New AT to SWA training plan out

[scoreboardII]

Couldn't you apply that logic to almost anything in life, as virtually everything changes over time. Some things faster than others. My point is that normaly when you change your mind about something, there is a consequence involved with that change. This argument will always be one side insisting that one group of pilots is just lucky to be here and another group saying we brought value to table that should be recognized. We will see if over time either group changes their opinion of the other.

Agreed, now we are getting somewhere, now, show us in the document where it says the 717s will stay as a guarantee?

 

[Lear70]

Lear, one pilot to another, this diatribe you make is a nice spin on a snapshot during one day, at one specific moment in time at the place known as SWA. All of your prognostications fail the light of day two. This is a business which changes its mind based on one thing, money. That's how they have stayed in business 40 plus.
And is why the complaint you guys have that the 717 going away is specious at best.

This kind of response is why we get aggravated. You guys talk about what was signed as if that's supposed to "lock that moment in time as a snapshot during one day" and that should dictate everything. Then you want to disregard everything that happens afterwards and then you accuse me of doing the very same thing. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

For the record, is it not a prognostication for one of your fellow pilots to be asking about Captain seats expected and promised in SL10 (although not in writing like you mention to us) that might fail the light of day two?

Other people get the point I'm making. Not sure why you don't. It doesn't concede your point to admit that someone else is making a valid point. You can still disagree with their thesis while still admitting that some of their points are valid.

There is not one arbiter who will risk his future and saddle a company with costs that are not directly in black and white.

We shall see. Many have in the past. More will in the future. The question is one of intent. If an arbitrator sees that the intent was to protect CA seats and that the changes made by the company after the fact violate that intent, the arbitrator has options. Some of which may incur additional costs.

Southwest saved a substantial amount of money assigning those 717's to Delta. They may be asked to share a good chunk of it with the people who were directly damaged by that decision which goes against the intent of the SIA they had just signed months before. Then again they may not.

Only time will tell.

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

I see your point. My main thing is we don't shrink. We have orders to help replace the classics, and yes it is not just the 50+ AT had on order. I was told in 2010 the Classics can fly till 2024. Only 80 plus had to go right away. I understand your (AT) captain seat loss per the 717 leaving. It's not just about the captain seat, but how many you have below you.

Thanks, and you're exactly right. Especially for your junior CA's who are going to upgrade into reserve lines.

When there isn't a large amount of growth after those guys AND our CA's start upgrading senior to them on the list, they're going to sit on reserve for almost a decade. That certainly affects your guys negatively.

There's going to be plenty of pain to go around unfortunately, unless there's a lot of growth coming down the pike. We're all going to feel it one way or another... Nothing to do but get through it and hope this makes the company profitable enough to grow more quickly than it looks at the moment.

In the meantime, just sitting here hoping the Cowboys pull this one out, only down by 1 point now. Is it just me, or do they do better being down most of the game?

 

[scoreboardII]

This kind of response is why we get aggravated. You guys talk about what was signed as if that's supposed to "lock that moment in time as a snapshot during one day" and that should dictate everything. Then you want to disregard everything that happens afterwards and then you accuse me of doing the very same thing. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

For the record, is it not a prognostication for one of your fellow pilots to be asking about Captain seats expected and promised in SL10 (although not in writing like you mention to us) that might fail the light of day two?

Other people get the point I'm making. Not sure why you don't. It doesn't concede your point to admit that someone else is making a valid point. You can still disagree with their thesis while still admitting that some of their points are valid.


We shall see. Many have in the past. More will in the future. The question is one of intent. If an arbitrator sees that the intent was to protect CA seats and that the changes made by the company after the fact violate that intent, the arbitrator has options. Some of which may incur additional costs.

Southwest saved a substantial amount of money assigning those 717's to Delta. They may be asked to share a good chunk of it with the people who were directly damaged by that decision which goes against the intent of the SIA they had just signed months before. Then again they may not.

Only time will tell.

Oh we all see your point and thesis. But it's invalid under contract law, four corners Of the document provisions.

The arbiters in question have never saddled a company with cost that was not expressely defined, take a look, that's why they where chosen.

 

[Lear70]

COWBOYS!

4 minutes to go, not looking great...

(aka that's "I don't agree with you, and would rather just agree to disagree rather than keep going 'round and 'round saying the same thing in ten different ways).

Enjoy your weekend. :beer:

 

[Ty Webb]

Oh, Lord . . .

Scoreboard, have you passed the Bar exam in any of the 50 States?

Are you licensed to practice in Federal Court, too?

