New AT to SWA training plan out

[madjack]

Is it true that there is a lawsuit filed against ALPA by AAI pilots regarding not allowing AAI pilots to vote on SL9?

Not that SWAPA is the greatest pilot union, but it does seem that ALPA has poorly represented the pilots of AAI during this integration by:

- Failing to foresee the possibility that SWA would/could divest the 717 if SL9 was voted down (Muse Air scenario)

- Failure to foresee the possibility that SWA would/could divest the 717 even after an agreement was reached in SL10 (single fleet type for 40 years)

Granted the actions of SWA in the past have not been in line with traditional mergers, but given the historical record shouldn't AAI ALPA have been proactive in protecting the interests of its pilots?

The AAI pilots on this forum complain that SWA pilots are not "on the same team" and generally are not sympathetic to their cause (gaining a fair and equitable SLI)...But from our perspective, as compared to previous mergers, the AAI/SWA SLI represents the first time in the history of the airline that the aquired airline's pilots were integrated into the list.

 

[Lear70]

The AAI pilots on this forum complain that SWA pilots are not "on the same team" and generally are not sympathetic to their cause (gaining a fair and equitable SLI)...

And therein lies the true issue.

As far as we were concerned, we WERE wanting a fair and equitable SLI. You think you were, too. Our definition of "fair" and your definition of "fair" were two, entirely different things. If you want to say that's not being sympathetic to your "cause", then we could say the same thing of SWA pilots regarding our "cause".

The way you say it even shows that you don't recognize that basic truth. Your idea of fair and ours were two different things. That's why Arbitration was invented - let independent, non-involved, neutral parties decide where fair really is. We didn't get to go there, we feel that we had our careers irreparably harmed, your careers had no change at all, except for your senior F/O's who are profiting at our CA's expense (you can't argue that one at all), thus people are going to be pissed about it for years and we're never going to see eye to eye on the issue.

But from our perspective, as compared to previous mergers, the AAI/SWA SLI represents the first time in the history of the airline that the aquired airline's pilots were integrated into the list.

They didn't have much of a choice with McCaskill/Bond in play. I still believe we would have been integrated just fine going to arbitration, but our pilot group was imploding in fear, and no one had the stomach for the longer fight after the threats from SWA management.

I recognize that many SWA pilots find it hard, given SWA's previous acquisitions, that AAI pilots would complain, but Federal Law protected us, SWA sidestepped it nicely, deprived us of our chance at arbitration by scaring the pilot group so badly they caved, deprived us of our CA seats, and deprived us of our relative seniority (or even DoH seniority), losing quality of life for years to come, and it's ludicrous to think that people wouldn't be upset at that.

Additionally, that attitude from SWA pilots where "we're just lucky to be here, given what we've done to airlines in the past" is seen as arrogant in the extreme, not just by us, but by other airline pilots as well. I mean really, you guys should stop saying that, it's more divisive than you can possibly realize.

 

[jball2]

Just because an arbitrator issues a ruling doesn't mean it's fair.

 

[scoreboardII]

I still believe we would have been integrated just fine going to arbitration, but our pilot group was imploding in fear, and no one had the stomach for the longer fight after the threats from SWA management. .

You reached BATNA. It's called negotiating, you reached your point that the alternatives were not acceptable.

 

[Lear70]

You reached BATNA. It's called negotiating, you reached your point that the alternatives were not acceptable.

Not quite.

BATNA refers to a point whereby there can be nothing gained BY EITHER FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS or ARBITRATION. We did not reach that point.

We reached a point where nothing more could be obtained WITHOUT going on to arbitration and we were told that non-integration options would be examined if we did not accept the Company's LAFO.

One (BATNA) is negotiating. The other (what actually happened) is being "dictated the terms of your surrender" rather than continuing to exercise your right to continued negotiation/arbitration.

