Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
SWA - AAI question
- Thread starter BlueBlood
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
ivauir
SNIKT!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2002
- Posts
- 1,476
That is in contradiction to your own communication piece.
No, it's only in contradiction to the way in which you're reading it. Like I said, you're drawing incorrect conclusions. Nowhere does the ATN ALPA update say that the union is holding anything up. That's just your perception.
dicko
"It's a formidable scent"
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Posts
- 1,432
Welcome to PCL 128 world. It's a circle. It was created in his image; The only perfect sphere ever found in nature.
Last edited:
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
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..
ivauir
SNIKT!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2002
- Posts
- 1,476
Huh? Am I missing out on an inside joke or something?
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
I'm not so sure about that. Ask the Republic/F9 guys how that's working out for them.
I could easily see an arbitor taking >1yr to rule on something like this even AFTER hearing arguements. Their goal is to drag their feet and make the parties argree in the meantime. I mean what a great gig. You hear arguements then doing nothing for an extended period of time.
That would not be quick..
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Yes you are.
dicko
"It's a formidable scent"
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Posts
- 1,432
When you meet him you'll understand.
If it's any consolation, you wouldn't get a straight answer even if you were an ATN ALPA member.
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
This part is exactly right. So if it drags out more than 18 months on the AAI side (which I easily see happening) are the AAI guys going to sue Southwest at that point?
That could be interesting to watch.
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.
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.
Yeah right...and what color is the sky in your world?:laugh:
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.
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.
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
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
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
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
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.
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.
Lear,
My point is that arbitors are professionals at dragging their feet. Time and time again. I don't know one case that was quick.
I believe that most of the time they know exactly how they will rule within a month, but never rule on an issue for 6-12 months or longer..
Lonestar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Posts
- 237
You AT guys can't get your company to follow half the changes in your new contract. As I understand it, you couldn't get your company to follow half the stuff in your old contract. One of my friends that left AT said y'all had over 90 grievances deadlocked and awaiting arbitration. Why, now, is this issue of transition language the one thing that MUST be followed...or else. The fact is the RLA makes it difficult (unfortunately) to get enforcement of your contract. Good luck going to a judge for injunction, as PCL stated, and convincing him to slap the hand that's about to feed you more than you ever thought you would get!
malibuVride
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Posts
- 51
From last week's Merger Report:
"The committees tentatively plan to meet in Dallas again next week, with the intention of completing work on Process Agreement language, and to exchange more detailed proposals on protections to be incorporated into Transition Agreements, which can then be signed along with a Process Agreement."
This really worries me when the MEC Vice Chair gets on here to say its not ALPA holding up this process! The quote above clearly shows that ALPA is refusing to sign the Process Agreement until a Transition Agreement can also be signed. Too many guys in this group are counting on becoming SWA pilots to be risking it all for such rediculous expectations!
"Important issues remain to be completed, including assuring the completion of an operational merger within a specified period of time and protections for existing and growth flying and aircraft."
I believe we will ALL grow once the integration of the two airlines is complete. I, along with many in this group, worry that fighting for such protections NOW is way too aggressive and may really piss Gary Kelly off. This is serious stuff and I really don't want Linden and his clowns hosing this group!
"The committees tentatively plan to meet in Dallas again next week, with the intention of completing work on Process Agreement language, and to exchange more detailed proposals on protections to be incorporated into Transition Agreements, which can then be signed along with a Process Agreement."
This really worries me when the MEC Vice Chair gets on here to say its not ALPA holding up this process! The quote above clearly shows that ALPA is refusing to sign the Process Agreement until a Transition Agreement can also be signed. Too many guys in this group are counting on becoming SWA pilots to be risking it all for such rediculous expectations!
"Important issues remain to be completed, including assuring the completion of an operational merger within a specified period of time and protections for existing and growth flying and aircraft."
I believe we will ALL grow once the integration of the two airlines is complete. I, along with many in this group, worry that fighting for such protections NOW is way too aggressive and may really piss Gary Kelly off. This is serious stuff and I really don't want Linden and his clowns hosing this group!
That is a very good question Gup. What I don't understand is why does AT trying to be part of the transition agreement?
Cobraair75drvr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2004
- Posts
- 735
Lots of arrogance around here from a group that used to be pretty humble. Starting to act like the AA sky nazis, United pilots, and last but not least my new double breasted brothers of the 80s and 90s. I think the short time that y'all have been at top has quickly gone to your heads. Or, there are a bunch of scared fo's that were just begining to realize the days of 5 year upgrades were long gone and their only hope is to take the airtran capt. jobs. I think a lot of you need to go back and look at your history and others. Your pilot group has historically(minus the last 5 years) been a bottom feeder as far as pay and workrules.
What ALPA needs to understand is GK is not a idiot. This company was founded by lawyers. Does ALPA think GK/SWAPA is going to kill his own. I don't think so. I think ALPA is caught up in this being a merger not a acquisition. There are things SWA has to respect in our contract not AT's. AT is being bought not SWA. I hope it works out for all of us.
Not arrogance just pride and protecting our own. Once it is all said and done AT brothers will be part of are family, and I am sure with there energy and pride we will be rocking. Just a team thing, sorry.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