If the answers to those questions are both in the affirmative, I might read through your recent posts like they were more than just an odious mix of opinion, boredom, wishful thinking, and envy.

If not, maybe you ought to get a hobby . . .

Regards,
Ty

 

[scoreboardII]

One last thing Lear, if your legal team was so gung ho to get all you could, and is now relying on verbal statements, why didn't that same crack team ask for written 717 protections?


Ty, not one day of law school, but lots of business. Please refute one of my points using facts, not a plea to a deity.

 

[Lear70]

One last thing Lear, if your legal team was so gung ho to get all you could, and is now relying on verbal statements, why didn't that same crack team ask for written 717 protections?

I tried.

Myself and Jack M were overruled by majority vote of the MC and NC and we spent our time working on other issues. I've mentioned that before, the thought at the time by the other MC/NC members was that there was little likelihood SWA could find a buyer for ALL the jets by 1/1/15.

The idea of a sub-lease never occurred to us because it would have triggered the pilots to go with it and M/B integration with the airline the planes were being transferred to. Also didn't occur to us that, outside of bankruptcy, SWA management would get around THAT language, too.

In the end, SWA management has pretty much ignored every signed document they wanted and challenged us to make them adhere to it and, again and again, we've proven that we either cannot or will not. Still working on finding my "happy place" after the fact... usually that involves working as absolutely little as possible these days and just enjoying my family.

 

[General Lee]

This kind of response is why we get aggravated. You guys talk about what was signed as if that's supposed to "lock that moment in time as a snapshot during one day" and that should dictate everything. Then you want to disregard everything that happens afterwards and then you accuse me of doing the very same thing. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

For the record, is it not a prognostication for one of your fellow pilots to be asking about Captain seats expected and promised in SL10 (although not in writing like you mention to us) that might fail the light of day two?

Other people get the point I'm making. Not sure why you don't. It doesn't concede your point to admit that someone else is making a valid point. You can still disagree with their thesis while still admitting that some of their points are valid.


We shall see. Many have in the past. More will in the future. The question is one of intent. If an arbitrator sees that the intent was to protect CA seats and that the changes made by the company after the fact violate that intent, the arbitrator has options. Some of which may incur additional costs.

Southwest saved a substantial amount of money assigning those 717's to Delta. They may be asked to share a good chunk of it with the people who were directly damaged by that decision which goes against the intent of the SIA they had just signed months before. Then again they may not.

Only time will tell.

Richard Bloch just saddled Pinnacle with a whole bunch of training when he mixed the Colgan guys in with the PNCL and Mesaba guys, and then for some reason afterwards, it went BK. But, that didn't seem to deter the arbitrator initially.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[scoreboardII]

I tried.

Myself and Jack M were overruled by majority vote of the MC and NC and we spent our time working on other issues. I've mentioned that before, the thought at the time by the other MC/NC members was that there was little likelihood SWA could find a buyer for ALL the jets by 1/1/15.

The idea of a sub-lease never occurred to us because it would have triggered the pilots to go with it and M/B integration with the airline the planes were being transferred to. Also didn't occur to us that, outside of bankruptcy, SWA management would get around THAT language, too.

In the end, SWA management has pretty much ignored every signed document they wanted and challenged us to make them adhere to it and, again and again, we've proven that we either cannot or will not. Still working on finding my "happy place" after the fact... usually that involves working as absolutely little as possible these days and just enjoying my family.

OK, so the bold words above mentioning "Didn't occur to us..." doesn't strike you as a perfectly legal way to run their side? I'm still not seeing anything worthy and your admittance you missed something solidifies the fact that: SWA can get rid of the 717's at any damn time they want.

 

[Lear70]

OK, so the bold words above mentioning "Didn't occur to us..." doesn't strike you as a perfectly legal way to run their side? I'm still not seeing anything worthy and your admittance you missed something solidifies the fact that: SWA can get rid of the 717's at any damn time they want.

In your quest to worm your way out of the obvious, you grasp at anything, don't you?

You seem to forget the context of the above statement. The simple fact is that Southwest management promised up and down that the planes weren't going to go away before 2015, and additionally, that it was highly unlikely they'd go away before their lease expirations were up.

One was a verbal promise and part of the basis for accepting the SLI: The 717's were promised not to go away before Complete Operational Integration.

The other was vague: It is unlikely that we will find someone to take the planes after integration but before the leases start to expire, but that part is possible so we're writing that language.

The fact that I felt uncomfortable that there was a loophole, even though all the promises made during negotiations and at the road shows was that the planes would stay at least through integration, doesn't negate the fact that Southwest management did, indeed, promise the AirTran pilots of such.

