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".

 

[madjack]

"we're just lucky to be here, given what we've done to airlines in the past" is seen as arrogant in the extreme

Now we are getting somewhere...

"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."

This is likely the most arrogant statement I have ever heard from someone working in a union position. It essentially says AAI/ALPA knew better than the rank and file (who they represent). How can you be so arrogant as to not even let the mbrship see SL9, especially when you knew the history of SWA and it's acquisitions?

 

[Lear70]

"we're just lucky to be here, given what we've done to airlines in the past" is seen as arrogant in the extreme

Now we are getting somewhere...

"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."

This is likely the most arrogant statement I have ever heard from someone working in a union position. It essentially says AAI/ALPA knew better than the rank and file (who they represent). How can you be so arrogant as to not even let the mbrship see SL9, especially when you knew the history of SWA and it's acquisitions?

You're mixing events.

I wasn't involved in the first negotiations. However, I supported not sending SL9 to the pilot group because it was neither fair, nor equitable. Even the Merger Committee admitted that the list, in and of itself, wasn't anywhere in the NEIGHBORHOOD of fair, but it was the best they felt they could do.

With that in mind, and with the backstop ALLEGEDLY being arbitration, which again, even the Merger Committee that brought back SIA 1 admitted that arbitration would almost certainly yield a better seniority list, since none of them were telling any of the membership that there was a risk of non-integration at the time, I thought it a waste of time to send something so lop-sided out to the group and preferred it to simply go to arbitration if we couldn't obtain something fair, which is what I told my reps in MCO, as did the majority of the rest of the MCO pilots (the MCO reps called EACH and EVERY pilot they represented to figure out how they should vote) and they voted accordingly at the MEC meeting.

I'm failing to see how believing the written and signed Process Agreement was going to be followed equates to "arrogance"???

What I said above that you quoted is what I thought when we voted to send SIA 2 to the MEC which was subsequently sent to the pilots to vote on. We knew we had lost the pilots, that they were scared, that they were already starting a recall against 3 of the 4 ATL reps and that, if they succeeded, they would hold a roll-call vote majority and, if we didn't bring back something by the time that happened, they had already telegraphed that they would take whatever they could get from SWA management, including a staple (some of the people heading up the recall movement had already written that exact letter to Gary Kelly and posted it on their Facebook page).

So yes, even though it went against every bone in my body for what I consider "fair", and even though I detested doing it, I went along with sending SIA 2 to the membership, knowing full well that in the full grip of fear, it was going to pass, even though arbitration would have almost certainly yielded better results.

You can call that "arrogance" if you want. I call it picking the lesser of two evils in a crappy situation.

 

[redflyer65]

Lear,

I don't disagree with your insight into what happened on your side, but I have to wonder if the MEC looked at the 1st agreement and said.."The list isn't good enough and we have arbitration as a backstop (like you stated above). And part two....the money and benefits are going to be there for us no matter what, so we don't have to worry about that (it's coming anyway, right?)."

The first part. Maybe. Looking through the lens of a MEC member.

The second part? Came back to bite them in the A$$. They never saw it coming. Arrogance? Possibly. That, like the first list is all in the eye of the beholder.

The differences between the earning potential and overall benefit packages was pretty stark, but at this point..it's a complete dead horse.

RF

 

[madjack]

Fair enough... You expected arbitration to be the backstop for negotiation and SWA took that option out with the threat of jobs...

With that in mind you did not send SL9 out for vote...

My point is your elected officials misjudged SWA and only they can be held accountable for your current situation...not sending SL9 out for vote and then sending SL10 out without the protections you now seek, well that is just poor representation... Maybe not arrogant but ill advised given SWA's history...and upper hand purchaser.

 

[freightdogfred]

Lear.....why do you waste your breath here? You're not going to change any minds.

 

[redflyer65]

Maybe because he enjoys a spirited debate? As long as nobody is making personal threats, I don't see the problem. I have to admit that some of the things Lear has posted has made me think about how it played out on the AAI side. Changed my mind about how it went down? Maybe not. But does change my perspective of what they had to go through. The history is the history. I prefer not to re-write it, but remember it honestly (good or bad).

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

I don't disagree with your insight into what happened on your side, but I have to wonder if the MEC looked at the 1st agreement and said.."The list isn't good enough and we have arbitration as a backstop (like you stated above). And part two....the money and benefits are going to be there for us no matter what, so we don't have to worry about that (it's coming anyway, right?)."

The first part. Maybe. Looking through the lens of a MEC member.

The second part? Came back to bite them in the A$$. They never saw it coming. Arrogance? Possibly. That, like the first list is all in the eye of the beholder.

The differences between the earning potential and overall benefit packages was pretty stark, but at this point..it's a complete dead horse.

