AT ALPA high road

[On Your Six]

So Airtran protects their junior F/O's and it's the "High Road"

SWAPA tries to protect their junior F/O's and they are arrogant, greedy,selfish bast&$@ds!

Are you a reporter for MSNBC?

Sasha Fierce,

The bottom 60% in your bottom 20%. Seriously? You so crazy! That must be part of a skit on Leno, right? I don't think you'll see those numbers in arbitration! Just a guess Mrs. JZ. Godspeed!


OYS

 

[On Your Six]

The FAB7 didn't want to send it to a vote, cus the FAB7 didn't want it to pass.

This is going south in a hurry.

What would you call the 3 arbitrators? Try calling them "Sir."


OYS

 

[SWA/FO]

What would you call the 3 arbitrators? Try calling them "Sir."

What clown? Watch and learn. You don't know **it.

 

[Dan Roman]

So Airtran protects their junior F/O's and it's the "High Road"

SWAPA tries to protect their junior F/O's and they are arrogant, greedy,selfish bast&$@ds!

Are you a reporter for MSNBC?

Well if wanting a balanced list that doesn't throw either group of F O's under the bus is like an MSNBC reporter than I guess they are the fair and balanced one's! I would think an arbitrated list would have the best shot at sharing the pain equally, without a bias towards either side.

 

[Dan Roman]

The fact that you said ALPA and "the high road" in the same sentence made me throw up in my mouth a little. The AAI MEC is worse than ALPA, at that. Zero leadership and 7 reps holding the careers of 1700 hostage. If your pilots wanted that deal, they'd vote for it. If not, they vote it down and that is much better than 7 deciding for 1700 on something so important. Nothing to lose by letting your pilots vote...that is unless you fear they'd vote yes and that is in direct opposition to what you, as a MEC member, wants. Way to represent rookies!

Thank God B6 didn't go down that road. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have better representation, but not ALPA. We need an independent.

Why do you think if the same guys had been in an independent AirTran union they would have come up with any different decision? Only difference with being in ALPA is they have more resources available to them. It's still their decision to make.

 

[On Your Six]

What clown? Watch and learn. You don't know **it.

Watch and learn? ANYTHING will be better than your first offer. You may actually end up in the bottom 600. If so, I'd say that would be a WIN for a certain side. I hope you yourself tell the arbitrators exactly what you told me above in person. Now THAT would be funny. Godspeed!


OYS

 

[waveflyer]

Well if wanting a balanced list that doesn't throw either group of F O's under the bus is like an MSNBC reporter than I guess they are the fair and balanced one's! I would think an arbitrated list would have the best shot at sharing the pain equally, without a bias towards either side.

None of you will answer Sachas question- all junior FOs under SL9 were going to retire far junior than they would have been without AT. Senior FOs would've had delayed upgrades again. It's a demographic problem assuming equality - AT pilots are simply younger. And I don't assume equality when we aren't.
But in capitalism- the purchasing carrier should have the advantage. It ought to be biased towards us, or else you piss on the sacrifice and talent of wvery pilot who did what it took to get the better job. I am a liberal. But i am not a socialist. Your arguments assume this is a merger of equals- it is not. Only a 30% reduction in seniority is very generous.

And then there's smart. As Andy has said- and Tom, GK is miles ahead of all of us, and I have zero problem following his lead.

 

[jonjuan]

None of you will answer Sachas question- all junior FOs under SL9 were going to retire far junior than they would have been without AT. Senior FOs would've had delayed upgrades again. It's a demographic problem assuming equality - AT pilots are simply younger. And I don't assume equality when we aren't.
But in capitalism- the purchasing carrier should have the advantage. It ought to be biased towards us, or else you piss on the sacrifice and talent of wvery pilot who did what it took to get the better job. I am a liberal. But i am not a socialist. Your arguments assume this is a merger of equals- it is not. Only a 30% reduction in seniority is very generous.

And then there's smart. As Andy has said- and Tom, GK is miles ahead of all of us, and I have zero problem following his lead.