The fact is further proven by the evidence of a transition bid and the inability for Southwest to get around that bid, costing tens of millions of dollars.

Sorry, Charlie, but as you said before, your claim fails the light of day.

 

[madjack]

"In your quest to worm your way out of the obvious..."

Boy that goes both ways...anyway let's say an aribitrator awards you SWA 737 CP seats for damages incurred by the 717 going away...if those seats are awarded out of seniority order (as per SIA), that would be a violation of the SWA CBA and SL10...which will be your CBA soon...or is your side seeking monetary compensation...i.e. CP pay for AAI 717 CPs who will be FOs post 1/2015 as a result of the 717 going away...? Or are you seeking AAI CP Pay for transitioned 717 CPs prior to 1/2015? Or both??

After 1/2015, all SWA pilots could bid 717 CP if their seniority could hold it and there was a vacancy...

Not sure what your side is seeking...

 

[scoreboardII]

The simple fact is that Southwest management promised up and down that the planes weren't going to go away before 2015, and additionally, that it was highly unlikely they'd go away before their lease expirations were up.

One was a verbal promise and part of the basis for accepting the SLI: The 717's were promised not to go away before Complete Operational Integration.

The other was vague: y.

Let me make this real simple:

Point one: You state above SWA said the 717 was not going away until after 2015. Fine, was that ALL of them not going away, some, a few? Written in what document, and not notes? You see, SWA is following your statement, some 717 will still be on property post 2015.

Point two: Your crack team of lawyers couldn't figure this loophole out and relied on the "hi probability" they wouldn't go away before the lease expired when you knew SWA would dump those things given the first opportunity based on let me see what do I call it "40 years of one plane history"? YHGTBFSM!

Point three: The other was "vague"? Let me get this right, your argument to an arbitor will be "gee, well they vaguely proposed the 717 would remain on property through end of lease so we should be well compensated".

THATS your arguments?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

And just for you: Go Bronco's.

 

[Lear70]

Let me make this real simple:

Point one: You state above SWA said the 717 was not going away until after 2015. Fine, was that ALL of them not going away, some, a few? Written in what document, and not notes? You see, SWA is following your statement, some 717 will still be on property post 2015.

Point two: Your crack team of lawyers couldn't figure this loophole out and relied on the "hi probability" they wouldn't go away before the lease expired when you knew SWA would dump those things given the first opportunity based on let me see what do I call it "40 years of one plane history"? YHGTBFSM!

Point three: The other was "vague"? Let me get this right, your argument to an arbitor will be "gee, well they vaguely proposed the 717 would remain on property through end of lease so we should be well compensated".

THATS your arguments?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

And just for you: Go Bronco's.

It's the same thing for the last part of my statement. We didn't feel the need to craft additional language for the 717's going away early because we already had Scope language that they've since violated.

You have to believe that people are going to honor their verbal and written commitments when you sign an agreement. If you don't, then all the legalese in the world isn't going to help you if they just decide, in the age-old RLA tradition, to let you "fly it and grieve it later".

That's exactly what they did with our Scope language. That's what they've done with the 717 language. And we're filing grievances and DR's since discussions regarding their blatant violations have reached a dead end.

There's nothing more to discuss, so yes, Go Cowboys!

 

[scoreboardII]

The fact that I felt uncomfortable that there was a loophole, even though all the promises made during negotiations and at the road shows was that the planes would stay at least through integration, doesn't negate the fact that Southwest management did, indeed, promise the AirTran pilots of such.

The fact is further proven by the evidence of a transition bid and the inability for Southwest to get around that bid, costing tens of millions of dollars.

Sorry, Charlie, but as you said before, your claim fails the light of day.

Your claim never makes it off the showroom floor buddy.

On the points above, was this promise stated as "we promise not to get rid of the 717 no matter what"?

Or was it more likely stated "we have every intention of keeping the 717 through end of lease"?

Your going to get smeared by the four corners of the document.

The parol evidence rule is a substantive common law rule in contract cases that prevents a party to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole. Parol = oral (Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman / Legal French). The supporting rationale is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, the extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. A common misconception is that it is a rule of evidence (like the Federal Rules of Evidence), but that is not the case. Basically, you cannot use oral testimony to contradict the terms of a signed contract.

 

[Lear70]

"In your quest to worm your way out of the obvious..."

Boy that goes both ways...anyway let's say an aribitrator awards you SWA 737 CP seats for damages incurred by the 717 going away...if those seats are awarded out of seniority order (as per SIA), that would be a violation of the SWA CBA and SL10...which will be your CBA soon...or is your side seeking monetary compensation...i.e. CP pay for AAI 717 CPs who will be FOs post 1/2015 as a result of the 717 going away...? Or are you seeking AAI CP Pay for transitioned 717 CPs prior to 1/2015? Or both??

