SWA - AAI question

[ivauir]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date.

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.

Some of you expressed confusion as to why the Process Agreement is being held up

But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

He wouldn't lie would he?

 

[Bill Nelson]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date.

A process agreement isn't required or needed by the SWAPA pilots according to my Rep. Our protections are in our CBA and will be in our transition agreement with SWA. A Process agreement would be preferable but isn't needed. If ALPA holds it up, we will press forward without them.

 

[Max Powers]

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.



But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

He wouldn't lie would he?

This is going to binding arbitration; the sooner we all realize this the better.....Why fight the inevitable ivauir?

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date. Some of you expressed confusion as to why the Process Agreement is being held up, the above is a perfect example of why. It's not personal, it's business... we refuse to put ourselves in the same boat as Muse. Not trying to be in the driver's seat, just making sure we're not a helpless passenger along for the ride with a bad ending.

I understand your frustrations with things being said on this board, and if you look back in the history of this board, there's at least three dozen AirTran pilots who are regular posters. The fact that only half a dozen are posting on here and only one or two are insisting relative seniority from the number 1 person on the SWA list down is the only way to go... well... you make up your own mind on where the *MAJORITY* of AirTran pilots fall in what we think is "fair".

I've noticed more of our AAI pilots posting as things get more contentious and more posts like the one I quoted here pop up from SWA pilot. It's a veiled threat, and no one likes to be threatened; it brings out the worst in people and our people respond in kind and it escalates from there... it doesn't need to be that way.

I'm therefore posting this trying to help "keep the peace" and I'm probably going to draw a lot of heat for it on our private board. The problem we have is that, from all experience with OUR management, if we don't "shoot for the moon" from the very beginning, we always come up on the short side of the stick. So some of our guys were doing the same here, not realizing how polarizing it is, just as your pilots who say "staple" or "Muse" is polarizing to us.

Fair will be somewhere in the middle. I'll leave it to our MC's to figure out where that is. I believe the majority of our pilots feel the same which, in addition to our MC's asking us not to talk about it on here, is why the silence from the AAI camp is so deafening. It's not that we're not engaged, it's that the silent majority is just that... silent, but listening and waiting.

Ya'll fly safe out there... :beer:

Excellent post Lear 70.

I must say that if SWA is not allowed to progress with this integration that this acquisition will still likely go on without it. My thoughts are I hope for the AT pilots they are not negotiating too hard for something that likely wouldn't make a difference. SWA pilots are mushrooms right now except for the occasional unintentional leak.

I am one that hopes we go to arbitration for a litany of reasons. I also think it would be better for the Airtran pilots to stay out of attrition for these same reasons. I know it is hard to imagine but most of the SWA guys really want this to go well for both sides if it is going to go at all. I will stand by that this forum has exposed some personalities that I fear are the kind of character I would not to work with at SWA. I do not want this acquisition but if it happens, I can only hope that my co-workers feel it went fairly.

This forum is the only voice the line pilots of SWA are really hearing. Don't go by what you see while you are jump seating in our cockpits. We are always nice and respectful to our guests and do not want any unnecessary tension while you are there. I would personally deflect any talk of SLI away so that we can have a nice visit. I am certain the same works the other way around.

Every SWA pilot I fly with, or they have flown with, or I share a crew change with, or we are down in the lounge before a trip, or down in the bar on the overnight express the same sentiments, they do not want this acquisition because of the apparent disrespectful attitudes of the AT work group generated largely on this forum.

Sad, but true.

 

[ivauir]

.. we refuse to put ourselves in the same boat as Muse.

Lear,

Maybe you should take another look at the Muse scenario. There was a negotiated list. It was not a staple. Their MEC rejected it.

The way to avoid a Muse scenario is to be reasonable and negotiate an integrated list in good faith. Stalling the talks and making unreasonable demands doesn't fit the bill.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear, "We didn't start the fire"--Billy Joel.

 

[Lear70]

Gary has said he has no intention and that it would be inappropriate to interfer in the seniority list integration. In other words, he isn't going to give any assurance one way or the other.

He fully realizes the current law provides for relief in the courts, that could be years, your side has just "thrown down" and started that "longer road to peace and prosperity" instead of "day one full up SWA employee".

Now, what do you do when gary says "no deal, can't give a firm date"? Seriously, just want to know.

