New AT to SWA training plan out

[madjack]

"we're just lucky to be here, given what we've done to airlines in the past" is seen as arrogant in the extreme

Now we are getting somewhere...

"As a result, if we had refused the terms dictated, the pilots panicking would likely have taken over and gone begging for a Muse job."

This is likely the most arrogant statement I have ever heard from someone working in a union position. It essentially says AAI/ALPA knew better than the rank and file (who they represent). How can you be so arrogant as to not even let the mbrship see SL9, especially when you knew the history of SWA and it's acquisitions?

 

[Lear70]

"we're just lucky to be here, given what we've done to airlines in the past" is seen as arrogant in the extreme

Now we are getting somewhere...

"As a result, if we had refused the terms dictated, the pilots panicking would likely have taken over and gone begging for a Muse job."

This is likely the most arrogant statement I have ever heard from someone working in a union position. It essentially says AAI/ALPA knew better than the rank and file (who they represent). How can you be so arrogant as to not even let the mbrship see SL9, especially when you knew the history of SWA and it's acquisitions?

You're mixing events.

I wasn't involved in the first negotiations. However, I supported not sending SL9 to the pilot group because it was neither fair, nor equitable. Even the Merger Committee admitted that the list, in and of itself, wasn't anywhere in the NEIGHBORHOOD of fair, but it was the best they felt they could do.

With that in mind, and with the backstop ALLEGEDLY being arbitration, which again, even the Merger Committee that brought back SIA 1 admitted that arbitration would almost certainly yield a better seniority list, since none of them were telling any of the membership that there was a risk of non-integration at the time, I thought it a waste of time to send something so lop-sided out to the group and preferred it to simply go to arbitration if we couldn't obtain something fair, which is what I told my reps in MCO, as did the majority of the rest of the MCO pilots (the MCO reps called EACH and EVERY pilot they represented to figure out how they should vote) and they voted accordingly at the MEC meeting.

I'm failing to see how believing the written and signed Process Agreement was going to be followed equates to "arrogance"???

What I said above that you quoted is what I thought when we voted to send SIA 2 to the MEC which was subsequently sent to the pilots to vote on. We knew we had lost the pilots, that they were scared, that they were already starting a recall against 3 of the 4 ATL reps and that, if they succeeded, they would hold a roll-call vote majority and, if we didn't bring back something by the time that happened, they had already telegraphed that they would take whatever they could get from SWA management, including a staple (some of the people heading up the recall movement had already written that exact letter to Gary Kelly and posted it on their Facebook page).

So yes, even though it went against every bone in my body for what I consider "fair", and even though I detested doing it, I went along with sending SIA 2 to the membership, knowing full well that in the full grip of fear, it was going to pass, even though arbitration would have almost certainly yielded better results.

You can call that "arrogance" if you want. I call it picking the lesser of two evils in a crappy situation.

 

[redflyer65]

Lear,

I don't disagree with your insight into what happened on your side, but I have to wonder if the MEC looked at the 1st agreement and said.."The list isn't good enough and we have arbitration as a backstop (like you stated above). And part two....the money and benefits are going to be there for us no matter what, so we don't have to worry about that (it's coming anyway, right?)."

The first part. Maybe. Looking through the lens of a MEC member.

The second part? Came back to bite them in the A$$. They never saw it coming. Arrogance? Possibly. That, like the first list is all in the eye of the beholder.

The differences between the earning potential and overall benefit packages was pretty stark, but at this point..it's a complete dead horse.

RF

 

[madjack]

Fair enough... You expected arbitration to be the backstop for negotiation and SWA took that option out with the threat of jobs...

With that in mind you did not send SL9 out for vote...

My point is your elected officials misjudged SWA and only they can be held accountable for your current situation...not sending SL9 out for vote and then sending SL10 out without the protections you now seek, well that is just poor representation... Maybe not arrogant but ill advised given SWA's history...and upper hand purchaser.

 

[freightdogfred]

Lear.....why do you waste your breath here? You're not going to change any minds.

 

[redflyer65]

Maybe because he enjoys a spirited debate? As long as nobody is making personal threats, I don't see the problem. I have to admit that some of the things Lear has posted has made me think about how it played out on the AAI side. Changed my mind about how it went down? Maybe not. But does change my perspective of what they had to go through. The history is the history. I prefer not to re-write it, but remember it honestly (good or bad).

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

I don't disagree with your insight into what happened on your side, but I have to wonder if the MEC looked at the 1st agreement and said.."The list isn't good enough and we have arbitration as a backstop (like you stated above). And part two....the money and benefits are going to be there for us no matter what, so we don't have to worry about that (it's coming anyway, right?)."

The first part. Maybe. Looking through the lens of a MEC member.

The second part? Came back to bite them in the A$$. They never saw it coming. Arrogance? Possibly. That, like the first list is all in the eye of the beholder.

The differences between the earning potential and overall benefit packages was pretty stark, but at this point..it's a complete dead horse.

RF

Can't disagree with anything you said here...

Fair enough... You expected arbitration to be the backstop for negotiation and SWA took that option out with the threat of jobs...

With that in mind you did not send SL9 out for vote...

But that's not how it went.

The job threats didn't come until AFTER the vote not to send out SIA 1. At least, not to the general pilot population, myself included. That is my biggest sore spot with our own Merger Committee. Before the GK threat letter, even in private conversations with individual MC members, when I specifically asked about non-integration, largely in part from some of the things that were being posted on here, the response from the MC was "Don't worry, they WILL integrate us, it may just take a little longer to get there."

After the threat letter from GK which was AFTER the vote, they all started singing a different tune.

My point is your elected officials misjudged SWA and only they can be held accountable for your current situation...not sending SL9 out for vote and then sending SL10 out without the protections you now seek, well that is just poor representation... Maybe not arrogant but ill advised given SWA's history...and upper hand purchaser.

I disagree with your statement that only the ALPA MEC can be held accountable. In the end, I also hold Southwest management accountable for threatening to reneg on the process agreement and coercing the pilot group into accepting SIA 2.

They told us we could go to arbitration and be integrated. Then they threatened to reneg on that signed agreement as a strong-arm way around McCaskill/Bond. It's just that simple.

As for the rest, I can't argue most of that and, in retrospect, the first deal would have been better. It's a wash for me, but for other people, it's anywhere from $100k to half a Million Dollars that, given their seniority placement, they'll never get back.

Yes, I still lose sleep over it.

Lear.....why do you waste your breath here? You're not going to change any minds.

Yeah, I know... Keep meaning to start a 12-step program from the message board or something.

 

[madjack]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

 

[SWA717]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

I'm sure the IT gurus will have it all figured out by then.

 

[humveedriver]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

SL10 is a written agreement. If SWA has taught me anything in the last 18 months, it's that written agreements are meant to be circumvented.