RF

Can't disagree with anything you said here...

Fair enough... You expected arbitration to be the backstop for negotiation and SWA took that option out with the threat of jobs...

With that in mind you did not send SL9 out for vote...

But that's not how it went.

The job threats didn't come until AFTER the vote not to send out SIA 1. At least, not to the general pilot population, myself included. That is my biggest sore spot with our own Merger Committee. Before the GK threat letter, even in private conversations with individual MC members, when I specifically asked about non-integration, largely in part from some of the things that were being posted on here, the response from the MC was "Don't worry, they WILL integrate us, it may just take a little longer to get there."

After the threat letter from GK which was AFTER the vote, they all started singing a different tune.

My point is your elected officials misjudged SWA and only they can be held accountable for your current situation...not sending SL9 out for vote and then sending SL10 out without the protections you now seek, well that is just poor representation... Maybe not arrogant but ill advised given SWA's history...and upper hand purchaser.

I disagree with your statement that only the ALPA MEC can be held accountable. In the end, I also hold Southwest management accountable for threatening to reneg on the process agreement and coercing the pilot group into accepting SIA 2.

They told us we could go to arbitration and be integrated. Then they threatened to reneg on that signed agreement as a strong-arm way around McCaskill/Bond. It's just that simple.

As for the rest, I can't argue most of that and, in retrospect, the first deal would have been better. It's a wash for me, but for other people, it's anywhere from $100k to half a Million Dollars that, given their seniority placement, they'll never get back.

Yes, I still lose sleep over it.

Lear.....why do you waste your breath here? You're not going to change any minds.

Yeah, I know... Keep meaning to start a 12-step program from the message board or something.

 

[madjack]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

 

[SWA717]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

I'm sure the IT gurus will have it all figured out by then.

 

[humveedriver]

All I know is that if any former AAl pilot comes across prior to 1/2015 as a CP, or after 1/2015 holds a 737 CP seat out of seniority order (or is paid as CP) that there would be a violation of SL10. Not sure how you get around that problem...

SL10 is a written agreement. If SWA has taught me anything in the last 18 months, it's that written agreements are meant to be circumvented.

 

[4day]

GK Q3 voice mail says in 2013 they will have a reduction in head count and aggressive cost cutting measures. Ahhhh the new SWA.

 

[Citrusflyer]

GK Q3 voice mail says in 2013 they will have a reduction in head count and aggressive cost cutting measures. Ahhhh the new SWA.

Reduction in head count probably coming from the IT dep't. Cut it in half and you'd reduce overall employee layout by 5%.

 

[4day]

Reduction in head count probably coming from the IT dep't. Cut it in half and you'd reduce overall employee layout by 5%.

I agree 100%.

 

[madjack]

HVD,

GMAFB...what part of any written agreement did SWA violate?

If u are referring to the PA...AAI never hit the PTT for arby and accepted and approved SL10.

This after AAI/ALPA MEC voted down SL9?????

C'mon, of all the finfo posters to realize that SWA mgmt is different, this is good rather than bad...when your union threatened to strike...were you thinking I'd rather be at SWA or AAI....
.

 

[FlyinGuy]

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.

This is where you lose any credibility. You make statements that your careers were irreparably harmed and our careers had no change? Bull honkey!!! This acquisition will put many of our f/o's at a huge disadvantage over the life of their careers. Remember, you guys are transitioning to a better contract,with better benefits. What did our guys get? People in front of them that were not there before. So, you are correct in saying that we will not see eye to eye on this issue. You are also making inaccurate statements to garner support for your position.

Again, best of luck to us all because we need to somehow get together when this is all said done so we can attempt to pull in the same direction.

 

[Cruncher]

Lear,

I disagree. I removed employee numbers & last names, but used first names & seniority # where applicable to prove my point. Sorry if it’s a bit confusing though you should be able to follow my logic. I do not mean this post derogatory at all; it is just an observation

From SL10: Pilot totals

SWA 5863
AT 1704 (1737 are in the Final Transition Bid [FTB], so I’ll give you the higher #)
2012NH 132 (from today's SWA list)
Total: 7732
7732/2 = 3866 “50% Pilot” – that is, 50% of system seniority.

Projecting SL10 MSL list to 1/15: (assuming all attrition is replaced with new hires)
#3866 is former SWA Eric
The next senior former AT is Doug (#3864), who happened to bid 717 CA in the FTB
From SL10, Doug was #339 on the former AT MSL; additionally, he was the 248th most junior 717 CA ≤50% SL10 MSL line.
91 AT guys senior to Doug bid 737 FO, 1 of these guys will retire before 1/15
20 AT 717 Captains senior to Doug will retire before 1/15

So on 1/15:
Again, 20 AT 717 Captains senior to Doug already retired.
The vacancies age-65 produce will most likely be absorbed as the 717s are transitioned; thereby, delaying the more junior from popping out the bottom (albeit for only a short period of time, maybe a bid period at most).

