New AT to SWA training plan out

[madjack]

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

And verbal promises (with notes)...could get interesting and costly for SWA...which is already paying 1/2 the $100,000,000.00 cost of refitting the 88 AAI 717 to DAL Livery and interiors....

 

[FlyinGuy]

We have lawyers, CEO's, CFO's, not to mention all the financial advisors!!!

 

[madjack]

Yes we do, but we aren't the ones filing a legal action (DR)

 

[Britpilot]

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.

Not really. By that time it was just a case of take it or leave it.

 

[madjack]

"Not really. By that time it was just a case of take it or leave it."

So your beef with SWA is that:

1) you were verbally promised 717 seats (and bid accordingly)

2) you weren't given the time or opportunity by SWA to get that language in the agreement

I understand that if you bid on an aircraft that no longer exists, you would want the chance to rebid...but that would incur training costs to SWA...you want a piece of some of that money that SWA is saving by not allowing a rebid...well, since we are "all on the same team" you shouldn't have any problem sharing some of those gains with your SWA bros and sis's? Or maybe you would and maybe we are really not on the same team...on this issue...

 

[Ty Webb]

We get it, MJ . . . You didn't make the cutoff to upgrade into one of the Captain seats we agreed to give up, and so now you've convinced yourself that the rest of our 717 CA seats are "spoils" that you should be entitled to, and it's our MEC's fault, or SWA management, or our pilot group.

You're not going to convince anyone on our side of the partition that you're right, and you're not going to suddenly see it our way either, so what's the point of this exercise?

 

[humveedriver]

We get it, MJ . . . You didn't make the cutoff to upgrade into one of the Captain seats we agreed to give up, and so now you've convinced yourself that the rest of our 717 CA seats are "spoils" that you should be entitled to, and it's our MEC's fault, or SWA management, or our pilot group.

You're not going to convince anyone on our side of the partition that you're right, and you're not going to suddenly see it our way either, so what's the point of this incessant bickering?

No dude, he upgraded. He's just remembering why reserve sucks after getting his first choice for the last 6 years. He wants that line back!

 

[Britpilot]

"Not really. By that time it was just a case of take it or leave it."

So your beef with SWA is that:

1) you were verbally promised 717 seats (and bid accordingly)

2) you weren't given the time or opportunity by SWA to get that language in the agreement

I understand that if you bid on an aircraft that no longer exists, you would want the chance to rebid...but that would incur training costs to SWA...you want a piece of some of that money that SWA is saving by not allowing a rebid...well, since we are "all on the same team" you shouldn't have any problem sharing some of those gains with your SWA bros and sis's? Or maybe you would and maybe we are really not on the same team...on this issue...

Not my beef pal, I'm on the 73.
As far as training costs go, check out our training bid. Lots of 717 training so not sure where management is saving money in fact it's gonna cost them a few mil.
Trust me, we know we're not on the same team. That much has been made very clear.

 

[Citrusflyer]

"
I understand that if you bid on an aircraft that no longer exists, you would want the chance to rebid...but that would incur training costs to SWA...you want a piece of some of that money that SWA is saving by not allowing a rebid...well, since we are "all on the same team" you shouldn't have any problem sharing some of those gains with your SWA bros and sis's? Or maybe you would and maybe we are really not on the same team...on this issue...

You got me, chief ... care to 'splain the "saving on training cost" thing?

 

[madjack]

Ok, but as Ty implied, it isn't easy seeing the other guys perspective, but if I had bid with the understanding that the 717 was staying around and then it was taken away, then I would want to rebid (perhaps SWA 737 FO vs 717 CP) in order to get over the partition as soon as I could and get under the SWA CBA...


I think what Britpilot is saying that there will little or no training savings to SWA by NOT conducting another system rebid at this point (with 717s going away)...I thought that it would and perhaps I am wrong...in fact Britpilot is implying that SWA has or will spend millions on training as a result of the first system rebid on the AAI side...

I don't see where SWA is gaining by subleasing the 717, except in divesting itself of an extra airframe that does not fit its business plan...

My point is that wouldn't there have to be a significant gain to SWA for DR going forward to have merit?

What I am seeing here is the AAI pilots seeking CP retention slots and/or pay because the 717 went away...the retention slots and pay protection (in a zero sum world) will cost the SWA pilots...to me that seems unfair. The SWA side voted on SL10, not on verbal agreements between the AAI side and SWA.

