So much for the huge growth rumor at SW

[waveflyer]

Blah Blah Blah .... You do realize that nobody at AirTran believes the schtick anymore ?

It's just lipservice. Literally.

Depends on what you're talking about. If you think family and love and being proud of how we all treat each other is lipservice, then you really do need to sharpen your pencil and get the logbooks up to date.

You guys really do control your destiny. IF you can convince GK you'll be happy, productive people for us then you'll get a square deal coming over-
Act entitled, push for every last thing you might could get, triple verify everything in a cynical way, threatening all legal action possible and I have zero doubt he'd cut you all loose as quickly as he would if any of us tried that on our own.
Don't be a bad self-fulfilled prophecy.
It is your choice how this goes. Though there are aspects I don't love, I'm finding it harder to vote no when I trust our NC and they were privy to the negotiations.

 

[waveflyer]

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.

 

[Lear70]

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.

*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.

I don't really understand what's so hard to grasp about that concept. We are taking care of our people just like you are taking care of YOUR people. When we're combined, we'll all take care of each other. Easy-skeasy, no worries, mate.

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.

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?

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???

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.

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??

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.

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.

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?

I wouldn't understand the resistance to that. We know the planes are going away. We know those pilots need to go somewhere when they do. We have 53 deliveries of our own we bring with us to cushion that circumstance. It's just something we need covered. If we can't get it in the agreement, as the 717's represent the majority of our pilots, we have a duty of fair obligation (DFR) to make sure their jobs are protected, and it will have to go to Arbitration. That's not hostility, it's not a bad attitude, it's just the reality that CAN BE FIXED in the 4-party agreement and we bypass all that legal nastiness.

Don't shoot the messenger. If you really want to sit here and not have a rational, friendly conversation about the issues at hand and what's taking so long, I can just shut up but all it would do is stop the flow of information to where you guys know what's going on over here...

Don't get personal. I don't do that with you, it's rude to do that to someone else. I don't think your culture appreciates that much. Could be wrong...

 

[madjack]

Fly-Diver, 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?


I think Lear has valid concerns...but I would also state that this deal cannot be risk free...just .02c:

- Mr Kelly bought AAI to eliminate a competitor, grow relatively quickly and with less capital expenditure and risk
- Mr Kelly (and Wall St) are not sure that SWA can operate the 717 profitably in our sysem at the SWA pay rates
- There is risk in arbitration for the AT pilots, SWAPA and SWA will negotiate the 717 pay rates...

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...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

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 you are missing his point. He is saying that if the 717 guys are furloughed before going through training, which can be extended forever and would not incorporate any SWAPA furloughs, the AT guys do not even have a recall right. It is a very valid concern for many of us.

 

[ASADFW7]

For months we heard about the 18 month restriction in the AAI contract how does that apply?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

This agreement is making a lot of changes to our contract. The AIP was made by pilots and not lawyers. The lawyers are just making sure that the agreement does not leave any gaping holes in the transition between whatever we are now, and SWA. That is really the biggest carrot to accepting this agreement and what our MC is selling this as. Maybe not as good an ISL as we could get in arbitration but better protections and an almost certainty that we end up as a SWA pilot. So it better be ironclad if you are going to get people to even look at it. Our MEC has a lot of work to review this thing and make some important decisions.

 

[texman]

You know as I read this thread, I can't blame the AT guy's for what thier MEC is doing. Nor blame them for the fear they have. They are just CYA'ing them selfs. That is fair enough.

 

[Lear70]

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...

Very well said and you are absolutely right. Arbitration carries a lot of risks for us as well as you. If we are therefore taking an SLI that is worse than we could likely expect in arbitration in exchange for the "protections", then the protections have to be clearly defined language without any ambiguity.

I wouldn't expect your BoD to do any less for your pilots. It's not a lack of faith, it's Ronald Reagan's age old "Trust... But verify."

 

[Lear70]

For months we heard about the 18 month restriction in the AAI contract how does that apply?

We recognize the impossibility of transitioning all our aircraft and pilots within the 12 months left after DOCC and we are waiving our 18 month Sec 1 language for the 30-month language you see in SL9.