Former Tranny bidding SW Captain prior to 2015?

[redflyer65]

I am absolutely shocked that we have SWA pilots on here telling us that we should have negotiated our transition based on something "possibly" happening. What a load s$&t! This gets more comical by the day as the culture gets more tainted.

I would never make that arguement.

I knew the 717 wasn't coming to SW around June 2011. They made the decision to NOT move the sims pretty abruptly. That's all I needed to hear. Your mileage my vary.

 

[humveedriver]

I would never make that arguement.

I knew the 717 wasn't coming to SW around June 2011. They made the decision to NOT move the sims pretty abruptly. That's all I needed to hear. Your mileage my vary.

The agreement was for the 717 to be ATL based. So keeping the sims in ATL makes sense. Along with the 717 instructors who had a deal with SWA. Keep moving costs down, plus I'm sure Alteon was going to give them a good deal too.

SWA has turned this into a shell game. Which is OK in NYC if it only cost you 20 bucks. But to play the shell game with people's seats, domiciles and seniority is pathetic.

 

[redflyer65]

It makes sense from that view point, they were getting sim bays ready one day and turned on a dime the next. I just remember thinking they would never see SW paint if they weren't going to consolidate the training in Dallas. Maybe I read too much into it, but I wasn't surprised at all with the Delta announcement. The rumor had been in full force for 6 months. So much so that the GO had to put out a memo saying they can't say anything. And they NEVER commment on rumors. Of course the rumors really started up after the SLI was signed, but I still wasn't surprised at all.

 

[FlyinGuy]

We accepted the deal with SWA because GK did not want it to go to arbitration. He went on about running AT seperately. We all know this. This is more than just deferring a few aircraft. It's about an agreement that he made with both pilot groups to avoid arbitration.

But you accepted the deal!!! The reasons or conversations are moot compared to what is written. I am not trying to be a jerk, but the language is what matters to lawyers and judges. SWA will exploit the language...that is what companies do/should do.

 

[GoodTimes]

Getting rid of the 717s was a business decision.

Your MEC screwed you guys with the first integration agreement.

That's where the lawsuit should be directed.

 

[PCL_128]

SWA will exploit the language...that is what companies do/should do.

But I thought everyone always says that SWA is so different? That the "golden rule" prevails (excuse me while I stifle a laugh)? "Exploiting" language is what our former EAL union-busting managers did.

 

[humveedriver]

But you accepted the deal!!! The reasons or conversations are moot compared to what is written. I am not trying to be a jerk, but the language is what matters to lawyers and judges. SWA will exploit the language...that is what companies do/should do.

That's all we are doing at this point. Tasking our legal department to see if there is any recourse. No different than the exploitation SWA has choosen.

 

[Lear70]

Getting rid of the 717s was a business decision.

Your MEC screwed you guys with the first integration agreement.

That's where the lawsuit should be directed.

It's already been filed, and it's a loser lawsuit.

1. The MEC members acted within the ALPA policy manuals (both local and National). They had every right to turn it down at the MEC level. Whether they should have or not is debatable after the fact, and we've beaten that horse to death, but legally-speaking, you can't win a lawsuit if the people acted within their legal rights in effect at the time.

2. You can't sue ALPA National with any success, because the National advisors present specifically suggested that it should have been sent to the pilot group for vote, but knew the MEC had the right not to do so. This is all part of the record, available to any ALPA member in good standing who wants the meeting minutes. Since ALPA National suggested that it go to vote and they followed ALPA policy, they pretty much are insulated from any lawsuit.

3. Our local MEC doesn't have a ton of cash to begin with after the money spent on the SIA. Since you can't sue ALPA National successfully because of (2) above, you only have a small pot of money to go around if you somehow got a favorable ruling suing the local AAI ALPA. If you have 100 people suing, each has probably already put $4-5k into legal fees and it only grows every day. At some point they will spend more than they will make.

4. Even if you successfully sue the individual MEC members (extremely difficult because of (1) above), even if you got an award for a large monetary amount, they'd simply file bankruptcy on it and move on with their lives and you'd never see a dime. I don't think any of them have any large pool of assets to seize above their protected property under bankruptcy law.

For those reasons, the people suing ALPA are simply barking up a tree that's not going to bear any fruit. It may make them feel better, but the only people who win are the lawyers (as usual).

 

[SWA717]

But I thought everyone always says that SWA is so different? That the "golden rule" prevails (excuse me while I stifle a laugh)? "Exploiting" language is what our former EAL union-busting managers did.

I guess if exploiting is what the Golden Rule consists of then I am naive.

 

[waveflyer]

A question: after Herb's sit down with you, if The 717 deal with delta was something already announced- would your pilot group have voted differently?

As for culture, PCL- you don't get it- it IS much better to get this group unified than to drag out a shrinking mostly AT pilot 717 domicile for over 10 more years.

You guys are dealing with a shrinking side right now- why would you want to hold onto that?

