Delta the Least Respected Brand in America

[Scoot 11]

You might want to read it again, Scoot; I think he was sticking up for you.

Bubba

No Bubba, I got it right. His childish infatuation with Delta is noted. I still think his diaper is dirty, and it might be time for his bottle.

 

[scoreboardII]

Bubba,

As I said before, it's a shell game. Our Chief Pilot is a SWA pilot. His underboss is on SWA Manager pay. He's on the AirTran seniority list and voted. There's a Single Operating Certificate. AirTran pilots receive Southwest profit sharing. The profits we make are Southwest profits. Every AirTran pilot works for Southwest, under a convenient shell called AirTran.Which ends when again? Our work is outsourced by Southwest on a lower pay scale. Which ends when again exactly, and was voted overwhelmingly by let me think, AirTran pilots.

Perhaps we're like Comair ? They were owned by Delta yet operated separately. That's outsourcing isn't it Bubba ? No, Comair is outsourcing, what is happening at SWA is the winding down of AT, you know that's happening right? You're seeing fewer and fewer 737's and 717's every week, guys going through SWA training to become SWA pilots. Nothing like what happens with Comair. You dont like that, right Bubba ? Your allowing it with the same aircraft type at a lower pay. But it all drops dead Sep 2014 or Jan 1 2015. Does Comair have a drop dead date?

You're having to split hairs in order to justify your reasoning. I would say a separate company operated in perpetuity and one that is being dismantled with an end date, is not splitting hairs. It's a temporary B Scale and its outsourcing. 50% right, it's a B scale approved by all AT pilots, but it has and end date, also approved by AT pilots. Approved by SWAPA in exchange for a seniority bump. Wow you got one right. You're unable to call it a B Scale and outsourcing because its embarrassing and doesn't fit your self image. I'm unable to call it a B scale beyond the day any pilot becomes a SWA pilot, what is that, 40 or so a month, and the end date of 31 Dec 2014. Individually, and as a group.

added for content

 

[wms]

This thread took an unexpected turn. What difference do the things you guys are fighting about make? If you're happy where you are then be thankful and be glad someone else is happy where they are. And of its not your company then what's happening there isn't your business.

 

[waveflyer]

You might want to read it again, Scoot; I think he was sticking up for you.

Bubba

Hating runs strong in that one Bubba- he just wanted to use that line-

In the meantime- Delta's not close to the worst brand in the airlines (probably the beat of the big 3) much less across industries-

dumb article

 

[dicko]

But it all drops dead Sep 2014 or Jan 1 2015. Does Comair have a drop dead date?

That would have been funny if you weren't serious. Google Comair and check out their "drop dead date".

No, I'm not noticing less aircraft. Perhaps I need to pay more attention. We have all of our 717s on property still. With the exception of one painted in DAL colors. How many AirTran 737s have gone to SWA to date ........ ?

 

[General Lee]

That would have been funny if you weren't serious. Google Comair and check out their "drop dead date".

No, I'm not noticing less aircraft. Perhaps I need to pay more attention. We have all of our 717s on property still. With the exception of one painted in DAL colors. How many AirTran 737s have gone to SWA to date ........ ?

Rumor has it that 6 717s per month will be delivered until the end of the year instead of 3 per month, but it will return to 3 per month in Jan. There are a bunch parked at the hanger on the other side of 9R at ATL. I believe a couple may be down in MIA for the mx checks and wifi/paint job.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[scoreboardII]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Ty Webb]

I'll give you a hint: In the process agreement (which you clearly haven't read), both unions AGREED to send the negotiated agreement to their respective constituencies for a vote. THEN, and only then, the next step was mediation and arbitration, IF either side voted down the agreement. It became clear that the ALPA leadership at AirTran had absolutely NO intention of honoring their word and allowing a vote. They were pushing to go straight to arbitration from the get-go.

That's why, General. Anything ELSE you'd like answered?

