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...

 

[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.