SWA - AAI question

[ASADFW7]

I find it interesting that many people are trying to compare this to mainline groups. Both AT and SWA are not mainline operations. The contrast is that SWA operates at one pay scale currently flying narrow body aircraft. SWA pay actually reflects wide body aircraft pay. The comparisons that SWA and AT are the same in many ways is incorrect. It is like comparing any sports franchises that compete in the same league but with different results, different payrolls matter. Just ask small market paying teams trying to keep their employees. We all know people have quit AT for many other companies, including SWA.

The argument that contracts change seniority doesn't is interesting as well, because the SWA pay in actualized higher and not theory in all categories of employees. AT employee pay is reflective of Airtran the company, their maturity and health as a company.

I sure hope Airtran has a better argument than we are just the same, everything is the same, single pay scale, etc. When actually there are several differences we all can all see that matter. Working for SWA and Airtran are not the same.

SWA is closer to UPS and Fedex in pay and status than Airtran. Sorry this isn't a same same grouping far from it. The more Airtran tries to use the comparisons to mainline, the more they expose that the B717 is DC-9 and F-100 paying aircraft, and their one pay scale never left that category and reflect a higher category.

The Airtran SLI argument needs to be much more developed and if it isn't it will split their work group (B737/B717) and shed a very low threshold of comparison to every SWA pilot. Airtran is flying less seats for less pay period. Looking back at SWA's history to use that in AT favor is not applicable in this case, because AT isn't SWA and AT has not achieve the same level of pay, and just actualized they are worth less, and voted to approve they are worth less. The Airtran pilots just said, hey I am worth less and I agree to it.

SWA pilots know their pay is one scale, that their pay and one aircraft type exceeds many mainline companies that have several pay scales including wide body. Trying to group SWA into the narrow body is a negotiating tactic for mainline pilot groups to gain back pay for their own pilot groups. They want SWA plus for their narrow body and SWA plus plus for their wide body.

You can beat this down, but right now narrow body to narrow body is not going to fly, and if this is what you have, expect a different reality than FD_J2 is trying to sell everyone. That is what a mainline pilot is trying to secure for their own negotiating position for their pay, not what is relevant, and not what is fair and equitable. Not by far.

 

[FDJ2]

This one statement really shows how much you know about that transaction.

It is well known at this point that Gary had no real desire to buy Frontier. It was a look at the books and an attempt to make the actual buyer pay more.

Nothing more to it..

Yeah right...and what color is the sky in your world?:laugh:

 

[FDJ2]

The arbitrators will weight what each pilot group brings to the other not what the companies bring to each other.

You're right about that. With two profitable low cost carriers flying similar equipment, the equity that probably will matter most will be how many narrow bodied captain and first officer positions each pilot group brings to the merger.

 

[ASADFW7]

If the argument is that SWA pilots are arrogant in their pay from mainline pilots that are trying to classify SWA as narrow body pilots, isn't it arrogant for mainline pilots trying to underclass the SWA pilot group and contract? I understand the SWA and AT pilots are trying to establish their positioning and pecking order, but the mainline pilots who are trying to predict the screwing to SWA has a motivation to keep SWA and AT in their place beneath them. SWA pilots are going to protect what they have worked for and those pilots on our list, and welcome AT pilots to the company when everything is complete, but not from the trickle down arrogance from mainline pilots.

I addressed the argument from the mainline pilots trying to scare the SWA pilots because of I was tired of their crap, and that is what it is. A big load of crap.

 

[FDJ2]

If the argument is that SWA pilots are arrogant in their pay from mainline pilots that are trying to classify SWA as narrow body pilots, isn't it arrogant for mainline pilots trying to underclass the SWA pilot group and contract? I understand the SWA and AT pilots are trying to establish their positioning and pecking order, but the mainline pilots who are trying to predict the screwing to SWA has a motivation to keep SWA and AT in their place beneath them. SWA pilots are going to protect what they have worked for and those pilots on our list, and welcome AT pilots to the company when everything is complete, but not from the trickle down arrogance from mainline pilots.

I addressed the argument from the mainline pilots trying to scare the SWA pilots because of I was tired of their crap, and that is what it is. A big load of crap.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Lear70]

I'm not so sure about that. Ask the Republic/F9 guys how that's working out for them.

They're in a completely different scenario and have some strange issues about their own management (Republic) trying to keep the Airbus guys in their seats for a while. Who can blame them, the training costs could get EXTREMELY expensive very quickly (which could also happen here if there aren't fences in place to keep a bunch of seat shuffling from happening right off the bat).