From a pilot perspective the loss of the 717 airframe will hurt us all...it may aid the company financially in the long run, but a stronger SWA is in everyone's best interest...

As far as me personally, I just answered the phone when training called for upgrade. As a west coast (OAK) CP I am spared much of the pain of integration to date (that will change I know)...but I fly with many junior FOs (90-103k numbers) who spent years getting SWA mins, interviewed multiple times, bought types, sat in hiring pools and then had thousands of younger AAI pilots put ahead of them as a result of SL10...they are probably just as disillusioned and P.O.'d (if not more) than the AAI pilots...the good news is that the transitioned AAI pilots are professionals!

 

[Cruncher]

I don't see where SWA is gaining by subleasing the 717

The operating costs being very similar might be a factor, when you consider the revenue potential (122 seats versus 143). Philosophically, we are going to larger airplanes, not smaller. 143 seats, -800s, ..., the 717 is like leasing a fleet of -500s.

However, one benefit for the SWA Master list (considering the transition bid results), subleasing 52 * B717 will more or less "normalize" the seniority list on 1/1/15. That is, on 1/1/15, those senior enough (≤50%) to hold a Captain seat will, those unable to hold a Captain seat will be bumped from the B717, assuming the seat removal occurs in reverse seniority.

If the B717 were all still on property on 1/1/15, we'd have close to 300 former AT pilots in the left seat, where the bottom B717 CA would be junior to over a 1400 former SWA FOs.

All considering no pilot growth.

Maybe, this was a small part of their plan to keep training costs down.

I do see a fair amount of training after 1/1/15, when former senior AT guys bid back to Captain, displacing former SWA guys back to the right seat. But who knows, maybe some of those guys will like the top bids, vacation, premium OT, .... and will stay as FOs.

IMO, the company really looked at the costs associated with operating a multiple aircraft fleet and it worried them.

 

[Bill Nelson]

"do see a fair amount of training after 1/1/15, when former senior AT guys bid back to Captain, displacing former SWA guys back to the right seat."

It doesn't work like that. They won't bump anyone out of their seat they will remain FO's until there is a captain vacancy for them to fill.

 

[NuGuy]

FWIW, determining "intent" is very much a part of the arbitration process.

Both sides at any table take detailed "negotiator's notes", which includes the specific nature of why certain items were crafted or written the way they were.

These notes become evidence for the arbitrator...it is essentially the first thing they ask for.. In many cases, these notes convey a meaning that is not reflected in the actual contract language.

Nu

 

[NuGuy]

FWIW, determining "intent" is very much a part of the arbitration process.

Both sides at any table take detailed "negotiator's notes", which includes the specific nature of why certain items were crafted or written the way they were.

These notes become evidence for the arbitrator...it is essentially what they ask fr firstr. In many cases, these notes convey a meaning or intent that is not reflected in the actual contract language.

Nu

 

[madjack]

"These notes become evidence for the arbitrator...it is essentially the first thing they ask for.. In many cases, these notes convey a meaning that is not reflected in the actual contract language."

Well that is interesting...

 

[redflyer65]

I just 'made some notes' and dated them 5/14/2011. I'll see if the arbitor will want them since it's the first thing he will ask for. I believe the written argeement will carry a ton of evidence that will be hard for him to overule. A few notes from the AAI side will most likely not cross the very high threshold of making a change. Going to be interesting to watch, no matter how it turns out.

 

[madjack]

"A few notes from the AAI side will most likely not cross the very high threshold of making a change"

Therein lies the argument...AAI was verbally promised 717 CP seats post 2015, those seats are now going to DAL, but the pilots are now coming to SWA...I haven't seen anything but would not be surprised if they are asking for a carve out 88 SWA 737s worth of CP seats (440ish) post 1/2015 or pay protection (at SWA CP rates)...

A sympathetic arbitrator could really put a put a fly in the ointment for this integration...

 

[NuGuy]

I just 'made some notes' and dated them 5/14/2011. I'll see if the arbitor will want them since it's the first thing he will ask for. I believe the written argeement will carry a ton of evidence that will be hard for him to overule. A few notes from the AAI side will most likely not cross the very high threshold of making a change. Going to be interesting to watch, no matter how it turns out.

Clearly you have never been close to the mechanics as to how contracts or agreements at this level are negotiated, or have ever been part of an arbitration.