Our side hasn't "thrown down". We knew it wouldn't be "day one full-up SWA employee with pay, benefits, etc" at DOCC, it never was going to be that way. What our MC *HAS* said was that agreement couldn't be reached on this issue and it's been tabled while they work on other things. That's not "throwing down".

As far as what we do if agreement on that issue can't be reached? I don't know, I'm not on the MEC or the MC, just one of the people who picks up the phone and gets informed when I read the updates and know there's more to them than just what was written. I'll leave it to them to figure out, but I do have faith that it'll get worked out - half the MC are people I've known for over a decade and trust, one of them implicitly, and the word I'm getting is that the mood in Dallas is still very amicable, which is good.

We do, however, have an interesting dynamic change coming up in our MEC structure. They're making MCO and MKE full voting domiciles, rep elections will start next month. Whoever gets elected in those elections will have the power to tip the balance of decisions at the MEC level which *COULD* direct some changes in strategy. I say "could", because the MC has been left almost completely autonomous in how they operate, including negotiating the Process Agreement, so it might have absolutely zero change in what's being done in Dallas right now or they might choose to get more involved at the MEC level. Very touchy subject around here, actually.

Lear70,

I think I'll enjoy meeting you someday. I agree that the extremes on both sides make us grumpy.

Of course, those extremes do make the wheel go around and expand ones thought process. Just have to remember the other 95% of the groups are shaking their heads too.

Thanks, and you're right of course, it does inspire thought sometimes, just have to make sure people realize a lot on here is posturing, and the 1%'ers are at EVERY airline, and mostly harmless, so we don't let it get our blood pressure up.

Happy to buy the beer when we get to hang out (even if it's the expensive stuff)! :beer:

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

It also covers many other aspects of the merger that deal with union relations as well.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.

I think you misunderstood what is being asked for. It's not a date to integrate OPERATIONS at the AIRLINE level fully, it's a date to integrate SENIORITY LISTS with SWAPA representation for ALL pilots. That's perfectly acceptable to bring into the Process Agreement between the two unions.

But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

It's not being held up. That implies that it's at a stalemate with neither side willing to move or work on anything else until someone "blinks". What's happening is that both sides haven't reached agreement on this issue and that other things are going to be worked on while both sides work privately on the issue.

However, just to play Devil's Advocate, by your argument, someone could say that SWAPA is holding up the Process Agreement by refusing to agree to a date. I know you don't see it this way, but our guys are left with the question "If SWAPA won't agree to this, maybe they really DO have plans for a Muse scenario. Why ELSE would SWAPA not agree?" Makes us *VERY* uneasy to proceed without it...

Honestly, it depends on which side of the argument you lie on; each side sees it their way, that's just a part of negotiations. I'm sure it'll be back on the agenda for discussion at a later date. There's still 2-3 months (or more, depending on when the DOJ responds) to get back to it, and I believe cooler heads will prevail, so no worries, mate...

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

Lear thanks for the response, you say the Airtran pilots have to shoot for the moon, if this transaction goes thru you guys are pretty much getting the Moon! It would be nice for some of you guys to acknowledge that our pilots have something to do with that. After all our contract wasn't given to us by management, we worked with management to get it.

And I agree hopefully we can meet someday and have a beer!

 

[redflyer65]

Stalling the talks and making unreasonable demands doesn't fit the bill.

This is exactly what I tried to say months ago. The Transtar scenerio could be very real if the AAI side starts going down this long protracted ALPA road. B/M will not come into play at all.

I wouldn't follow ALPA to far down this road, it could lead to a cliff and I really hope it doesn't come to that, I really don't. Not saying SWAPA is the best union ever, but they are light years ahead of the dark side.

Nice history leason Tweet. Well written.

 

[Bill Nelson]

Lear70

I know you don't see it this way, but our guys are left with the question "If SWAPA won't agree to this, maybe they really DO have plans for a Muse scenario. Why ELSE would SWAPA not agree?" Makes us *VERY* uneasy to proceed without it...

It wouldn't be in Swapa's best interest to agree to use an integrated seniority list if Gary Kelly hasn't committed to integrating the flight operations. I think SWA is going to keep the Muse Scenario option available until they see ALPA agree to a reasonable SLI. If ALPA pushes to hard I think Gary wants the option to go "Muse." Legally speaking he has every right to do just that. B/M only applies if there is an actual combination of operations. In this case it doesn't seem that an actual combination is guaranteed.