I don't see EITHER union MC as "holding the process up". I see two sides negotiating for the interests of THEIR OWN pilots, as it should be, and unable to reach an agreement, so they table the issue and try to work on other things and come back to it at a later date.

Depending on your point of view, you could argue that EITHER side is causing the delay. It's all relative... excuse the pun. Not that a small delay matters, at the end of the day, DOCC isn't for another 3 months or so. Plenty of time to hammer it out.

The question that concerns me, as I mentioned earlier, is WHY that item is not something SWAPA wants to agree to. I fully back our MC's decision NOT to sign a Process Agreement without that protection in place and if that delays its signing, so be it. Until we're all on the same team, we each have to look out for our own best interests. It's not personal, just business.

 

[Ty Webb]

ASADFW:

I understand your positions, but for each and every point you raise, there is an equally valid argument for the AAI side. I don't think there is much to be gained from delineating them. It seems to just cause more animosity .

 

[Bwipilot]

The question that concerns me, as I mentioned earlier, is WHY that item is not something SWAPA wants to agree to. I fully back our MC's decision NOT to sign a Process Agreement without that protection in place and if that delays its signing, so be it. Until we're all on the same team, we each have to look out for our own best interests. It's not personal, just business.

I think you answered your own question. Until we're all on the same team, the unions will protect their own. There's little to be gained by SWAPA agreeing to a drop dead date until the SLI process is complete. I'm sure if AT ALPA agreed to a staple, SWAPA would sign off on it in a heartbeat. Since that's not the case, there's very little (more likely nothing) in it for SWAPA. SWAPA is fine with AT pilots being on their own contract until required. The last SWA/SWAPA side letter outlining aircraft growth ratios took care of any whip saw problems for SWAPA.

I realize that AT ALPA has several provisions in their contract that they'll negotiate with SWA in the AT ALPA/AAI/SWA transition agreement. SWAPA has similar items to work out with SWA in a separate transition agreement.

It seems that AT ALPA would like SWAPA to help negotiate with SWA on ALPA's behalf to speed up the AT pilots transition to the SWA payrates and work rules--what else would it be? SWAPA realizes that would take away any motivation of some AT pilots to move off their "relative seniority" stance and any chance of a mediated SLI. Hence, I truly doubt that SWAPA will help out AT ALPA with their transition agreement. Idealists might think it's hardball--realists will understand it's negotiations.

As you said, "It's not personal, just business." I'll be happy to lend my support to AT ALPA pilots, once the SLI is finished. Until then, we'll get to banter back and forth.

 

[texman]

I think you answered your own question. Until we're all on the same team, the unions will protect their own. There's little to be gained by SWAPA agreeing to a drop dead date until the SLI process is complete. I'm sure if AT ALPA agreed to a staple, SWAPA would sign off on it in a heartbeat. Since that's not the case, there's very little (more likely nothing) in it for SWAPA. SWAPA is fine with AT pilots being on their own contract until required. The last SWA/SWAPA side letter outlining aircraft growth ratios took care of any whip saw problems for SWAPA.

I realize that AT ALPA has several provisions in their contract that they'll negotiate with SWA in the AT ALPA/AAI/SWA transition agreement. SWAPA has similar items to work out with SWA in a separate transition agreement.

It seems that AT ALPA would like SWAPA to help negotiate with SWA on ALPA's behalf to speed up the AT pilots transition to the SWA payrates and work rules--what else would it be? SWAPA realizes that would take away any motivation of some AT pilots to move off their "relative seniority" stance and any chance of a mediated SLI. Hence, I truly doubt that SWAPA will help out AT ALPA with their transition agreement. Idealists might think it's hardball--realists will understand it's negotiations.

As you said, "It's not personal, just business." I'll be happy to lend my support to AT ALPA pilots, once the SLI is finished. Until then, we'll get to banter back and forth.

This is the other reason why I am confident about the whole process. We have are protections. This is why we will take care of our own. Once the AT brothers come aboard then they two will be protected under SWAPA. As far as the whipsaw issue, our contract never will allow it.

 

[ASADFW7]

The argument of 18 months in the AT contract is controlling will either contradict their argument or enforce the differences between the two companies.

If they want to use that 18 months in controlling that both parties need to be on the CBA and operated as one, they also are saying by signing this paper we acknowledge we the AT pilots are worth less and on the same piece of paper. What do the AT pilots want to be valued as less, or want the limit of 18 months of separate operations, they contradict either other?

Using arguments that contradict each other from the same document need to be realized.

SWA pilots do not get into a frenzy from ALPA working collectively against us and trying to push contradicting arguments from the same piece of paper. Lawyers are smarter than pilots, that is why associations hire them.