We're not about a few scribbles on a napkin. Try reams and boxes of documents that have legal standing, the same as your doctor's notes that he has transcribed after a visit.

Remember, arbitration favors those with the best documentation, and unclear or ambiguous language is usually decided in favor of the side that didn't write it. Remember those notes? They contain information as to who wrote what language in the agreement. As the AT side has been down this road before, and had good legal counsel. I guarantee you those notes are extremely detailed, down to who said what, on what date and time. Even the smallest details are recorded.

I've seen arbitrations over seemingly CLEAR language, black and white, guaranteed win, lost on the intent as presented by the negotiator's notes. You'd best give a call to your NC or Contract Administrator if you think it's just about what's in the print of any agreement.

Nu

 

[redflyer65]

Good luck with that Nu. I don't need to call anyone.

Honestly, I don't blame the AAI guys for doing it. I would too if the shoe was on the other foot. I think it's kind of a hail Mary, but it's worth a shot.

 

[Lear70]

The operating costs being very similar might be a factor, when you consider the revenue potential (122 seats versus 143). Philosophically, we are going to larger airplanes, not smaller. 143 seats, -800s, ..., the 717 is like leasing a fleet of -500s.

Let's just say that it's VERY cost effective for SWA to sub-lease those 717's. I've seen some of the numbers, and although I'm still bound to a confidentiality agreement for money-specific issues, I can tell you that it's better for the company financially this way (which management has also said, otherwise they wouldn't have done it, but knowing some of the details I can understand the "why" of the issue).

However, knowing enough of the broad financials behind it, I can say that pay protecting the Captains would still leave Southwest WELL into positive cash territory for the 717 deal.

However, one benefit for the SWA Master list (considering the transition bid results), subleasing 52 * B717 will more or less "normalize" the seniority list on 1/1/15. That is, on 1/1/15, those senior enough (≤50%) to hold a Captain seat will, those unable to hold a Captain seat will be bumped from the B717, assuming the seat removal occurs in reverse seniority.

Incorrect. On 1/1/15, on the MASTER Southwest seniority list, with ALL the previous AAI pilots on it, there will be 373 previous AAI pilots who are F/O's who have the seniority to hold CA slots but will be precluded from such by the 1/1/15 "no AAI 737 CA" provision.

The seniority list will not "normalize" as you put it, until likely well close to 2017, primarily through attrition, and secondarily with new aircraft deliveries, depending of course on the -300 retirements.

If the B717 were all still on property on 1/1/15, we'd have close to 300 former AT pilots in the left seat, where the bottom B717 CA would be junior to over a 1400 former SWA FOs.

No, actually, you'd have closer to 550 AAI pilots in the left seat of the 717, almost 200 of which would be holding it out-of-seniority. Remember, the list was roughly a 6.5:1 ratio, give or take, so yes, almost 200 pilots would be ratio'd in with around 1,300 SWA pilots.

Maybe, this was a small part of their plan to keep training costs down.

As has been mentioned, by doing this, and AAI ALPA not giving them relief on the training issues, it's going to cost ADDITIONAL millions of $$$ in training costs, having to run several hundred 737 pilots back through 717 training to honor the flush bid, the two months for each pilot who will come out of the system to train, drawing full pay during training, plus hotels, plus per diem, plus the sim costs from Alteon, etc. Then they'll have to run them through full initial at SWA again when they transition.

That kind of money, however, is small potatoes compared to the money savings on the 717 deal with Delta, and obviously wasn't even enough for us to use as a carrot to get something for the way it negatively impacted us.

 

[scoreboardII]

Clearly you have never been close to the mechanics as to how contracts or agreements at this level are negotiated, or have ever been part of an arbitration.

We're not about a few scribbles on a napkin. Try reams and boxes of documents that have legal standing, the same as your doctor's notes that he has transcribed after a visit.

Remember, arbitration favors those with the best documentation, and unclear or ambiguous language is usually decided in favor of the side that didn't write it. Remember those notes? They contain information as to who wrote what language in the agreement. As the AT side has been down this road before, and had good legal counsel. I guarantee you those notes are extremely detailed, down to who said what, on what date and time. Even the smallest details are recorded.

I've seen arbitrations over seemingly CLEAR language, black and white, guaranteed win, lost on the intent as presented by the negotiator's notes. You'd best give a call to your NC or Contract Administrator if you think it's just about what's in the print of any agreement.

