Terminate? Maybe, but not for reasons of "reduction of force", we have provisions in the contract for reduction in force. And I believe even the probationary pilot is still a LINE PILOT, and thus covered under the reduction in force language. I also believe that the section discussing the right under the contract of a probie is for disciplinary action, not downsizing. So, downsizing is NOT a perfectly acceptable reason for terminations. But that doesn't stop the company from interpreting differently, or our Genious Legal Counsel-Laura from advising our BoD to fold this hand again!
I know this is going to irritate some friends of mine but, believe it or not, most of the crap that came out of the last few years of LOA's and items given up at System Board or before arbitration were not Laura telling the NPA they weren't winnable, they were AP capitulating to the company.
The one thing I've taken from my NPA involvement is, if the notes that were taken during all those System Boards and pre-arbitration talks were made public, the pilot group would probably want to drag AP out onto the tarmac, tarred, feathered, then thrown into a running engine of a 737. 'Nuff said.
As far as this discussion goes, it's really not worth getting spun up about... yet. There's 3 separate issues here:
1. Terminating probationary pilots outright to accomplish a reduction in force. The answer: it's illegal and would likely result in the overnight operation implosion of the airline when those termination notices came out. I don't think even Kolski and Anderson have those kind of cajones.
The reason it's illegal: we have two COMPLETELY different sections that deal specifically with this - Reduction in Force and Discipline. You can't terminate a probationary pilot without a discipline charge. Period. The point of a separate probationary discipline section is to disallow them access to the grievance system (which I disagree with, but I digress). Because it's illegal, they'll have to furlough if the want to reduce the work force which is, amazingly, covered in the "Reduction of Force" section.
2. Reduction in Force requires the furlough of training department instructors and the bidding / appointment of line pilots to the training department. The NPA has come out and said they have NOT been approached by the company about this.
Might Kolski or Anderson or Klaus or even Floy made some off-handed comment that has made its way back to the water cooler? Possibly. But the contract is very clear and they'll have to get relief on this from the NPA or risk a deliberate violation of the contract with negotiations ongoing with the mediator. Again, nothing they haven't done before, but you'd get an almost immediate negative reaction on the line from the pilots getting furloughed or downgraded knowing the company was willingly violating this section.
3. Return to flying after age 60, i.e. the "Bill Mann" issue. Anyone who doesn't think this one is Dead On Arrival is dreaming. I predict at least a 95% NO vote on this WHEN it comes to ratification, as it opens the door for a LOT of retired guys to displace line Captains back to F/O and F/O's to the street if they furlough AND bring back over-60 guys.
Using my super sleuth capabilities, and looking at their backgrounds, I would bet that its the AirTran pilots union.
Super Sleuth... *snicker*
uke:
