I'm not offended by that statement, you're arguing passionately, not rudely, so it's all good.
Hopefully my statements come across similarly... :beer:
Unfortunately, I can't promise you anything, I can only go on the growth that our MC, MEC, and Scheduling Committee tell us has to happen pretty quickly if we pick our aircraft frequency (how much each airframe flies per day) to where yours is. (Most of us already fly 80+ hours a month; can't get more flying out of us so if the planes fly more, we need more people.)
If we pick up our STATION frequency to our international destinations (which has been stated repeatedly by your management), we'll also need more people. Maybe we lose some lower-yield domestic cities (although I don't think so.. if our yields are good enough to those cities that we've kept them - yours will be better), but overall I doubt we'll lose more city pairings than we gain.
Again, as I mentioned in another post, AAI folks are trying to make the gains appear more even, and the only way they can do that is to repeatedly bring up talk of "explosive growth". Could that happen? Perhaps. Only two problems, with it, though.
First, growth benefits both sides. So it doesn't even the playing field.
Second, the talk on this end is not of growth, but of the more likely case of the need for
less manning, for several reasons. One, it's doubtful to many here that we keep nearly all AAI's cities. Too many that can support minimal service, not within SWA's model. Two, SWA manning models are far less than AAI's. (And a corollary to that fact is the pilot hours per year that we fly here.)
Personally, I do believe there will be some growth, as necessitated by the extent of economic recovery we see, and also by GK's own statements about increasing flying out of ATL to something like 300 flights per day. But I don't see any kind of "explosive" growth, and in fact, we may see growth neutralized by the reasons I listed above.
I think reasonable folks on SWA's side see some good that will come from the merger, but even with retirements kicking in again in a year and a half, I think most see any upward movement as slow and methodical, at best. All this said, continued trumpeting of "growth" will not count for much in negotiation, if anything.
I'm *HOPING* that Southwest realizes the money gain disparity (which is where I think some of the SWAPA rhetoric is pointed) and steps in to help on the financial end in the immediately-near future with you guys to help "grease the wheels", in addition to whatever might come out of the Merger Committee.
Both they and SWAPA do, as has been evidenced in material we've received. They've done their homework, and then some. Having the best labor law firm in the world on retainer for the last two years helps.
But you can't think that we'd come on here and tell you how much seniority we're willing to give up in order to make it all go down smoothly, can ya?
We just can't have that discussion openly right now... sometime in the future over beers when the dust settles, I'm sure people will tell you what they were hoping for and what was their minimum "happy" point. In many cases, they might get one, or both, or might not even get either one, you just never know.
Of course not. But we have been a bit taken aback with the brazenness with which some have made ridiculous demands. (Really not wanting to rehash that all again.)
You gotta have faith it will all work out, or it will drive you crazy!
Not going crazy, not in the least. Very happy to be where we are, and no matter what happens, I am still blessed to work for the best airline ever.
