AirTran thoughts on Kelly's Disposal of SL10

[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.

 

[scoreboardII]

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.

What if SWA said "pretty please with sugar on top?" You guys need to realize, thats how the game is played over here.

Barring that, I am interested what you would define as an acceptable "best commercial effort". Does it mean paying them huge sums of money? Giving them jets for free? Just curious what that losely defined directive means from your side. To mean it means "please take them". they say "no", SWA says "we tried, end of story on commercial best effort".

 

[Lear70]

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.

It just doesn't work like that. I don't know how else to say it. We could vote in SWAPA all day long but until SWAPA says yes, we won't be represented by SWAPA.

Additionally, there's already a drop-dead date that we are under the SWAPA CBA anyway (1/1/15), so it's basically a back-stop for that to happen by then anyway.

You can't just vote out a union without either a.) becoming a non-union pilot group until you vote in a new union (which is insanely stupid on a level I can't even begin to explain) OR b.) you have a new bargaining agent lined up who DOES want to take you, you start a card drive, get enough signatures, then have a vote. That's how we went from NPA to ALPA.

You do NOT want to be unrepresented by a bargaining agent... ever... someday the JB pilots are going to figure that out the hard way if they're not careful. Not in this industry.

The mechanism is simple. SWAPA needs to agree to take on the AAI pilots and then, after the I's are dotted and T's are crossed, ALPA is voted out, SWAPA is voted in, and the existing AAI CBA remains in effect until either A.) they're no longer employed by AAI but by SWA or B.) 1/1/15 automatically does it for us.

Barring that, I am interested what you would define as an acceptable "best commercial effort". Does it mean paying them huge sums of money? Giving them jets for free? Just curious what that losely defined directive means from your side. To me it means "please take them". they say "no", SWA says "we tried, end of story on commercial best effort".

No, it's not that simple and no, I'm not going to have this conversation right now when it's the basis of our grievance. Legal agreed that the basis behind the grievance has merit. Therefore it's being moved forward and if you look at the wording, the word "Commercial" has a meaning, it didn't just say "best effort", it said "COMMERCIAL best effort". It said that for a reason, which was to preclude the scenario you describe here.

They have to do a lot better than simply "Please" and be told "No." That's as much as I can or will say about it until the grievance is heard or resolved, whichever happens first.

 

[dicko]

Many times on the j/s all I hear is the pay checks keep coming type stuff.

I hear you.

Wierd thing, and I'm sure that 'Wave' et al will be shocked.Every year around this time I watched the Hurricanes march west from the South Atlantic. Wondering if the company would make a profit that might hinge upon an uneventful season.

Not so much anymore. That's a good thing.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear, Your union transfer position is understandable now, maybe after reading it three times I understand it now. I still say, until you vote SWAPA in, SWAPA won't want to play, which was a basis for the resounding failure in their attempt to push through their version of how they should run a second union. You guys would not have liked it.

Understand the caution on no discussions for the greivance, best of luck, we're all in this together. However, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/commercially-reasonable-efforts/

seeing as the definition of "commercially best effort" has a much lower bar than just "best effort". You just admitted Delta has no obligation to take pilots, and SWA has only a reasonable best effort to try. They asked, Delta said no, I see no case. But good luck.

 

[redflyer65]

I hear you.

Wierd thing, and I'm sure that 'Wave' et al will be shocked.Every year around this time I watched the Hurricanes march west from the South Atlantic. Wondering if the company would make a profit that might hinge upon an uneventful season.

Not so much anymore. That's a good thing.

Dicko,

Your going to like it here. I'm sorry for the delay, but the future here is still going to be good when this is all over and we are all pulling together.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, Your union transfer position is understandable now, maybe after reading it three times I understand it now. I still say, until you vote SWAPA in, SWAPA won't want to play, which was a basis for the resounding failure in their attempt to push through their version of how they should run a second union. You guys would not have liked it.

Oh no, I agree with you completely, what they had in mind sucked and sucked badly for us, I'm glad it died.

Personally, with no 717 to negotiate for in Sec 6, I really don't see the point of being represented by SWAPA yet UNLESS it came with pay parity and an IMMEDIATE snap-up to your CBA rather than waiting for 1/1/15.

As it stands now, there's no reason to think that our issues would be any better-resolved with SWAPA taking them to SWA management versus us doing it. They're actually handling most of our lower-level grievances MUCH better than prior management, and the process of getting things to arbitration is no longer stonewalled, but actively moved along expeditiously.

I just don't see what the benefit is of having SWAPA try to manage our CBA right now without upcoming Sec 6 to worry about. Sure, it would be nice to pay slightly less dues, but I kind of like having our people who know our CBA representing us to SWA management, especially when we're still dickering over SIA issues, but that's just me.

