New AT to SWA training plan out

[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...

 

[K-Mart]

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...

Train wreck I won't be on!

Arbitrator? Sad when a group has to pin hope for a third party individual to give
them something they didn't put in an agreement to begin with. If Airtranwanted 717 protection they should have negotiated it. Which begs the question: why did the AirTran guys not negotiate it or at least included reopen language?

 

[Bill Nelson]

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.

Lear,

Which is it? The 717's going away was never contemplated or it was contemplated by your MC and just wasn't appropriately addressed because "there was little likelyhood that SWA could find a buyer?"

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

Which is it? The 717's going away was never contemplated or it was contemplated by your MC and just wasn't appropriately addressed because "there was little likelyhood that SWA could find a buyer?"

You're twisting what I said.

I said they made verbal assurances, both in negotiations and at road shows, that in NO event was the 717 going away before Operational Integration was complete, and also said, in all likelihood, they wouldn't go away at all before their leases were up.

I also said we discussed it and, after they threatened to reneg on the Process Agreement 6.A, I felt uncomfortable not having EVERY, SINGLE, LITTLE thing we verbally agreed to in writing (like not paying for uniforms, our pilots who reach mandatory retirement before they transition retaining pass privileges in retirement, not paying for our type, etc). However, except for this one piece, Southwest has honored ALL of those verbal agreements from negotiations that weren't in writing.

Just because we didn't nail every single thing down in writing doesn't mean Southwest didn't commit to it. In point of fact, there are SEVERAL things that were verbally committed to that Southwest has added by side letter AFTER the fact, thus honoring their agreement.

As such, don't try to sell people on the idea that they never made promises verbally that weren't in writing and that just because things aren't in writing, they will never honor them when, in fact, they have and do. Unfortunately, they're not with this one and it's a big one.

 

[ASADFW7]

Swa said I would upgrade in seven years and be a millionaire too. Uhm, at six plus I have a couple thousand pilots ahead of me to upgrade, and I just hit about 1/5 of the way to a million. I guess we will see how cheap or expensive talk is for SWA in reference to AAI. Good luck, just not at Swa pilots expense.

 

[Britpilot]

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...

Oooooooo scarey talk. Is that what you wish for us?

 

[Britpilot]

I thought we were all on the same team. Huh.

 

[ATLplt]

I thought we were all on the same team. Huh.

We're only on the same team if it's remotely beneficial for them.

I don't know why anyone responds to scoreboard's drivel. Nobody but a flamebaiter would wish for another pilot to be furloughed, no matter which name is on the side of the airplane.

 

[madjack]

If damages such as CP retention slots or pay protections were given to former AAI pilots by SWA...SWAPA would go after SWA for breach of contract... Maybe that is why SWA could/would not
Settle with the AAI pilots regarding the sub lease of the 717s?

 

[redflyer65]

So the arguement is going to be on 'intent'?

You had plenty of time to put that in writing and it wasn't done. It's not in the agreement. Definitely an uphill battle when a company has a business to run...and decisions to be made accordingly.

 

[Ty Webb]

Wow . . . You guys have even more "Crew-room Lawyers" than we have.