AirTran thoughts on Kelly's Disposal of SL10

[Skyboy722]

This is a section 1 scope issue, and the sticker idea won't work, as WN does not have a 717 program. They would need it all; training program, mx program, flt ops, manuals, the whole nine yards. Not as simple as giving them all WN ID's and slapping a sticker on the plane.

 

[FIREMAN]

This is a section 1 scope issue, and the sticker idea won't work, as WN does not have a 717 program. They would need it all; training program, mx program, flt ops, manuals, the whole nine yards. Not as simple as giving them all WN ID's and slapping a sticker on the plane.

The plan approved by the FFA before SOC had SWA B717 after 12/31/2014.

 

[Bake]

What does the Future Farmers of America (FFA) have to do with any of this? I knew it, the sheep screwers would mess it all up.

 

[FIREMAN]

What does the Future Farmers of America (FFA) have to do with any of this? I knew it, the sheep screwers would mess it all up.

That is where GK got all the BS in this whole debacal.

 

[runfast]

At what point do the two pilot groups realize that there are real advantages to be joined together under one union? There have been a lot of fences built during this process , most of which are going to need relief from one side or another to get some of these problems solved. Nobody wins with a B scale, indefinite domestic code share, etc....

 

[ASADFW7]

As I see it, if SL-10 is not honored by SWA, then the SLI is not valid at the day it is violated. On January 2, 2015, all AAI pilot not SWA pilots will have to be renegotiated into the SWA seniority list. Why would the SLI still be used once it is violated?

 

[GIZMONC]

This was posted on another blog site:

FROM SWAPA PRESIDENT:

Fellow SWAPA Pilots,

Hot summer. Hot airplanes. Hot topics.

Since the announcement of the 717 deal with Delta, Gary has made several public statements that have raised questions about the Company's intent to comply with provisions in our Collective Bargaining Agreement. As you recall, Side Letter 10 requires that all AirTran pilots be transitioned to Southwest Airlines, and that the AirTran side of the partition cease to exist no later than December 31, 2014. Effective January 1, 2015 all pilots (both Southwest and Airtran) will be working under one contract; the SWAPA contract will be in effect on that date. All provisions of our contract will apply to the entire fleet and pilot group.

As a result of the Company's agreement with Delta to transfer all but 36 717s by the end of 2014, I sent a letter to Gary asking specifically if their intent was to comply with the contract, and the deadline to complete the transition. Gary responded promptly and confirmed to me that the remaining AirTran aircraft would be transitioned after the December 31, 2014 deadline. To be more specific, he stated it was their "present intent and desire to retain the 717s in the AirTran fleet until they are transitioned to Delta, a process that should be completed by the end of 2015."

I believe it is crucial that our contract is honored; all of it including SL 10. While I certainly believe that we may be able to find a mutually agreeable solution to this complex problem, at this time we are not in agreement and the Company has offered no solution regarding their intent to not comply with SL 10. Our contract uses words like "shall" and "will", not "should" for the same reason the Company used those words in areas where they demand compliance. Absent a membership-ratified solution, the Company must comply with our CBA, to include Side Letter 10.

We felt this matter deserved your attention. Know that SWAPA is exercising diligence in addressing this issue. As developments arise, we will keep you updated in a timely manner.
Fly safe,

 

[Kharma Police]

At what point do the two pilot groups realize that there are real advantages to be joined together under one union? There have been a lot of fences built during this process , most of which are going to need relief from one side or another to get some of these problems solved. Nobody wins with a B scale, indefinite domestic code share, etc....

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

 

[Lear70]

As I see it, if SL-10 is not honored by SWA, then the SLI is not valid at the day it is violated. On January 2, 2015, all AAI pilot not SWA pilots will have to be renegotiated into the SWA seniority list. Why would the SLI still be used once it is violated?

Because I designed it that way.

No, seriously.

We had just come back from reaching the Agreement In Principle and we were hammering out small details in the union office over the phone with SWA and SWAPA just two days before the MEC meeting to announce the deal specifics and it occurred to me that, with the ORIGINAL wording of the Seniority Integration Agreement, on 1/1/15, EVERYTHING dropped dead, including the non-furlough clause, no probation for AAI pilots, all of it.

Like I've said before, I always thought the transition schedule was optimistic given then international piece of the equation and Southwest's reluctance to use an outside vendor, and questioned the feasibility of a 1/1/15 completion date from the beginning with the way they wanted to do the transition.

I immediately went in to the Merger Committee's room (the NC and MC were working separately on our pieces of the presentation) and pointed out the glaring flaw in the language and quickly wrote the extra piece that says "on 1/1/15 OR WHEN THE LAST AIRTRAN PILOT TRANSITIONS TO SOUTHWEST, whichever happens LATER". Jack then conference called with Russ McCrady who then called SWAPA. They talked among themselves while we were on hold, then came back and agreed to it; it was the last piece of the puzzle before final documents were signed and faxed back and forth and originals FedEx'd.

As a result, we now have an agreement with an inviolability clause that says several things, but among them:

1. If one piece of the agreement is found by arbitration or lawsuit to be illegal, the rest of the agreement will still stand. One successfully-challenged issue doesn't negate the rest of the agreement, which is standard legalese in almost every contract across all industries and segments these days.

2. The items that were mutually-agreed by all three parties cannot be modified by any later negotiations solely between SWA and SWAPA or SWA and AAI ALPA; it takes all 3 parties to change ANYTHING in the Agreement unless very SPECIFICALLY stated otherwise (like the extension of the 1/1/15 date - SWA and SWAPA control that alone, AAI ALPA isn't a party to EXTEND that date).

3. On 1/1/15, if the transition isn't done, the Agreement remains in force until the last AAI pilot transitions, which includes a no-furlough clause, and the ability to transition as a CA if their seniority can then hold it since SL10 has a specific expiration date attached to that preclusion.

The Agreement is what the Agreement is. By all means, enforce your Scope language, but you won't harm any AAI pilots in the process. We specifically designed it that way as much as we possibly could. I'm still a little shocked that the "ideas" being offered by SWA pilots still hammer AAI pilots again and again rather than coming up with ideas that require management to fix the issue THEY created.

We're going to have to work together for a long, long time to come. How about coming up with ideas that don't screw the other group?

Just a thought.

 

[fam62c]

There won't be any seats to bid, as I understand it. No flush bid.

I'm also betting on 20-30 international 737's on 1/1/2015, but who knows?

That would be interesting because after 1/1/15 AT pilots can bid SW vacancies without restriction. As SW guys retire AT 737 pilots may choose to bid to the SW side for better schedules, pay credit, bases and QOL in general. While it's true that after 1/1/15 AT pilots will have the SW contract some pilots may not want to stay on the AT side as it winds down and as it stands now there is nothing to require them to do so. SW might have a problem if they have international ops still on the AT side after 1/1/15.

Time for the AT folks to just sit back and give this situation some time rather than being too quick to agree to give SW more flexibility. SW created this situation, let them stew in it for awhile. The AT guys are on the list and that can't be changed so the big gun has been removed for the heads of the AT pilots. No reason to play ball if you aren't allowed to be part of the team, don't sell Manhattan for beads

 

[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...