Final Agreement reached

[Lear70]

Lear,

How would a deal reached prior to the arbitration ruling be ratified? Just blessed by the arbitrator or back to the phase we're in now?

Nice avatar...

Yes, the arbitrator would have to sign off on it, not a voted scenario, assuming it was reached AFTER the arbitration arguments closed (the only scenario the MC commented on). I don't honestly know what the process would be if one side made an offer that was deemed "worth of voting" DURING the arbitration process...?

 

[Lear70]

You just now figured that out? You guys are already overstaffed per our model. Throw in a little overlap, -800's stealing 6 crews for every 3 deliveries, eliminating red-eyes.

It ALL smoke and mirrors. My only hope is that you're VERY junior captains will be *************************ing miserable on the bottom and bail, leaving a few bones for our FO's. I'm hear to tell you there ain't no easy way to get to Oakland!

Gup

Yeah, well, the prevailing thought was that with us keeping our red-eyes, they would still need that last bank of Captains. However, during the slides today, they said the "plan" was to transition 5 crews per aircraft. I pointed out that we are staffed at 6 crews per aircraft. WTH happens to the other crew per aircraft?

They had no answer. Talking to the MEC later, they said it was pretty obvious that they didn't need them and they'd only be taken over as needed for attrition.

I doubt many of the junior CA's will bail, especially those that know they are old enough to never make CA again, and that by bailing with such a big hit on their seniority, they'll be towards the bottom of the F/O list anyway, just a thousand numbers higher than those of us who were stapled.

That's a nasty by-product of making our CA's so junior. There's no incentive for them to voluntarily downgrade...

By the way... who's AS?

 

[Empennage]

Yeah, well, the prevailing thought was that with us keeping our red-eyes, they would still need that last bank of Captains. However, during the slides today, they said the "plan" was to transition 5 crews per aircraft. I pointed out that we are staffed at 6 crews per aircraft. WTH happens to the other crew per aircraft?

They had no answer. Talking to the MEC later, they said it was pretty obvious that they didn't need them and they'd only be taken over as needed for attrition.

I doubt many of the junior CA's will bail, especially those that know they are old enough to never make CA again, and that by bailing with such a big hit on their seniority, they'll be towards the bottom of the F/O list anyway, just a thousand numbers higher than those of us who were stapled.

That's a nasty by-product of making our CA's so junior. There's no incentive for them to voluntarily downgrade...

By the way... who's AS?

I would assume during negotiations, each party discussed the staffing matter. Gary has been very open about the fact we do not want to staff the flying which would require a third set of crews. The revenue stream will not support it. So the diluted doh ratios were set up to not only incorporate the offset of retirements, but also that additional man you are talking about. Hence why they arrived at the blended doh solution.

I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long to all come to an understanding on this. I think we have talked about it in length.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Actually, that's exactly what our MC said today. That there was not enough time to do any more meaningful negotiation, even if the MEC kills it, and that they'll go through the motions of Mediation, but that it will primarily be in preparation for arbitration.

They did say that there was an opportunity for a deal to be struck at any time prior to an arbitration RULING, and that it's not uncommon for that to happen.

Lots of interesting information today. I got to spend half an hour one-on-one at lunch with the ALPA attorneys today, was very enlightening. Some things I didn't know, some clarification on others, and some new viewpoints to consider.

I still think it's too close to call on what the MEC or even our pilot group will do...

As an aside, they *DID* verify one of my primary concerns, that as we transition pilots to SWA, our Red-eyes and CDO's are probably going to stop on the 737 side, which will make us overstaffed by 1 crew per aircraft. They will probably only take 5 crews per aircraft, diluting our line values and increasing our already-inflated reserves (everyone will be making just guarantee for a LONG time).

The extra crews left over will fill in the Southwest attrition the next 3 years during integration, which means SWA upgrades will go to zero for 3 years as they absorb our overstaffing. Sucks, sorry.

You had one on one lunch with the lawyers? Uh huh.

And you're sharing the inside info they divulged with you on FI? Uh huh.

I smell an agenda.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

You had one on one lunch with the lawyers? Uh huh.

And you're sharing the inside info they divulged with you on FI? Uh huh.

I smell an agenda.

Not a big deal, I've spent time with Bruce York and have dealt personally with Andrew Brenner, if i'd ended up at the same place for lunch as them, i don't doubt i'd have had the same experience (and Lear has spent a lot more time with them prior to this).

 

[PCL_128]

How would a deal reached prior to the arbitration ruling be ratified? Just blessed by the arbitrator or back to the phase we're in now?

It's likely that the arbitration panel would simply delay their ruling to allow time for the vote to take place. If the vote failed, then they could then release their own ruling. Whenever possible, arbitrators do what they can to allow the parties to come to their own consensual solution rather than issuing a binding ruling.

 

[On Your Six]

It's likely that the arbitration panel would simply delay their ruling to allow time for the vote to take place. If the vote failed, then they could then release their own ruling. Whenever possible, arbitrators do what they can to allow the parties to come to their own consensual solution rather than issuing a binding ruling.

Didn't Nicalau give hints to the USair guys during their arbitration on how he thought they should settle the list with AWA and instead got the brush off and insistence on DOH? That didn't end the way those guys expected it to.


OYS

 

[Lear70]

I would assume during negotiations, each party discussed the staffing matter. Gary has been very open about the fact we do not want to staff the flying which would require a third set of crews. The revenue stream will not support it. So the diluted doh ratios were set up to not only incorporate the offset of retirements, but also that additional man you are talking about. Hence why they arrived at the blended doh solution.

I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long to all come to an understanding on this. I think we have talked about it in length.

Because no one ever told us that GK himself said that they didn't want to fly the late night flying going forward. We've actually been concerned that they WOULD keep the red-eyes and CDO's which most of us hate. Unfortunately, dropping them has this side affect.

You had one on one lunch with the lawyers? Uh huh.

And you're sharing the inside info they divulged with you on FI? Uh huh.

I smell an agenda.

You don't like anything I say so I really don't care if you think I have an "agenda". And I didn't say "I had lunch one on one with them". Just as we broke for lunch quite a few of us approached the podium where all 20 or so reps and legal were sitting to talk to various reps, but no one went down to the attorneys, so I did and spent about half an hour of the lunch period talking with them, then we went upstairs and joined everyone for lunch.

And no, I'm not divulging the large majority of what we said, was just acknowledging that some people on YOUR side of the table were RIGHT about SOME things moving forward.

No reason to get snarky.

 

[madjack]

Thanks for the info Lear, this thing sucks for both sides...we'll see what happens

 

[Empennage]

Because no one ever told us that GK himself said that they didn't want to fly the late night flying going forward. We've actually been concerned that they WOULD keep the red-eyes and CDO's which most of us hate. Unfortunately, dropping them has this side affect.


You don't like anything I say so I really don't care if you think I have an "agenda". And I didn't say "I had lunch one on one with them". Just as we broke for lunch quite a few of us approached the podium where all 20 or so reps and legal were sitting to talk to various reps, but no one went down to the attorneys, so I did and spent about half an hour of the lunch period talking with them, then we went upstairs and joined everyone for lunch.

And no, I'm not divulging the large majority of what we said, was just acknowledging that some people on YOUR side of the table were RIGHT about SOME things moving forward.

No reason to get snarky.

Lear,

He stated this long before negotiations on multiple occasions. This has been discussed at length.