Could we have said No? Sure. I still think we would have been integrated, as I've said before, but our pilots were unwilling to take that risk and were starting a grassroots takeover of the Association. As a result, if we had refused the terms dictated, the pilots panicking would likely have taken over and gone begging for a Muse job. We therefore took the lesser path of two evils, neither of which was a good outcome and neither of which was anything near BATNA.

Just because an arbitrator issues a ruling doesn't mean it's fair.

True. I still think the results of the PCL/MSA/CLG arbitration were patently unfair - purely relative seniority in a situation where you put the #1 CLG guy right under the #1 PCL/MSA guy who was making 40-50% more in their seat assignment, even though all those pilots at all 3 carriers were flying 90 seat planes, is ridiculous. A Date of Hire solution would have been much more "fair".

The same argument could have been made here and would have been compelling given recent arbitration results at other airlines. It also could have gone against us, and we'd have lived with it.

However, what will be FOREVER seen as patently UNFAIR was taking the option of arbitration while adhering to 6.A. of the Process Agreement away from us by directly-implied threat of our jobs.

Like I said before, I just hope we never, ever, ever acquire another airline that's not in bankruptcy, because if they hold their ground, we're all screwed.

 

[K-Mart]

Reality though is when a company outright purchases another company they should have a bit of say about the employees and where they go. Can't blame the company for this. You buy something you should have a say. And they did.

 

[Kermit_D_Frog]

And what they should have said, is: "preferential interview." That way the real loud mouths could have been sent down the road. There's always failing NEW HIRE training though. So there's still hope.

 

[Lear70]

And what they should have said, is: "preferential interview." That way the real loud mouths could have been sent down the road. There's always failing NEW HIRE training though. So there's still hope.

No one has yet, including vocal and active negotiating committee and merger committee members.

I imagine the lawsuits stemming from any such attempt would be pretty quick. But thanks for welcoming those with dissenting viewpoints professionally and cordially. Glad to know your true feelings and to capture them here for posterity.

 

[Britpilot]

And what they should have said, is: "preferential interview." That way the real loud mouths could have been sent down the road. There's always failing NEW HIRE training though. So there's still hope.

There's that "one team, golden rule" thing again .

 

[scoreboardII]

Not quite.

BATNA refers to a point whereby there can be nothing gained BY EITHER FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS or ARBITRATION. We did not reach that point.

We reached a point where nothing more could be obtained WITHOUT going on to arbitration and we were told that non-integration options would be examined if we did not accept the Company's LAFO.

One (BATNA) is negotiating. The other (what actually happened) is being "dictated the terms of your surrender" rather than continuing to exercise your right to continued negotiation/arbitration.

Could we have said No? Sure. I still think we would have been integrated, as I've said before, but our pilots were unwilling to take that risk and were starting a grassroots takeover of the Association. As a result, if we had refused the terms dictated, the pilots panicking would likely have taken over and gone begging for a Muse job. We therefore took the lesser path of two evils, neither of which was a good outcome and neither of which was anything near BATNA.

True. I still think the results of the PCL/MSA/CLG arbitration were patently unfair - purely relative seniority in a situation where you put the #1 CLG guy right under the #1 PCL/MSA guy who was making 40-50% more in their seat assignment, even though all those pilots at all 3 carriers were flying 90 seat planes, is ridiculous. A Date of Hire solution would have been much more "fair".

The same argument could have been made here and would have been compelling given recent arbitration results at other airlines. It also could have gone against us, and we'd have lived with it.

However, what will be FOREVER seen as patently UNFAIR was taking the option of arbitration while adhering to 6.A. of the Process Agreement away from us by directly-implied threat of our jobs.

Like I said before, I just hope we never, ever, ever acquire another airline that's not in bankruptcy, because if they hold their ground, we're all screwed.

You just gave a textbook definition of BATNA.

You guys voted to accept the agreement based on whatever potential threats where perceived by delaying that vote. That's BATNA.

The company was fully prepared to take this to arbitration, or so our notes detail... Your casting the company in any other light than "they negotiated really well" is telling, "the lady doth protest to much, methinks".