New AT to SWA training plan out

[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.

 

[Lear70]

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.

No, I'm just tired of arguing, especially when half your assertions are just plain wrong, SB.

Cruncher's numbers take AAI retirements into account, but they don't take into account the SWA pilots who will retire before 1/1/15, which changes where the 50% mark will fall on that date and, whereby, the AirTran pilots will fit into the mix.

On 1/1/15, with the 717's now going away, 373 FAT pilots will still be F/O's but can hold CA by seniority. That number was vetted on both sides (ALPA & SWAPA) during negotiations; it played a pivotal role in a LOT of conversations on several different dates.

That aside, not sure what point you're trying to make, but the simple fact is that those CA seats were supposed to be protected by the deal we made. And now they're not. So we're grieving it. Not really much else to talk about until the grievance is done and, as I said before, I'm kind of worn out talking 5 ways around the same subject, so I'm simply going to say that I'm done debating this issue, I wish all of us well coming out the other side of this, and just because I'm not responding doesn't mean I agree with you or that I don't have an argument to counter with, I just don't think it's productive anymore.

I'm appreciative of those of you who have reached out and let me know that at least SOME of what I said helps you put things in perspective from our side of the fence, even if you don't agree with it; not much else I could ask for, and I hope to buy you guys a frosty one on the overnight sometime.

That's it. I'll let you guys have the last word on it. Cheers! :beer:

 

[canyonblue]

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.

I was told that it was Delta that approached GK and offered to take over the A/C. I heard he couldn't get the deal signed fast enough, since he was convinced we were stuck with them. This deal was beyond his wildest dreams, and we were willing to help pay part of the costs just to be rid of the airplanes. The 717 were the problem GK made go away, it was perfect timing with the Delta deal.

 

[Muppets]

Any Airtran FO (and maybe CPT) that has looked at future Delta retirements and thought about getting out of this F'ed Up situation? 20 year upgrade on a 737??? Travel benefits to Lubbock, Wichita and Dayton!!? How about Europe, S. America, Japan, and Australia? I dont hate on SWA, I just think there may be a better doctor for my condition. However, I will continue to study 737 BS until conditions change

 

[Cruncher]

Lear,

Sorry, but wrong. The names I posted are from the COMBINED list on 1/15. I broke out the AT retirements because the entire premise of my post was regarding AT guys holding captain seats outta seniority order.

So no, go back and PROJECT the list and check the numbers. What I posted is factual data.

Otherwise, please post seniority #'s and first names. Or we can take this PM?

Again, my original post was just an observation that I stumbled upon. I proved my point.

Cruncher

PS BTW, there are over 250 COMBINED retirements by 1/15. The 50% is the 50% I listed. I'm without my computer right now. Peace dude.

 

[scoreboardII]

That aside, not sure what point you're trying to make, but the simple fact is that those CA seats were supposed to be protected by the deal we made. And now they're not. So we're grieving it. . Cheers! :beer:

I agree, cheers, beer, but those CA seat protections were given away after sl9, sorry, your recollection is faulty, your facts are specious, take care.