Plenty of SWA hired under the age of 32 as there are plenty of AT hired over the age of 37. Besides that, define the difference of retirement position at number 50 versus number 150?

 

[GoodTimes]

JJ,

The difference between retiring at 150 vs. 50 is quantifiable through bidding power, or lack thereof. You can't argue with the math.

A gradual decrease in relative seniority as the years go by is unacceptable to the SWA side.

 

[Fubijaakr]

The MEC appointed a negotiating committee. The negotiating committee agreed to SL9. And then the MEC decided that in spite of the negotiating committee's work, they didn't like the deal.
That's negotiating in bad faith.

Well, you sort of understand the process but draw the complete wrong conclusion.

1. The MEC appoints the NC and gives them the goals for the negotiation.
2. The NC negotiates the best deal they can. The MEC (hopefully!) stays out of the negotiations completely.
3. The NC brings back the results of the negotiation to the MEC.
4. The MEC then decides if the results of the negotiation should be sent to the pilot group for ratification. If they like it, they send it with a positive recommendation. If its OK they send it with a neutral recommendation. If its a POS they don't send it out to the membership.

An MEC should never send something to the rank and file with a negative recommendation. That's passing the buck to the membership instead of doing your job as an MEC.

Obviously, this AIP was POS and they voted it down. That's their job.

How you draw the conclusion that's bad faith bargaining is beyond me, but an understandable leap from someone who has no idea of the inner workings of an MEC.

Your totally right! Both sides should be watching their own backs ! That's why it's gonna go to arbitration !!

Amen. Arbitrators aren't driven by greed and ego.

Am I mistaken or is that not what you're MC negotiated. You negotiate something. Then reject it, and congradulate yourselves. What a dysfunctional group!

Reread the above. MEC and NC are two different groups with two different jobs in any negotiation.

 

[NuGuy]

Well, you sort of understand the process but draw the complete wrong conclusion.

1. The MEC appoints the NC and gives them the goals for the negotiation.
2. The NC negotiates the best deal they can. The MEC (hopefully!) stays out of the negotiations completely.
3. The NC brings back the results of the negotiation to the MEC.
4. The MEC then decides if the results of the negotiation should be sent to the pilot group for ratification. If they like it, they send it with a positive recommendation. If its OK they send it with a neutral recommendation. If its a POS they don't send it out to the membership.

An MEC should never send something to the rank and file with a negative recommendation. That's passing the buck to the membership instead of doing your job as an MEC.

Disagree on this slightly.

The absolute WORST is when an MEC passes something along with either no or a neutral recommendation. That is a complete abdication of leadership, especially that despite road shows and bullet points, the membership very rarely gets to see all of the details (negotiator's notes, behind-the-scenes data, etc).

With that said, IMHO, the AT MEC did exactly what they were supposed to do. They reviewed a proposed agreement, weighed it carefully, looked at all the nit-noid details and then made a decision. This has happened plenty of times in airline negotiating history. It's not bad faith negotiating, it's looking at the total agreement, adding up the bottom line, and making a decision.

The fact that they went to GREAT lengths to poll their membership, and even went so far as keeping recorded logs of that polling, tells me they did their homework, checked the boxes and made the right call. This process was ALL included in the process agreement.

Now they're moving to the next step impassionatly as another step in the process. A process that was clearly outlined and included this very eventuality. A process, I might add, that was agreed to by everyone involved.


I don't see any responsible party saying "well, yea, that's what we agreed to, but we didn't really think it'd get this far, so, um, yea, we're going to welch on that."

Nu

 

[GoodTimes]

You guys make it sound like the AAI MEC was completely out of the loop during the entire negotiating process. Hard to believe. Especially hard to believe considering they went back to the table after SWAPA had approved the AIP. Regardless, it's the perception that counts at this point. Simply stated, it looks bad.

