran's Boeing 717s, according to the presentation.


http://www.ajc.com/news/business/southwest-raises-possibility-of-alternate-plan-for/nQMdG/

 

[j41driver]

5th and 20th, 5th and 20th...

 

[27 driver]

IIRC the 717's staying intil 2017 and beyond was because the first deal was not put out to vote therefore AAI pilots not receiving SWA wages. That's what made the 717's a little more cost effective. That's when the ATL 717 and TBA 717 base became more important to AAI pilots. That's why the transition bid turned out how it did. Many 737 capt's bid to go to and were awarded the 717 to remain in the left seat. My memory may be a bit fuzzy though.