Nu

And all it takes is one note from the other side which says those reams of paper and boxes of notes are not what was agreed to in writing. SWA may have fallen off the turnip truck at night, just not last night.

 

[Lear70]

Honestly, I don't blame the AAI guys for doing it. I would too if the shoe was on the other foot. I think it's kind of a hail Mary, but it's worth a shot.

Thanks for acknowledging that... seriously, it's more than a little maddening when SWA peeps get mad at us for something that, if truth be told, and the shoe were on the other foot, you guys would probably be doing the very same thing.

We may get somewhere with it... we may get nowhere at all. But it actually could have gotten ALPA sued for NOT doing anything as a DFR issue. ALPA bears the responsibility to pursue it when we know we negotiated the deal with the intent to protect those CA seats and an ATL domicile. No ill will wished towards any of you, whatsoever... seriously.

Hope we can get through this sooner rather than later.

 

[Lear70]

And all it takes is one note from the other side which says those reams of paper and boxes of notes are not what was agreed to in writing. SWA may have fallen off the turnip truck at night, just not last night.

Good luck with that, when the recorded road shows and statements from SWA management personnel back those negotiating notes as for intent of the 717 to stay through at least 1/1/15.

Nu is spot on for how arbitrations work... which is what I said a couple days ago.

 

[scoreboardII]

I ask you again Lear, define "stay past 2015"? All 717's? Some? Most? What exact number was promised?

 

[Citrusflyer]

As has been mentioned, by doing this, and AAI ALPA not giving them relief on the training issues, it's going to cost ADDITIONAL millions of $$$ in training costs, having to run several hundred 737 pilots back through 717 training to honor the flush bid, the two months for each pilot who will come out of the system to train, drawing full pay during training, plus hotels, plus per diem, plus the sim costs from Alteon, etc. Then they'll have to run them through full initial at SWA again when they transition.

That kind of money, however, is small potatoes compared to the money savings on the 717 deal with Delta, and obviously wasn't even enough for us to use as a carrot to get something for the way it negatively impacted us.

From what I've heard (from the Alteon folks) is that as of March 1st Airtran only has 717 sim slots for PT/PC's and some extra time (for sim outage, re-check's, etc). Other than that Big D has 100% of the sim time for the next 12-18 months. Sooo, if SWA wants to train the Airtran 737 to 717 TBA guys they'll have to send them to Helsinki (where the only other 717 lies in waiting). Even then, that's not a lot of crews. But, hey, if they want to spend everyone's profit sharing $$$ to send the AT guys on a Nordic Vacay - spend away!

 

[madjack]

So the issue is the 550 717 CP seats verbally promised post 1/2015?

So, if awarded who would get the seat/money? The system rebid guys who bid 717? Or would there be another bid now that the 717 will be definitely gone?

 

[ASADFW7]

I feel for the AAI crews avoiding going on strike and such. I guess it could be better if they weren't bought by SWA. Maybe Usair?

 

[scoreboardII]

Good luck with that, when the recorded road shows and statements from SWA management personnel back those negotiating notes as for intent of the 717 to stay through at least 1/1/15.

Nu is spot on for how arbitrations work... which is what I said a couple days ago.

Lear, my sources are calling your recollection of events a polar opposite to what was talked about behind closed doors and whats written in the SWAPA notes. The 717 was acknowledged behind closed doors as possibly leaving earlier, and resulting in the loss of more captain seats to AT, as referenced by your team being the ones to bring up that point. They still voted yes. This is all smoke and mirrors folks.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, my sources are calling your recollection of events a polar opposite to what was talked about behind closed doors and whats written in the SWAPA notes. The 717 was acknowledged behind closed doors as possibly leaving earlier, and resulting in the loss of more captain seats to AT, as referenced by your team being the ones to bring up that point. They still voted yes. This is all smoke and mirrors folks.

Lol Mkay. Sure. Whatever you say.

Because a dozen roadshows with SWA management saying the same thing I'm saying hear and a thousand plus pilots recalling the same message is also something your "sources" decry as well.

Nice snake oil.

 

[madjack]

Judging from public statements by AA and JN, it appears that SWAPA doesn't think the AAI DR has much merit... But Lear and Nu seem to think the negotiating notes and statements by SWA at road shows will win the day...