 

[JT12345]

Sacha,

The way I see it is the AT F/Os should have had some better seniority and the the senior SWA F/Os should get any capt seat that their seniority can hold. I think this would have been fair for both sides. Screw all this protecting the capts and base protection crap. If you are at AT and you want more seniority, then you should be willing to walk away from your capt seat if you cant hold it. Also, maybe throw in some upgrades for the SWA guys that come from SWA retirements. Do you think that this is reasonable?

That is what this was about. Well it did not work out. So we try a different route towards happiness and a positive outcome.

A valid point, and I would like the SWA guys to chime in on this?

Would they take the CA seats for a deal or do it the hard way and try to compel their boss to liquidate us and get the seats that way... the long and hard way. The risky way. Will GK do this. Unknowns.

And you can't upgrade a few hundred Captains overnight. That would destroy SWA. Our AAI guys still get paid like a AT Captain that the SWA guys brag about on here, and seniority is fair. We enter as equals with the seniority, the respect and quality of life that our years of service, and sacrifice at AAI warrants.

You see I think there are still ways to negotiate this if you get over the previous agreement, and move on. There are so many ways for this to happen by SWAPA/GK and ALPA or even the arbitrator. The sky is not falling. This is what is on every ones minds, so lets get it out there.

 

[Fubijaakr]

We enter as equals with the seniority, the respect and quality of life that our years of service, and sacrifice at AAI warrants.

Exactly. And that's the argument that will hold the most water with the arbitrator.

Not "Hired, not acquired."
Not "I bought a type rating to get interviewed."
Not "You guys are getting a pay raise."
Not even "I have a bigger watch and a flag tie."

Even the DUMBEST arbitrator can recognize a seniority grab when he sees it. NO WINDFALLS is the key to Bond/McCaskill. That's all that matters.

P.S. Pay doesn't count. Its a SENIORITY list integration, not a PAYCHECK integration.

 

[GoodTimes]

Gotta reconcile the age and retirement issues.

Better AAI seniority is akin to a seniority grab 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

Even the DUMBEST arbitrator can recognize that.

 

[scoreboardII]

Disagree on this slightly.

The absolute WORST is when an MEC passes something along with either no or a neutral recommendation. That is a complete abdication of leadership,
Nu

Your statement lacks a basis in fact.

Leadership is not defined as "taking away the members right to vote".

True leadership would have been to send it out with their no vote recommendation and rationale why, per the request of the CEO.

True leadership would have seen value in both complying with the desire of your new boss, and still provide the membership guidance.

What the MEC did was unconscionable and an abdication of their duty to the membership and the company they now work for.

What the MEC did was dictatorial, not leadership.

 

[scoreboardII]

P.S. Pay doesn't count. Its a SENIORITY list integration, not a PAYCHECK integration.

This is the dumbest statement seen on FI.

It's all about the pay.

Look at every award: paycheck, meet seniority list position. There is no way a bankrupt F9 Airbus CA could be placed that high on a list if it wasn't for a few reasons, one: pay, two: mainline aircraft.

In your small world of NWA/Delta or CO/UAL, sure, thats all relative based on pay.

30-50% increase FL to SWA? Thats a windfall. End game age differences at retirement? Thats a windfall. All balanced by seniority award. I won't even go into how the 717 is an RJ.

Your arguments grow stale.

 

[Andy]

The absolute WORST is when an MEC passes something along with either no or a neutral recommendation. That is a complete abdication of leadership, especially that despite road shows and bullet points, the membership very rarely gets to see all of the details (negotiator's notes, behind-the-scenes data, etc).

Please. This is nothing more than a negotiating strategy to double check and see if there was anything else left on the table. I don't think that it was the proper strategy in this instance. Time will tell.

 

[SWA/FO]

Even the DUMBEST arbitrator can recognize a seniority grab when he sees it. NO WINDFALLS is the key to Bond/McCaskill. That's all that matters.

Even the DUMBEST aviator can see a lost opportunity. Wonder if there is a second chance?

 

[Muppets]

Even the DUMBEST aviator can see a lost opportunity. Wonder if there is a second chance?

I wonder that too SWA/FO. With a family at home, I would be lying if I said Ive been sleeping well.