scoreboardII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,694
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lear, you realize the article states the leases go out to 2024 right? Hardly anything to worry about this decade. Please realize the last thing Gary wants is to get you over here or furlough you early, then have you come back pissed, he knows thats bad for business.
Heard it said really well today- if you guys want to treat GK with all the suspicion of just any standard airline exec, at some point he might just cut his losses and treat you like any old airline employee.
What's he on record as saying- he wants us to be proud of how we handled this acquisition and how we treated each other during it.
He can't tell us everything- but I'm learning he says what he means.
Besides- how does voting no help out the 717 situation.
The first ones start going away in 2017 - 6 years, through the last one going away in 2024.Lear, you realize the article states the leases go out to 2024 right? Hardly anything to worry about this decade. Please realize the last thing Gary wants is to get you over here or furlough you early, then have you come back pissed, he knows thats bad for business.
Hold on a second . . . .
You guys frequently ask Lear for his opinion on this stuff. When he (very politely and articulately) presents some specific items he has concerns with, he's suddenly a "bad guy" and you want to "play HR" with him?
Low...... And lame.
There seems to be a SWA corporate culture on here that if you say anything they don't want to hear, they attack. My sense is they don't want to hear anything they don't like. I hope their flight crews don't run a cockpit like that.
Hold on a second . . . .
You guys frequently ask Lear for his opinion on this stuff. When he (politely and articulately) presents some specific items he has concerns with, he's suddenly a "bad guy" and you want to "play HR" with him?
Low...... And lame.
People come here for the exchange of opinions. It would get pretty boring around here without it. We could all just slap each other on the backs and be done before breakfast.
Blah Blah Blah .... You do realize that nobody at AirTran believes the schtick anymore ?
It's just lipservice. Literally.
*chuckle* I can tell you, with a high degree of certainty, that you're not qualified to make that decision having never met me. I do quite well in an environment where I work hard, have fun, and take care of people, and whereby my work is rewarded and I'm taken care of right back. Most of us do, actually, and some of my fellow AAI coworkers have it exactly right. Anything on here that's not rah-rah pro-SWA is attacked as "bad attitude" or "ALPA job-killing machine". We're not trying to destroy anything, we're watching out for our fellow pilots, JUST LIKE SWAPA IS DOING FOR YOU.Lear,
You missed your calling. You should've been a lawyer. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty... SWA is not a good fit for you. I hope you find what you're looking for someday.
Thanks, guys, and yes, Carl has it exactly right. Just because we debate on here doesn't mean that there's bad attitudes. It means that we're intelligent people with valid issues that *SHOULD* have relatively easy fixes if everything is on the up-and-up with future plans. Those aside, we're glad to jump on the luv connection and truck on down the road. I don't understand why everyone thinks we should just roll over and accept things without any discussion of the issues involved. YOU wouldn't do that. Why should we? Hypocritical, don't ya think?I know it's hard for our future co-workers to understand, but considering the way management has used our contract the last 5 years as a doormat we just want to be safe. It's nothing personal against SWA, we know (SLI issues aside) what a blessing this combination could be for our careers. It is because we know this that we want to make sure some of us don't get left behind. I'm sure once we feel the LUV it will be a whole different story and the stink of the EAL management style will be gone forever.
I don't know what the solution is, although our MC is working on it with SWAPA and SWA, but something like I posted before, whereby if it got drawn out and the 717 pilots immediately fell under the SWAPA CBA the moment it is extended with the release of seat locks, etc, then those pilots could start bidding over to the 737 as NEW aircraft came on, thereby PRECLUDING any furlough scenario.But here's the question- it's a sticking point for you guys that GK could dump the 717's and you'd get furloughed- but if the 717's go, somebody's going to get furloughed- and you DON'T THINK IT SHOULD COME FROM AT pilots???
No, but the solution above (which may or may not get included) would stagnate the upgrade list as 717's are replaced with 737's and new-hires aren't put into them, but rather transitioning previous-AAI pilots.That same scenario played out from the swa perspective is real crappy too- you mean to tell me we can buy another airline, get rid of 2/3's of their fleet and then original swa pilots lose their job bc of it??
Exactly. That's the whole point. There's no going back to AT, and you don't find it reasonable that the AT pilots want to make sure they don't get left behind? When there's a perfectly reasonable way to protect them that, albeit slowing the list progression a couple years, doesn't result in ANY furloughed pilot?It's just not gonna happen- but it's also an unreasonable protection to ask for- you guys have constantly lobbied that you just want to keep the positions that your toys provide. But if we get rid of your toys and they never come over, you STILL want the positions...??
Which is it?
And btw- there's no going back to AT.
But here's the question- it's a sticking point for you guys that GK could dump the 717's and you'd get furloughed- but if the 717's go, somebody's going to get furloughed- and you DON'T THINK IT SHOULD COME FROM AT pilots???
That same scenario played out from the swa perspective is real crappy too- you mean to tell me we can buy another airline, get rid of 2/3's of their fleet and then original swa pilots lose their job bc of it??
It's just not gonna happen- but it's also an unreasonable protection to ask for- you guys have constantly lobbied that you just want to keep the positions that your toys provide. But if we get rid of your toys and they never come over, you STILL want the positions...??
Which is it?
And btw- there's no going back to AT.
I think Lear has valid concerns...but I would also state that this deal cannot be risk free...just .02c:
The AIP as it stands has one pay rate for all SWA aircraft, that deal was bought to the table by Mr Kelly during negotiations...that deal comes off the tabel if we go to arbitration.
Sure there is risk for SWA pilots at arbitration, especially if the seniority list goes DOH to relative seniority, but arbitration is not a slam dunk or risk free venture for the AAI pilots either...
For months we heard about the 18 month restriction in the AAI contract how does that apply?