New AT to SWA training plan out

[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...