Bubba

Bubba, you are mistaken. The Merger Committee only had the authority to negotiate, it was never empowered to accept an Agreement, that authority rests with the MEC, just like during Contract Negotiations. You never give your negotiators the ability to accept the Agreement, that is standard, and I'm sure SWAPA's leadership also had the final authority as well.

It was up to the MEC to decide whether the Agreement brought back by the Merger Committee met the minimum standards, sending it out for Member Ratification, or to send them back to the table. If there was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations, or if time ran out, it was to proceed to binding Arbitration, as agreed to under the Process Agreement.

Unfortunately, instead of proceeding under the Process Agreement, we got threatened with being parted out, and thus the underwhelming Agreement was overwhelmingly voted for.

 

[redflyer65]

Bubba, you are mistaken. the Merger Committee only had the authority to negotiate, it was never empowered to accept an Agreement . . . You never give your negotiators the ability to accept the Agreement, it has to be done by the MEC, just like during Contract Negotiations.

It was up to the MEC to decide whether the Agreement brought back by the Merger Committee met the minimum standards, sending it out for Member Ratification, or to send them back to the table. If there was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations, or if time ran out, it was to proceed to binding Arbitration, as agreed to under the Process Agreement.

Unfortunately, instead of proceeding under the Process Agreement, we got threatened with being parted out, and thus the underwhelming Agreement was overwhelmingly voted for.

Your right Ty. The MEC piece was in there, but they never had any intent of sending anything out.....ever. Their end game was to run the clock out for arbitration. Didn't it take them three days to look over the agreement that they supposedly knew nothing about? Arbitration was their only game.

 

[Ty Webb]

Your right Ty. The MEC piece was in there, but they never had any intent of sending anything out.....ever. Their end game was to run the clock out for arbitration. Didn't it take them three days to look over the agreement that they supposedly knew nothing about? Arbitration was their only game.

Well, with a fool like MaxBlast representing us at the table, can ya blame them? :laugh:

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba, you are mistaken. The Merger Committee only had the authority to negotiate, it was never empowered to accept an Agreement, that authority rests with the MEC, just like during Contract Negotiations. You never give your negotiators the ability to accept the Agreement, that is standard, and I'm sure SWAPA's leadership also had the final authority as well.

It was up to the MEC to decide whether the Agreement brought back by the Merger Committee met the minimum standards, sending it out for Member Ratification, or to send them back to the table. If there was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations, or if time ran out, it was to proceed to binding Arbitration, as agreed to under the Process Agreement.

Unfortunately, instead of proceeding under the Process Agreement, we got threatened with being parted out, and thus the underwhelming Agreement was overwhelmingly voted for.

Sorry Ty, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was getting at in my post. I never meant to imply that the Merger Committee had the authority to send anything out for ratification. In all my references to the Process Agreement, I referred to AirTran ALPA's MEC's actions, not the Merger Committee. After all, it was the MEC (AirTran's direct representatives) who signed the thing.

In the beginning of the PA, immediately after recognizing that Allegheny-Mohawk allowed for binding arbitration, both unions (the leaderships, that is) agreed that they wanted to utilized negotiations instead of arbitration. Turns out that wasn't exactly true for the AirTran ALPA MEC, now was it? Their obvious (and even indirectly stated) gameplan was to go straight to arbitration. That doesn't sound like good faith to me.

The other thing that's mistaken about your post, is that nowhere in the PA does it allow for, if there "was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations...," then they could "proceed to binding arbitration." The Process Agreement's ONLY mention of "desire," was the clearly stated, and agreed to by both unions, desire to avoid arbitration. And, of course, to bargain in good faith to achieve an agreement by negotiations. As I pointed out, AirTran ALPA's leadership had no intention of honoring their word in this case.

Bubba

 

[General Lee]

Sorry Ty, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was getting at in my post. I never meant to imply that the Merger Committee had the authority to send anything out for ratification. In all my references to the Process Agreement, I referred to AirTran ALPA's MEC's actions, not the Merger Committee. After all, it was the MEC (AirTran's direct representatives) who signed the thing.