Considering the senior AT 717 Captains who will retire: 248-20 = 228 AT CA “should” be able to hold Captain, that is ≤50% system seniority list.

However,
36 * 6 = 216 guys will still hold CA (as per the SWA/DAL transition schedule)

228 – 216 = 12 displaced AT Captains who are ≤50% of the seniority list on 1/15 (again, these are the guys who BID 717CA).

Now if we consider the senior (≤50%) AT pilots who bid 737 FO:

91 – 1 (retiree) = 90, add these with the 12 bumped guys, 102 guys ≤50% system seniority & NOT holding a captain seat (however, again 90 of these guys BID 737 FO for whatever reason, and will most likely be bidding back to the left seat over the next 4 classes or so). So out of 318 former senior (≤50%) AT pilots, 216 are still in their seat.

Now lets compare if all 717s were to stay and look at our seniority list on 1/15:

We would have 509 former AT B717 Captains, with the most junior guy, David being #784 on the former AT list. David is #5706 on the MSL and is just junior to Jon #5705 on the SWA side. Jon is 1,398 "SWA" guys junior to Eric (the “50% [SWA] guy” listed above), and 1,840 total pilots junior Eric. Another way to view this, we'd have 261 guys holding Captain out of seniority order (albeit probably for a short period of time as the more senior bid any B717 vacancies).

So by subleasing all but 36 * B717 bumps 12 former AT B717 Captains out of their 50% seat VERSUS having 261 former AT guys holding captain seat out of seniority with the most junior ahead of close to 1,400 "former" SWA FOs.

(BTW, 261 is my least favorite # uke
Hence my statement that the 717 sublease “normalizes” the master seniority list (wrt to holding a "bid" Captain seat & the SL10 MSL).

Fly safe,
-C

PS If we do NOT consider the 132 HNs, the list is smaller and fewer guys are below the 50% line. Actually, this would result in 16 fewer AT pilots below the 50% line, essentially zeroing out ALL bumped B717CA. Actually, since none of these 16 guys will have retired by 1/15, we'd HAVE a handful of guys holding CA seat out of system seniority versus 261.

 

[carl p]

Can't disagree with anything you said here...


But that's not how it went.

The job threats didn't come until AFTER the vote not to send out SIA 1. At least, not to the general pilot population, myself included. That is my biggest sore spot with our own Merger Committee. Before the GK threat letter, even in private conversations with individual MC members, when I specifically asked about non-integration, largely in part from some of the things that were being posted on here, the response from the MC was "Don't worry, they WILL integrate us, it may just take a little longer to get there."

After the threat letter from GK which was AFTER the vote, they all started singing a different tune.


I disagree with your statement that only the ALPA MEC can be held accountable. In the end, I also hold Southwest management accountable for threatening to reneg on the process agreement and coercing the pilot group into accepting SIA 2.

They told us we could go to arbitration and be integrated. Then they threatened to reneg on that signed agreement as a strong-arm way around McCaskill/Bond. It's just that simple."


Lear,

I remember many arguments on our board regarding whether or not a verbal threat was made by GK in DAL when the MC and MEC were present prior to the first MEC vote. Certain MC members said a threat of non-integration was made and certain MEC members said that no threat was made. That is a big part of why we were such a mess as a pilot group because our "leadership" wasn't on the same page. Unfortunately, they let us down because from the top down the message was completely inconsistent. However, implying you may not honor signed agreements and ultimately threating peoples careers it not what you expect from such a distinguished company. This whole acquisition/merger process has been bungled from early on. One thing is certain, there is plenty of blame to go around...

I still hold out hope that time will heal the wounds and we can have a bright future as one team.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

It kills me that anyone is discussing merits of the dispute here. The reality is that this will head to arbitration where the AAI pilots odds are very good. They are good not because it is "fair and equitable" but becuase it is in the self interest of the arbitrators. If they rule against AAI game over. If they rule in favor of AAI it leads to more arbitration. If they vacate the entire list, which is what AAI ALPA will ask for, guess where we go? You got it, arbitration again. Once there an AAI win of DOH or better will benefit SWA because they will only have to retrain the AAI folks one time. Besides which ALPA produces a lot more arbitrations than SWAPA. Therefore it is in the arbitrators self interest to give the AAI ALPA a big win. I put the odds of an AAI clean sweep victory at 80 percent or better. The airline arbitration system is corrupt. Fair and equitable have nothing to do with the results. The results are based on the interests of the arbitrators, the people who are paying them, and the people who are likely to pay them again in the future.

