AirTran thoughts on Kelly's Disposal of SL10

[humveedriver]

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-

Since we are on different sides of a partition here Wave, I think FI has actually been somewhat useful. Our mantra at Aitran has been to try to keep the pilots informed and involved as much as practical. Nothing says I care about my airline and future like a big vote turn out. I think you meant no need to turn this into us vs. them, but I'm glad I can come on FI and know that some of my future SWA brethren grasp what is going on during the transition. Many times on the j/s all I hear is the pay checks keep coming type stuff.

 

[scoreboardII]

Well, your employed by SWA, if you vote to have SWAPA rep you, I can't see how SWAPA would say no, can you?

 

[texman]

I have a question? Lear, is AT's fragmentation clause still being triggered? If the 36 717's are still on the other side in 2015 and 30% of that flying is reduced drastically. Doesnt that trigger it? Are you guys doing the math? A friend brought this question up agian.

 

[Lear70]

Well, your employed by SWA, if you vote to have SWAPA rep you, I can't see how SWAPA would say no, can you?

Yes, I can.

Until we are recognized by the NMB as a single, collective bargaining unit under one recognized entity (SWAPA), we are two different unions. The method for doing that is a Single Carrier Filing which, in the SIA, there's a provision that says both unions will, without delay after DOCC and obtaining Single Carrier Status recognition from the FAA, apply for a Single Carrier Status.

That said, the issue with that is, as you pointed out, if we do that now you have SWAPA being responsible to maintain the AAI CBA and represent the AirTran pilots fairly while simultaneously trying to represent the SWAPA pilots. In some scenarios, those representation issues might line up and might, in some cases, be seen as a conflict of interest.

You can't have two unions representing one pilot group, so it wouldn't be SWAPA maintaining an ALPA representational structure, you'd have to have ATL and MCO AAI pilots join the SWAPA BoD by the same process you vote other bases in and elect committees to maintain our CBA (like our current Contract Compliance committee, Scheduling Committee, Medical, etc,) since all our issues are unfamiliar to most of your reps.

I'm not sure SWAPA wants to bite off on that until most of our pilots have transitioned and most (if not all) of these transitional issues that keep coming up have been ironed out and there's little to do on our side of the fence.

Until then, we could TRY to file it from our side, but until at least 50% of our pilots have transitioned, I'm told that's a losing battle if SWAPA doesn't want to take us yet. PCL could probably explain it better than I am. I know the basics of why, but being Negotiating and Contract Compliance oriented, it's outside my experience base.

 

[Lear70]

I have a question? Lear, is AT's fragmentation clause still being triggered? If the 36 717's are still on the other side in 2015 and 30% of that flying is reduced drastically. Doesnt that trigger it? Are you guys doing the math? A friend brought this question up agian.

Yes, it's triggered in 2014.

Yes, SWA management has agreed that it was triggered. They have, however, said that they made their "best efforts" and that Delta didn't want the pilots with the planes, said they didn't want to have a whole new seniority integration when the dust is still settling from the last one.

They have not, however, been specific about what their "COMMERCIAL best effort" was, despite our requests. Therefore, it is likely that a contract complaint will be filed with management to retain our rights per the CBA and see if management will be more forthcoming about what, exactly, their "COMMERCIAL best effort" was, which by definition, means they have to have do more than just say "please".

However, as PCL has said before, you can't force Delta to take the pilots, as they are not party to our CBA. You also can't make Southwest undo the 717 deal, the NMB does not have jurisdiction over a civil contract outside the RLA (the 717 Agreement between Southwest and Delta).

We'll probably still be talking about this 6 months or more from now waiting for an arbitration date but I can almost guarantee that the solution won't be an integration of our 717 pilots to Delta and we'll all still be coming to Southwest.

 

[texman]

Thx Lear. Did SWA say this before the Delta TA or after?

 

[Lear70]

I don't know the exact timeline, but I'm told that it was unofficially stated to us during the Delta TA voting and recently more formally acknowledged after the voting was done and the deal was finalized.

 

[PCL_128]

Well, your employed by SWA, if you vote to have SWAPA rep you, I can't see how SWAPA would say no, can you?

Lear is correct. The NMB simply isn't going to recognize SWAPA as our bargaining agent until SWAPA says that they want to be our bargaining agent. And right now, they don't want that. Maybe if you guys throw Steve Chase out on his ass this fall, that position will change.

 

[scoreboardII]

I don't think SWAPA doesn't want to represent AT pilots, it's that they don't want to represent ALPA pilots, that is all.

As I said, easiest way forward is for all AT to vote to accept SWAPA as their union. yes, some small hurdles remain, but until AT pilots accept SWAPA, I don't see why or more importantly how SWAPA should/could be forced into representing AT pilots who are not SWAPA pilots.

 

[scoreboardII]

Yes, I can.

Until we are recognized by the NMB as a single, collective bargaining unit under one recognized entity (SWAPA), we are two different unions. The method for doing that is a Single Carrier Filing which, in the SIA, there's a provision that says both unions will, without delay after DOCC and obtaining Single Carrier Status recognition from the FAA, apply for a Single Carrier Status.

That said, the issue with that is, as you pointed out, if we do that now you have SWAPA being responsible to maintain the AAI CBA and represent the AirTran pilots fairly while simultaneously trying to represent the SWAPA pilots. In some scenarios, those representation issues might line up and might, in some cases, be seen as a conflict of interest.

You can't have two unions representing one pilot group, so it wouldn't be SWAPA maintaining an ALPA representational structure, you'd have to have ATL and MCO AAI pilots join the SWAPA BoD by the same process you vote other bases in and elect committees to maintain our CBA (like our current Contract Compliance committee, Scheduling Committee, Medical, etc,) since all our issues are unfamiliar to most of your reps.

I'm not sure SWAPA wants to bite off on that until most of our pilots have transitioned and most (if not all) of these transitional issues that keep coming up have been ironed out and there's little to do on our side of the fence.

Until then, we could TRY to file it from our side, but until at least 50% of our pilots have transitioned, I'm told that's a losing battle if SWAPA doesn't want to take us yet. PCL could probably explain it better than I am. I know the basics of why, but being Negotiating and Contract Compliance oriented, it's outside my experience base.

Lear, you are either SWAPA or you are not, period.

I see your point, you guys want to maintain your rights, fine, with that desire comes the fact SWAPA wants nothing to do with a group of AT pilots with a contract counter to their CBA. The only path forward is to cut lose from the old and vote in SWAPA as the sole representative agent.