And on the money side- if you haven't seen the USAPA case, it's relevant here with the numbers you throw out Lear-
You might have a case, but until you get to 2022, you can't prove any legal "harm" has been done- bc you're extrapolating numbers well off in the future-
And IMO assume a lot with them- ie: what are line values as 717 leases expire? Senior FOs can often make as much as junior captains here- etc etc

 

[waveflyer]

I guess if exploiting is what the Golden Rule consists of then I am naive.

The Golden rule does not mean you get everything you want.

 

[EngineThunder]

The Golden rule does not mean you get everything you want.

But PCL said there was no way they wouldn't get relative seniority in arbitration and to vote everything down. He sure showed them! There is a reason he went to Gulfstream folks.

 

[redflyer65]

2. You can't sue ALPA National with any success, because the National advisors present specifically suggested that it should have been sent to the pilot group for vote, but knew the MEC had the right not to do so. This is all part of the record, available to any ALPA member in good standing who wants the meeting minutes. Since ALPA National suggested that it go to vote and they followed ALPA policy, they pretty much are insulated from any lawsuit.

Wow. I had forgotten that part of the discussion.

You are right on the other accounts. Any lawsuit against the MEC or National is not going to work out well. The only one that really got any traction is the TWA lawsuit. Very similiar to this, it was a travesty the way it went down.

The golden rule is how you treat others on the line, which is the way I will conduct myself. Otherwise, business is just business. Very simple.

 

[FlyinGuy]

The golden rule and negotiations are two different animals. If you chose to ignore that fact, then you are being a little foolish.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Just out of curiosity, what's actually going on in this deal now? We can all postulate for years on this thread, and everyone knows that bitching on this forum amounts to absolutely nothing.

PCL and Lear--you're union guys, right? Watching everyone yap at each other here has run its entertainment value already, so I'm wondering if anyone has actually done anything concrete. Anything official. Has the Airtran union approached the company yet or filed an actual grievance yet? If so, what are you actually grieving and/or asking for? Also, do you have any idea of the timeframe of action?

Bubba

 

[SWA717]

Thanks for clarifying the Golden Rule. I havent been to indoc yet.

 

[FlyinGuy]

That's all we are doing at this point. Tasking our legal department to see if there is any recourse. No different than the exploitation SWA has choosen.

That is the exact thing that I would expect SWAPA to do. Don't use my term "exploitation" as a dirty word. When I said exploitation, I was referring to sticking to the language not some interpretation of what was or might have been said over the past 18 months.

 

[scoreboardII]

Point taken.

AirTran guys aren't trying to pi$$ off any of our SWA brethren, this isn't about that, just trying to explain why the push for something to compensate for the huge hit to the SIA and the expectations of our guys and gals. It may result in something, it may not, but I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, your pilots would be telling SWAPA reps to try their best to do what they could do about it.

Either way, we'll all get through this, one day at a time until it's all done and we turn the lights out on Airways Blvd for the last time and the last AAI employee has a SWA I.D. Until then, stay thirsty and have fun out there. :beer:

well said.

 

[scoreboardII]

It's just been very eye opening that SWA management would create these conditions for so much angst to exist between the two work groups. For the next 2 and a half years, possibly more, we are going to see constant changes to the transition bid. Some planes will leave on time, others won't. The lynchpin in the transition is SWA's ability to get the int'l reservation system working. That should have been done before SOC, not after. So instead of being leaders and doing the correct planning to make this journey as smooth as possible. They have elected to make the employees the shock absorbers of a poorly executed plan. Im not saying that this merger or any other airline merger needs to get done in a week. But, to make continual changes to a plan, whereby; one change benefits one side and adversely effects the other is not smart. That approach doesn't foster a great culture.

well said, and thats the problem, folks forget that the golden rule is how we treat each other. How SWA conducts business is ruthless.

Think of it this way, would you rather be at any other airline or this one while doing a merger? I think you'll agree this one is best even with it's pitfalls.

I am over it, per say, I'll treat each and every AT folk as though they are family, and note you've been screwed, just like me and most FO's on this side, we'll get through this, and the company gets the employee group they deserve.

 

[humveedriver]

That is the exact thing that I would expect SWAPA to do. Don't use my term "exploitation" as a dirty word. When I said exploitation, I was referring to sticking to the language not some interpretation of what was or might have been said over the past 18 months.

I want to say Noah Webster made the call of "exploitation" being a dirty word in around 1806 ;-)

 

[FlyinGuy]

Maybe exploit was not the right word, but I think you are smart enough to understand what I was saying....

If it is not in the language or possibly the official notes, it is not there. Best of luck no matter what happens.

 

[madjack]

I'm curious, the integrated 717 CPs may not have been able to hold their seats depending on their global seniority position and vacancy bids in/out of ATL or wherever the 717 was to be based...so what exactly is the "damages"? to that group of pilots?

