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.