Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

An outsiders view of the ALPA/SWAPA story

  • Thread starter Thread starter CLCAP
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 13

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Your proposal doesn't provide a full accounting of the value difference between the two companies. AT pilots left for swa. True- but thousands more wouldn't leave the military or their regional for AT even though it was attainable.
There is no way to exactly account for it- doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

Should the fact that Air Tran was purchased with profits we helped earn have any effect on the SLI? Since we're talking capitalism...
 
Your proposal doesn't provide a full accounting of the value difference between the two companies. AT pilots left for swa. True- but thousands more wouldn't leave the military or their regional for AT even though it was attainable.
There is no way to exactly account for it- doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

Should the fact that Air Tran was purchased with profits we helped earn have any effect on the SLI? Since we're talking capitalism...

Please use that as evidence in your possible arbitration hearings upcoming. I hope they post the reactions online, and they won't need laugh tracks. Same happened with Colgan. How did they do in arbitration?



OYS
 
Last edited:
OYS- at long last: shut the f^ck up- nobody on either side cares what you think
 
they got bought.

this seems to be a part of the equation so many overlook. whether intentionally or accidentally i don't know, but this is business. there is a time for hugs and all that good warm fuzzy crap, but sorry, this ain't the time. that's what sl9 was about. seems like there were enough pissed people on both side that it was just about right.

he who has the gold makes the rules.
 
this seems to be a part of the equation so many overlook. whether intentionally or accidentally i don't know, but this is business. there is a time for hugs and all that good warm fuzzy crap, but sorry, this ain't the time. that's what sl9 was about. seems like there were enough pissed people on both side that it was just about right.

he who has the gold makes the rules.

No, that was done away with thanks to the Bond/McKaskill legislation. You can't just staple. Also, all parties seemed to sign the Process Agreement, which outlines the next steps.


OYS
 
Last edited:
No, that was done away with thanks to the Bond/McKaskill legislation. You just can't do what you want. You can't just staple. Also, all parties seemed to sign the Process Agreement, which outlines the next steps. But, there could be a negotiated settlement prior to that, I guess.


OYS

if you are saying b/m prevents stapling, period, i believe that's wrong. what is "fair and equitable" in one situation may not apply in another. to say there is never a time when a staple could/would be fair we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
MEC vote became a failed attempt for SWAPA to swing the vote of individual pilots via scare tactics.

Don't be saving those 1742 FedEx "fear" packages, you not gonna need them.

Fly-By,

If and when Gary pulls the complete plug on AAI, you still going to be coming on here posting 'Scare Tactics'. If you really don't think he's considering it, your either not that sharp or not listening up.

RF
 
Fly-By,

If and when Gary pulls the complete plug on AAI, you still going to be coming on here posting 'Scare Tactics'. If you really don't think he's considering it, your either not that sharp or not listening up.

RF


I think you boys better start getting ready for the unthinkable then attempting to say "no" when Gary tells SWAPA, "sorry boys, we signed it and a deal is a deal!" I know Steve Chase won't have the stones to do it, so drop the tough guy act.

Gary signed, so SWAPA can whine!
 
Last edited:
Clap

The SWA posters that whine about arbitration remind me of my ex wife whining that our counselor does not take her side. If you have a valid argument - why not test it by having an independent person weigh it against the other sides argument?
This is only one of many choices companies have when implementing a deal like this. I could just as easily scoff at the Trannies that hang their hats (and careers) on BM as if they think there are no other options to SWA and SWAPA.

Especially since you seem to have signed a letter saying that you would.
USAir/Cactus (as of late) did the exact same thing. I believe ALPA had total control of that process and look how well that worked out. They went to "binding arbitration" and USAPA did not abide by the Nicolau award. Not passing judgment, just merely pointing out that agreements are not cast in stone unfortunately. You mean to tell me Airline Mgt has never violated a contract???!!!!! Say it isn't so!!!


Then these people go on to say that they would NOT want to follow an independent persons assesment of the situation because they know better.
No, just like every other pilot group on the planet we'll take the card we are dealt and assess them at that point in time. If we get a ********************ty deal and our membership has the mettle to take it to the next level then we'll do that. If we get a ********************ty deal and don't then que sera sera.

If Kelly steps in and radiates this cancer that is getting ready to infect our company then I would think that would be the most intelligent path to take. Certainly the one I would be leaning toward based on the events and comments from the trannies that seem to hate SWA more than they ever hated Airtran.

Good luck fellers.
 
Thank you for a well thought out response - however - SWAPA should have considered all that prior to agreeing to binding arbitration.

How about this one:

Take all the ex Airtran guys that have been hired with SWA. Take all the years that they have collectively worked with Airtran and divide it by the number of ex Airtran pilots. Then adjust every Airtran pilots DOH by that amount. That would be a market based approach to value of seniority given up by pilots to join SWA.

SWAPA doesn't have to agree to binding arbitration, it is required by M/B. What is NOT required however, is integration.
 
SWAPA doesn't have to agree to binding arbitration, it is required by M/B. What is NOT required however, is integration.

LOL!, time to start preparing, just keep repeating over and over, "no". Then when Gary is sitting across from you and telling you ,"this is how it is, sorry", maybe you can say it (but you and I know you won't).
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom