AirTran thoughts on Kelly's Disposal of SL10

[OldManPilot]

Fam63c... Well said.

 

[madjack]

It seems to me that GK is trying to avoid transitioning the AT 717s remaining on the property after 01JAN15. (the 20ish int AT 737s remaining after 2015 has not been publicly acknowledged...yet...and is probably not what the company wants to have transpire)...so can a SWA pilot fly the non-transitioned 717 (all FAT will be SWA pilots on 01JAN2015 as per SL10)? That may be a violation of our CBA/SL10. In which case a grievance and/or negotiations will take place....the question is what will SWAPA mbrship want in exchange for having SWA pilots fly AAI 717s post 01JAN2015.

As pointed out the announcement of AAI 717s going to DL was considered a win by SWAPA for RSW pilots in that more upgrades would be happening on the SWA side prior to 01JAN2015. That in hindsight was unwise. Now the RSW pilots have expectations that may not be met...

The post 01JAN2015 scenario in which a 717 CP remains a CP even though his global seniority would not allow him/her to hold CP will cause a s&*t storm on the RSW side...this could be addressed by mgmt paying bypass pay to the RSW FOs who are senior to the remaining 717 CPs post 01JAN2015. This would put pressure on the company to dismantle the alter ego airline ASAP (get the 717s to DL)...will it happen...normally I would say NEVER but this acq. is now so F'd up it may...

 

[waveflyer]

Obviously, there's a problem.
Let's say you guys all work it out on FI. Does that change the problem in any way?
Either volunteer with the unions, or just let the pilots and managers responsible for this handle it. Either way- sounds like you guys are counting grains of sand in a beach. Total waste of time-

 

[SWA Bubba]

The Real Southwest Pilots voted down single representation a few months ago. Wish you posted this earlier.......

Actually, Kharma, we voted down three amendments to our SWAPA constitution, one of which dealt with this issue. However, the amendment dealing with Airtran pilots was not to effect single representation, but rather how to deal with a second pilot group if single representation was either asked for or mandated. Some people voted 'no' due to concerns that the language was bad on its face, and might create a DFR issue by itself. At least that argument was made on the internal forum.

My personal opinion is that it got voted down due to bad timing more than anything else. All three amendments were soundly defeated (by around 70% 'no' voting, as I recall) at a time when the pilot group was pissed and mistrustful of the union for a series of unrelated self-crank-stepping incidents. Plus, one of the amendments was especially onerous (it created a mechanism to "punish" SWAPA members, and its language was too ambiguous for a lot of people to stomach), and I suspect that probably added to the general mood during that voting cycle.

At any rate, having or not having that particular amendment (dealing with a second pilot group) had, and still has, nothing to do with either SWAPA representing or not representing pilots on the Airtran side of the partition. It was just a 'framework' of how to do it, when and if that day came. You guys can still ask, or the NLRB can still mandate that SWAPA represent pilots on the Airtran side with their different CBA (that's what we were being told: that at some point with the Airtran partition at a certain small size, SWAPA could be "forced" by NLRB to represent those pilots). If it DOES happen, we'd just have to figure out how to do it then.

Kharma, you seem to be one of the more reasonable guys on this forum; I just didn't want you to think that the Southwest pilots voted to "screw" your guys. That vote has nothing to do with single representation, and was more a backlash at SWAPA than anything else.

Bubba

 

[Tripower455]

Bubba, thanks for saying exactly what i was gonna say, but not nearly as eloquently as you did.....

That vote had nothing to do with the AT guys. Period.

 

[75M]

...this could be addressed by mgmt paying bypass pay to the RSW FOs who are senior to the remaining 717 CPs post 01JAN2015. This would put pressure on the company to dismantle the alter ego airline ASAP (get the 717s to DL)...

Now we're talking. A win-win scenario for both pilot groups. This is the type of solution that needs to be pushed by SWAPA and ALPA from here on out.

 

[madjack]

News flash: FI is a waste of time period...but u know this wave

 

[waveflyer]

Venting and a place to test out ideas without your name blatantly attached.
But there is a difference between healthy venting and unhealthy.

 

[scoreboardII]

This single union, single voice call could be accomplished easily if the AT side votes to leave ALPA and become SWAPA. Simple process, simple results. While I am not anti-AT pilot in the least (you guys have been screwed as well), this is a note to say I don't want SWAPA money being used to run an ALPA union, sorry.

 

[Lear70]

This single union, single voice call could be accomplished easily if the AT side votes to leave ALPA and become SWAPA. Simple process, simple results. While I am not anti-AT pilot in the least (you guys have been screwed as well), this is a note to say I don't want SWAPA money being used to run an ALPA union, sorry.

SWAPA would also have to agree to represent us. You can't have a vote for representation if the representational organization doesn't WANT to represent you...