 

[texman]

It kills me that anyone is discussing merits of the dispute here. The reality is that this will head to arbitration where the AAI pilots odds are very good. They are good not because it is "fair and equitable" but becuase it is in the self interest of the arbitrators. If they rule against AAI game over. If they rule in favor of AAI it leads to more arbitration. If they vacate the entire list, which is what AAI ALPA will ask for, guess where we go? You got it, arbitration again. Once there an AAI win of DOH or better will benefit SWA because they will only have to retrain the AAI folks one time. Besides which ALPA produces a lot more arbitrations than SWAPA. Therefore it is in the arbitrators self interest to give the AAI ALPA a big win. I put the odds of an AAI clean sweep victory at 80 percent or better. The airline arbitration system is corrupt. Fair and equitable have nothing to do with the results. The results are based on the interests of the arbitrators, the people who are paying them, and the people who are likely to pay them again in the future.

So your saying this dispute will go to arbitration and we will have a new list? More of a DOH?

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear,

I disagree. I removed employee numbers & last names, but used first names & seniority # where applicable to prove my point. Sorry if it’s a bit confusing though you should be able to follow my logic. I do not mean this post derogatory at all; it is just an observation

From SL10: Pilot totals

SWA 5863
AT 1704 (1737 are in the Final Transition Bid [FTB], so I’ll give you the higher #)
2012NH 132 (from today's SWA list)
Total: 7732
7732/2 = 3866 “50% Pilot” – that is, 50% of system seniority.

Projecting SL10 MSL list to 1/15: (assuming all attrition is replaced with new hires)
#3866 is former SWA Eric
The next senior former AT is Doug (#3864), who happened to bid 717 CA in the FTB
From SL10, Doug was #339 on the former AT MSL; additionally, he was the 248th most junior 717 CA ≤50% SL10 MSL line.
91 AT guys senior to Doug bid 737 FO, 1 of these guys will retire before 1/15
20 AT 717 Captains senior to Doug will retire before 1/15

So on 1/15:
Again, 20 AT 717 Captains senior to Doug already retired.
The vacancies age-65 produce will most likely be absorbed as the 717s are transitioned; thereby, delaying the more junior from popping out the bottom (albeit for only a short period of time, maybe a bid period at most).

Considering the senior AT 717 Captains who will retire: 248-20 = 228 AT CA “should” be able to hold Captain, that is ≤50% system seniority list.

However,
36 * 6 = 216 guys will still hold CA (as per the SWA/DAL transition schedule)

228 – 216 = 12 displaced AT Captains who are ≤50% of the seniority list on 1/15 (again, these are the guys who BID 717CA).

Now if we consider the senior (≤50%) AT pilots who bid 737 FO:

91 – 1 (retiree) = 90, add these with the 12 bumped guys, 102 guys ≤50% system seniority & NOT holding a captain seat (however, again 90 of these guys BID 737 FO for whatever reason, and will most likely be bidding back to the left seat over the next 4 classes or so). So out of 318 former senior (≤50%) AT pilots, 216 are still in their seat.

Now lets compare if all 717s were to stay and look at our seniority list on 1/15:

We would have 509 former AT B717 Captains, with the most junior guy, David being #784 on the former AT list. David is #5706 on the MSL and is just junior to Jon #5705 on the SWA side. Jon is 1,398 "SWA" guys junior to Eric (the “50% [SWA] guy” listed above), and 1,840 total pilots junior Eric. Another way to view this, we'd have 261 guys holding Captain out of seniority order (albeit probably for a short period of time as the more senior bid any B717 vacancies).

So by subleasing all but 36 * B717 bumps 12 former AT B717 Captains out of their 50% seat VERSUS having 261 former AT guys holding captain seat out of seniority with the most junior ahead of close to 1,400 "former" SWA FOs.

(BTW, 261 is my least favorite # uke
Hence my statement that the 717 sublease “normalizes” the master seniority list (wrt to holding a "bid" Captain seat & the SL10 MSL).

Fly safe,
-C

PS If we do NOT consider the 132 HNs, the list is smaller and fewer guys are below the 50% line. Actually, this would result in 16 fewer AT pilots below the 50% line, essentially zeroing out ALL bumped B717CA. Actually, since none of these 16 guys will have retired by 1/15, we'd HAVE a handful of guys holding CA seat out of system seniority versus 261.

Cruncher, Lear wants no part of facts such as NC notes detailing the 717 would go away early rather than later and his MEC was the side that brought it up. He wants no part of discussions that their seniority over time is within tenths of a percent of pre-purchase announcements.