After 1/2015, all SWA pilots could bid 717 CP if their seniority could hold it and there was a vacancy...

Not sure what your side is seeking...

Nor do I. It's above my pay grade and, even if I knew, I wouldn't put it out there.

I have my personal opinions, but since it only affects me because I was planning on bidding BACK to the 717 after 1/1/15 to get back some of my relative bidding seniority, and not on the front end like all our CA's, my opinion of what should be matters a lot less than those CA's getting hosed. I'm sure our reps have talked to them and are instructing our NC appropriately. Beyond that, like I said, way above my pay grade.

The simple truth is that we negotiated with SWA regarding this for almost 90 days after the violation occurred. They dug in their heels with ANY kind of remedy, be it CA retention slots or money for pay protection. Thus, with nowhere to go, we did the only thing we COULD do: file the DR.

So we did. Now the arbitrators will decide, and all of us will live with it, one way or another. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

[scoreboardII]

So we did. Now the arbitrators will decide, and all of us will live with it, one way or another. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

You may get just what you ask for, you may force SWA's hand. They may decide that you are right, the 717 is overmanned...

 

[Lear70]

You may get just what you ask for, you may force SWA's hand. They may decide that you are right, the 717 is overmanned...

Au Contraire, mon frer.

LOA included in the SIA, adding to our Sec 1 Scope language, Section 1.C.1.a, adding that no AirTran pilot will be furloughed: "...barring Extreme Economic Conditions, no AirTran pilot will be placed on furlough prior to his or her transition to Southwest Airlines" and, further, "...Southwest will hire no pilots while an AirTran pilot remains furloughed."

We have several arbitrated case precedents on hand which define such "Extreme Economic Conditions" to where a company has SUSTAINED unprofitability over YEARS, not just a consecutive quarter or two, which threatens to or either DOES force the company into bankruptcy.

That won't be the case here. You have several possibilities, most of which are less in money costs than SWA made last quarter alone. You can't claim "extreme economic conditions" for a financial hit which is LESS than they are saving with the 717 sublease and, even furthermore, less than SWA makes in just one quarter.

That's just the cost of doing business, or more specifically, the cost associated with saving hundreds of millions on the 717 Delta deal. If some of it ends up going to pay for the people who were wrongfully hurt out of the deal? That's just the way it goes.

Not to mention, Southwest would, for the first time, be furloughing Southwest pilots. As of Date of Signing of this Agreement, AirTran pilots ARE on the Southwest master seniority list.

This B.S. furlough crap from you guys has got to stop. And you wonder why people stay pi$$ed off... you keep threatening our jobs. Have for about 2 years now. It's awfully hard to bring two groups together when every time it seems like we might get a bone thrown our way, even one that won't cost you anything, you start talking furlough or worse. And yet you want us to support the culture when we get there...

You can't have it both ways, Chief. Pick one. Treat us like crap or embody the Golden Rule and ask us to embrace the culture with you. What's it gonna be?

 

[Lear70]

Your claim never makes it off the showroom floor buddy.

On the points above, was this promise stated as "we promise not to get rid of the 717 no matter what"?

Or was it more likely stated "we have every intention of keeping the 717 through end of lease"?

Your going to get smeared by the four corners of the document.

The parol evidence rule is a substantive common law rule in contract cases that prevents a party to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole. Parol = oral (Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman / Legal French). The supporting rationale is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, the extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. A common misconception is that it is a rule of evidence (like the Federal Rules of Evidence), but that is not the case. Basically, you cannot use oral testimony to contradict the terms of a signed contract.

You're quoting contract law in civil cases, my friend.

Arbitration doesn't rely on that. It can be argued, but a NMB arbitrator is not bound by civil law constraints, and yes, in direct contrast to your claim, oral promises, especially those caught on tape at road shows, can most CERTAINLY be used to EXPLAIN the BASIS for signed documents and their intent.

You really need to start looking at NMB case law and get the civil court idea out of your head. While it's not completely disregarded by any means, it doesn't HAVE to be followed and most of the rules of evidence in civil cases don't apply to RLA grievances, including this DR process.

Arbitrators have a WIDE range of ways to interpret and enforce contracts. They've done it before... do some research.

 

[scoreboardII]

Already done, you guys are done, but have fun poking the tiger, it will be fun to watch. And you'll get crap and like it, go Bronco's.

This is going to be such a train wreck...