 

[PCL_128]

2. You can't sue ALPA National with any success, because the National advisors present specifically suggested that it should have been sent to the pilot group for vote

No, they didn't. They refused to give any official guidance on that, because it wasn't their place. The reps practically begged for advice on which way to vote, but the attorneys and national officers can't give that sort of advice. They can only give analysis and options, not guidance.

3. Our local MEC doesn't have a ton of cash to begin with after the money spent on the SIA. Since you can't sue ALPA National successfully because of (2) above, you only have a small pot of money to go around if you somehow got a favorable ruling suing the local AAI ALPA.

As a legal matter, there is no such thing as the ATN MEC. It exists only within the ALPA structure, not as a real legal entity, so you can't sue the MEC even if you wanted to. You can only sue ALPA International, which is the only legal entity. Each MEC doesn't even have its own bank accounts. It's all just on paper.

4. Even if you successfully sue the individual MEC members

That can't really be done, either. All ALPA reps are indemnified, so even if you got a judge to take a case against an individual rep, ALPA is the one who handles the defense and is responsible for any judgment. It's impossible to get to an individual rep's money in a lawsuit.

For those reasons, the people suing ALPA are simply barking up a tree that's not going to bear any fruit. It may make them feel better, but the only people who win are the lawyers (as usual).

On that, I agree.

 

[PCL_128]

You guys are dealing with a shrinking side right now- why would you want to hold onto that?

I'm not exactly in a big hurry to commute and barely hold a line in most domiciles. Big difference from the QOL that I'm used to being based at home and being more than half way up the FO list.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL and Lear--you're union guys, right?

Lear has said that he's a contract compliance (grievance) guy. I've never claimed to hold any position.

 

[Cometman]

Lear has said that he's a contract compliance (grievance) guy. I've never claimed to hold any position.

It sounds like you know more than Lear. He runs his mouth and now you have to come back and correct him on everything. Thanks. Maybe somebody should tell Lear to stop talking like he knows what he is talking about. He mentioned case law but he still has not presented what case law he is talking about. He should remember that it is better for people to think he is a fool than to open his mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[GoodTimes]

Wow!

Mention a lawsuit against ALPA, and Lear and PCL sure are quick to point out that it's not a possibility.

You guys sure you didn't have anything to do with the first SLI agreement being turned down?

 

[Lear70]

No, they didn't. They refused to give any official guidance on that, because it wasn't their place. The reps practically begged for advice on which way to vote, but the attorneys and national officers can't give that sort of advice. They can only give analysis and options, not guidance.

That's not the information I got directly from an MEC member who was present, but I wasn't there and, quite honestly, I haven't read the minutes, just took that person at their word. If not they're still insulated because they followed the policy manual, just not as bulletproof as I thought, but if they refused to say anything one way or another, hard to draw any conclusions to add to a lawsuit...

As a legal matter, there is no such thing as the ATN MEC. It exists only within the ALPA structure, not as a real legal entity, so you can't sue the MEC even if you wanted to. You can only sue ALPA International, which is the only legal entity. Each MEC doesn't even have its own bank accounts. It's all just on paper.

I understand that, but aren't they still specifically-named on the suit currently pending?

That can't really be done, either. All ALPA reps are indemnified, so even if you got a judge to take a case against an individual rep, ALPA is the one who handles the defense and is responsible for any judgment. It's impossible to get to an individual rep's money in a lawsuit.

I understand that also, but there's also a max indemnification of $1 Million per person if memory serves, so technically they COULD sue named individuals (and have), but even if they got an award (which I doubt), ALPA is only on the hook for $1 Million each and, as you said, would handle their defense, whether with in-house attorneys or hiring outside counsel as necessary.

That said, the state of Georgia has a maximum "damages" limit of $500k per person, any "damage" award over this amount goes to the State, not the individual who is suing, so it's not like the people suing are going to get some huge windfall even if they win everything they want.

Found that out a few years ago, according to Georgia, "damages" are intended to punish the person/entity found to be at-fault, not to enrich the person suing. The state allegedly did that to cut down on the frivolous lawsuits but it sounds more like enriching the State to me, but I digress.

Still loving my ignore list by the way.

 

[Lear70]

Wow!

Mention a lawsuit against ALPA, and Lear and PCL sure are quick to point out that it's not a possibility.

Oh it's possible,,, you can sue for anything, but in this case it's pretty much pi$$ing up a rope.

You guys sure you didn't have anything to do with the first SLI agreement being turned down?

I think PCL and I were both pretty vocal that the 1st deal sucked. In retrospect, the deal just sucked less than this one did in terms of money, especially now that the 717's are going away.

Water under the bridge... everything's easy to see in hind-sight, will always say that GK should have issued his "threat" letter 2 days BEFORE the MEC meeting rather than the 2 days AFTER when it actually came out. Hard to make a good decision when you don't have all the facts.

 

[Britpilot]

Still loving my ignore list by the way.

You mean like this:


This message is hidden because Cometman is on your ignore list.