That said, if SWAPA came up with a FAIR way of representing us by taking over representation and it passed vote with the SWA pilots, I have no doubt it would pass vote here, and that's the way we put it together in the SIA.

Understand the caution on no discussions for the greivance, best of luck, we're all in this together. However, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/commercially-reasonable-efforts/

seeing as the definition of "commercially best effort" has a much lower bar than just "best effort". You just admitted Delta has no obligation to take pilots, and SWA has only a reasonable best effort to try. They asked, Delta said no, I see no case. But good luck.

You're on the right track...

You're absolutely right that Delta has no obligation to take the pilots, but there's a very simple litmus test that our management's "Commercial best effort" had to pass. If they provide the negotiating notes and specifics and we find that they did as measured against that very simple test, then the grievance dies. If they didn't...

And by the way, you're using a civil definition in a RLA case. The question you should be asking is, "Has "commercial best effort" ever been defined in terms of the RLA and what impact does it have on the offer Southwest should have made to Delta to take the pilots?"

Not that the definition is exclusionary by any means, just that it's not all-encompassing in the grievance world.

It's not cheap to pursue a grievance, around $25k at a minimum if it has to go all the way to arbitration, and it's by no means my "personally-filed" grievance; it's an MEC grievance, meaning legal is looking at pursuing it on behalf of the entire pilot group. They wouldn't be looking into it and won't throw that money out there if they don't think there was a fairly good chance of it bearing fruit.

We'll see what the initial complaint and filing turns up in terms of background information on this part of the deal. We may have nothing... or we might. Don't know until you press forward and see what they did or didn't do in their negotiations.

 

[humveedriver]

Looks like AirTran not being represented by SWAPA at this time is a good thing with regard to DFR. Once the way forward regarding the 717 has been ironed out, I look forward to getting this business behind us. It only makes sense that the two pilot groups have single representation by 2014, and we don't wait for the fall back date of 1 JAN 2015 to take control of our futures.

 

[scoreboardII]

Oh no, I agree with you completely, what they had in mind sucked and sucked badly for us, I'm glad it died.

Personally, with no 717 to negotiate for in Sec 6, I really don't see the point of being represented by SWAPA yet UNLESS it came with pay parity and an IMMEDIATE snap-up to your CBA rather than waiting for 1/1/15.

As it stands now, there's no reason to think that our issues would be any better-resolved with SWAPA taking them to SWA management versus us doing it. They're actually handling most of our lower-level grievances MUCH better than prior management, and the process of getting things to arbitration is no longer stonewalled, but actively moved along expeditiously.

I just don't see what the benefit is of having SWAPA try to manage our CBA right now without upcoming Sec 6 to worry about. Sure, it would be nice to pay slightly less dues, but I kind of like having our people who know our CBA representing us to SWA management, especially when we're still dickering over SIA issues, but that's just me.

That said, if SWAPA came up with a FAIR way of representing us by taking over representation and it passed vote with the SWA pilots, I have no doubt it would pass vote here, and that's the way we put it together in the SIA.


You're on the right track...

You're absolutely right that Delta has no obligation to take the pilots, but there's a very simple litmus test that our management's "Commercial best effort" had to pass. If they provide the negotiating notes and specifics and we find that they did as measured against that very simple test, then the grievance dies. If they didn't...

And by the way, you're using a civil definition in a RLA case. The question you should be asking is, "Has "commercial best effort" ever been defined in terms of the RLA and what impact does it have on the offer Southwest should have made to Delta to take the pilots?"

Not that the definition is exclusionary by any means, just that it's not all-encompassing in the grievance world.

It's not cheap to pursue a grievance, around $25k at a minimum if it has to go all the way to arbitration, and it's by no means my "personally-filed" grievance; it's an MEC grievance, meaning legal is looking at pursuing it on behalf of the entire pilot group. They wouldn't be looking into it and won't throw that money out there if they don't think there was a fairly good chance of it bearing fruit.

We'll see what the initial complaint and filing turns up in terms of background information on this part of the deal. We may have nothing... or we might. Don't know until you press forward and see what they did or didn't do in their negotiations.

OK, but please provide us the details on what is found, thanks.

 

[Lear70]

Will do.

It may be weeks or even a month or two before we have any more information; it all depends on whether they really did make a serious "Commercial best effort" or if they simply asked and were told No and how long it takes to get that information and vet it.

 

[Crash Pad]

Wait the hang up was the seniority integration? Most of us are buried at SWA with 20 year upgrades. A staple at Delta is a ten year upgrade. Pay is the same as SWA, give or take, why is my union so bad at this.