New AT to SWA training plan out

[Phlintstone]

If they vacate the entire list, which is what AAI ALPA will ask for, guess where we go?

No that is not ALPA's goal. If you can prove me wrong, please post your evidence. IMO, You are just buying into the anti-ALPA propaganda.

Phred

 

[scoreboardII]

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...

GK is a business man, everything he says is in support of the bottom line, there is no "The employee's have a right to demand a vote in how the CEO operates" other than the contractual limits. Which he followed and would have gone to arby per our NC notes. Calling GK a liar is missing the truth.

 

[scoreboardII]

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.

If this goes to arbitration and vacates the SLI, we start over knowing the 717's will be gone. Bond Mckaskil is non applicable, the 717 go to another airline with or without the pilots, and those remaining get stapled, is that what you want?

I counter you good odds with bad= less than 5% chance, I bet the Arbitor throws the claim out stating "AT had numerous opportunities to seek protection in the SLI discussions". Per the agreements, the arbitor cannot change the SLI.

 

[Britpilot]

------------

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

No that is not ALPA's goal. If you can prove me wrong, please post your evidence. IMO, You are just buying into the anti-ALPA propaganda.

Phred

I don't know that for sure. But why not ask for a new list? The worst that can happen is that the arbitrator will say no. If the arbitrator says yes based on precedent the AAI pilots will get date of hire or better. There is virtually no risk and the potential reward is HUGE.

 

[Britpilot]

If this goes to arbitration and vacates the SLI, we start over knowing the 717's will be gone. Bond Mckaskil is non applicable, the 717 go to another airline with or without the pilots, and those remaining get stapled, is that what you want?

Hmmmm, sounds better than what we got.

 

[scoreboardII]

I don't know that for sure. But why not ask for a new list? The worst that can happen is that the arbitrator will say no. If the arbitrator says yes based on precedent the AAI pilots will get date of hire or better. There is virtually no risk and the potential reward is HUGE.

except for the part of the DRA which states "the SLI cannot be changed". I guess you didn't read that section?

 

[freightdogfred]

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.

It seems you think this way because the average WN line pilots definition of "fair and equitable" seems to differ with every other pilot in the industry, not just the FL group. Hence your fear that a neutral
arbitrator will see it different as well. I mean this as no disrespect, but the WN group as a whole have been so insulated from the real world out here their perception of what is fair is a little skewed. (Probably due to their success as an airline) Times are changing, WN management has recognized this, hence their purchase of FL at a bargain based price, aptly pointed out by GK in his midyear update. I got the "you're lucky to have a job" spiel from a WN captain last week in PBI, he was convinced FL was in bankruptcy when the announcement was made.

 

[Britpilot]

I got the "you're lucky to have a job" spiel from a WN captain last week in PBI, he was convinced FL was in bankruptcy when the announcement was made.

Why am I not surprized by this?

 

[scoreboardII]

It seems you think this way because the average WN line pilots definition of "fair and equitable" seems to differ with every other pilot in the industry, not just the FL group. Hence your fear that a neutral
arbitrator will see it different as well. I mean this as no disrespect, but the WN group as a whole have been so insulated from the real world out here their perception of what is fair is a little skewed. (Probably due to their success as an airline) Times are changing, WN management has recognized this, hence their purchase of FL at a bargain based price, aptly pointed out by GK in his midyear update. I got the "you're lucky to have a job" spiel from a WN captain last week in PBI, he was convinced FL was in bankruptcy when the announcement was made.

WN pilot group is different, our success comes from starting at the bottom and being mentored into the fold. Yes, this AT deal is a change from that reality.

We are all lucky to have a job in this craptastic economy and industry.

On the bargain base priced purchase comment, incorrect, SWA paid almost twice what they should have based on the knowledge they are getting rid of the 717. What? But you guys are saying they knew they were getting rid of the 717 all along, so which is it?

 

[Cruncher]

The arbitrator may NOT change the SLI list. It's written in two parts of SLI10.

Chapter VII.G & VIII.F

It says: "... The decision of the Board may not add to, remove from or modify the September 12 SLI Agreement. ..."

-C

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

I am not an attorney so I don't pretend to know what loopsholes or exceptions there may be in that language. Apparently AAI ALPA feels there is some because they have filed a group claim in behalf of all AAI pilots. Unless they feel like they can have the entire list modified somehow vacated through the process I would think they would have only file a dispute on behalf of the pilots who bid and held 717 CPT.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

It seems you think this way because the average WN line pilots definition of "fair and equitable" seems to differ with every other pilot in the industry, not just the FL group. Hence your fear that a neutral
arbitrator will see it different as well. I mean this as no disrespect, but the WN group as a whole have been so insulated from the real world out here their perception of what is fair is a little skewed. (Probably due to their success as an airline) Times are changing, WN management has recognized this, hence their purchase of FL at a bargain based price, aptly pointed out by GK in his midyear update. I got the "you're lucky to have a job" spiel from a WN captain last week in PBI, he was convinced FL was in bankruptcy when the announcement was made.

Fred One side or the other usually differs from the arbitrators version of Fair and Equitable or they wouldn't have been in arbitration in the first place.
If you believe what you just wrote then the JetAmerica Alaska ruling makes sense to you. It doesn't to me seeing that JetAmerica was within days of liquidation. How any sane person could say that a JA captain whos only realistic career expectation was unemployment should be placed on Alaska airlines seniority list as a captain is beyond me.
In the real world the value of a job at any airline is multidemensonal. Wages, benefits, seniority, financial health of the company, work rules, contract, sustainability of that contract, growth, pilot demograhics are all part of what makes a job good or not so good. Given the varying details of all the airline mergers and aquisitions you would expect to see a wide range of seniority solutions based on the facts of every individual combination. But that isn't how arbitrators look at things. In their world a captain is a captain even if one carrier is on the verge of liquidation and they work from there. It's easy and it saves the combined company $$ in training costs. The arbitrators aren't nuetral. They are biased towards the interests of those that are paying them.

 

[freightdogfred]

On the bargain base priced purchase comment, incorrect, SWA paid almost twice what they should have based on the knowledge they are getting rid of the 717. What? But you guys are saying they knew they were getting rid of the 717 all along, so which is it?

Well, it's GK's words that the purchase was a bargain, not mine he said so in his mid-year update go read it for yourself. He says it was a bargain, you say he paid twice as much, so which is it? (Sound familiar?)

I don't think I heard anyone say WN was planning to get rid of the 717's. All the statements I had heard from the PooBahs at WN were exactly the opposite. Hell, they sent a bunch of guys from WNland in on unicorns to train and get typed.

I think Uncle Gary did some arm twistin out in Seatlle, and the 717 was part of the deal sugah/fallout, depending on your point of view.
It is what it is, we all deal with it. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When someone shats in yer wheaties...well I guess you gotta eat shatty wheaties

 

[humveedriver]

HVD,

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

.

Right. That's why I said circumvent. SWA had an issue with buying a competitor and selling over half their fleet. To circumvent anti-trust laws they told congress and the DOJ that they would keep all the people and equipment. SWA had an issue with pilot integration going to arbitration. They were able to circumvent the PA with a public announcement of non integration if arbitration proved too prosperous for AT pilots. SWA knows how to play the game. My point was, I expect SWA to hammer you guys with certain aspects of the your contract in Section 6 negotiations. But the real prize and savings will be realized by some aspect that was not negotiated and revealed at a later time.