New AT to SWA training plan out

[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.