In the beginning of the PA, immediately after recognizing that Allegheny-Mohawk allowed for binding arbitration, both unions (the leaderships, that is) agreed that they wanted to utilized negotiations instead of arbitration. Turns out that wasn't exactly true for the AirTran ALPA MEC, now was it? Their obvious (and even indirectly stated) gameplan was to go straight to arbitration. That doesn't sound like good faith to me.

The other thing that's mistaken about your post, is that nowhere in the PA does it allow for, if there "was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations...," then they could "proceed to binding arbitration." The Process Agreement's ONLY mention of "desire," was the clearly stated, and agreed to by both unions, desire to avoid arbitration. And, of course, to bargain in good faith to achieve an agreement by negotiations. As I pointed out, AirTran ALPA's leadership had no intention of honoring their word in this case.

Bubba

Of course you weren't clear Bubba, that way you can TRY to support your argument. Sorry, I was correct. The way your union handled the situation was ridiculous, and you probably owe your boss big time in upcoming negotiations. I bet he'll come to the table and pull out the ace card you had to give him. In the meantime, 1/3 of your pilots are pi$$ed for getting the shaft, while for some other reason the other 2/3 is pi$$ed because their egos are big enough to think the new group should have been stapled. That just doesn't happen anymore, and AT brought plenty to the table, even though they got zero 737 capt slots when the merger officially goes through. What is that all about? Unbelievable, and you know as well as I do that would have NEVER happened in arbitration, and that process agreement called for it, and I believe the boss agreed to it too? Right. Wow.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry Ty, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was getting at in my post. I never meant to imply that the Merger Committee had the authority to send anything out for ratification. In all my references to the Process Agreement, I referred to AirTran ALPA's MEC's actions, not the Merger Committee. After all, it was the MEC (AirTran's direct representatives) who signed the thing.

In the beginning of the PA, immediately after recognizing that Allegheny-Mohawk allowed for binding arbitration, both unions (the leaderships, that is) agreed that they wanted to utilized negotiations instead of arbitration. Turns out that wasn't exactly true for the AirTran ALPA MEC, now was it? Their obvious (and even indirectly stated) gameplan was to go straight to arbitration. That doesn't sound like good faith to me.

The other thing that's mistaken about your post, is that nowhere in the PA does it allow for, if there "was not a desire from the other party to continue negotiations...," then they could "proceed to binding arbitration." The Process Agreement's ONLY mention of "desire," was the clearly stated, and agreed to by both unions, desire to avoid arbitration. And, of course, to bargain in good faith to achieve an agreement by negotiations. As I pointed out, AirTran ALPA's leadership had no intention of honoring their word in this case.

Bubba

Oh, boy . . .

My point was that the MEC was under no obligation to send out the turd the Merger Committee brought back from Dallas. The PA called for an Agreement to be sent out, there was no agreement reached between SWAPA and our MEC, thus nothing to put out for a vote.

The original intention was not to go to Arbitration, but I'm sure once it became clear that SWAPA's position was so far removed from what has been typical and customary between two non-bankrupt carriers . . . . well, I'm sure Arbitration looked like a foregone conclusion.

Look, it's pretty clear that you aren't going to see things the same way that I do . . . . and I'm not going to see it your way, so let's just put this to rest, shall we?

 

[SWA Bubba]

....

Look, it's pretty clear that you aren't going to see things the same way that I do . . . . and I'm not going to see it your way, so let's just put this to rest, shall we?

That sounds like a fine idea.

Bubba

 

[maxblast72]

Well, with a fool like MaxBlast representing us at the table, can ya blame them? :laugh:

Ty, don't forget the other 3 Merger Committee members, the previous 2 ATN MEC Chairs, the current ATN MEC Vice Chair, the 4 current ATN MEC voting reps, and myself were all on the same page in July/August of 2011. I guess we all had no clue in your fantasy world.