SWA - AAI question

[GuppyWN]

Straight DOH?

I'll go ahead and type "deleted" now and save the edit.

Gup

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Personally I don't think we will ever get to be SWA pilots. This career has been a dead end from day one. I got management/scheduling trying to screw me at every corner. I got a union that has screwed me for years. 60 year olds who can't hang it up or don't like term limits REALLY SCREWED ME! Then I catch a break and get bought by SWA and surprise, surprise... my fellow pilots are now trying to screw me.

So fine guys burn the place down. We have a fat hiring boom coming and I am young. Just one request... If we are going to blow this thing up can we do it fast. Need to get my resume out so I can be on the front end of the hiring wave. Knowing this industry, it will take years, which will, of course, screw me!

I think it is a shame also. Words are very powerful. We all have our hopes and desires but to get personal with others opinions, well that starts displaying ones character and what I have seen it is not one that is desirable to work with.

 

[dicko]

Antoine,

Say again please

This message is hidden because CaptAntoineMack is on your ignore list.

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Too early to be drinking, buddy...

Relax, nothing we can do about it anyway. :beer:

Absolutely there is something we can do about this. I have written my union executives (both former and present), my union reps and the members of the M/A committee more that a couple times. And I am happy to report that each and every one of them have responded back each time. They are prepared and understand the needs and concerns of our 5900 pilots. They share many of these concerns and are aware of the hopes and desires of the Airtran pilots and their union.

SWA pilots know that this could be the largest single event in our collective history with our careers at SWA. And many, like me, are involved to communicate what concerns I may have. And our union is listening.

I hope Airtran pilots are doing the same with their union. If this is going to be our largest single event, it should be yours also.

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Antoine,

Say again please

This message is hidden because CaptAntoineMack is on your ignore list.

Awwww, my feelings are so hurt.

Sure your not reading any of this. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised you have put your head deeper into the sand.

 

[dicko]

Antoine,

Two posts. Wow. You must be getting really excited. Some crown and coke perhaps ?

 

[Bwipilot]

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.

I don't understand the need for a firm date and date for SWAPA representation of all pilots. As the Republic/Midwest/Fronter SLI process has shown, SLI can take a long time. Forcing the process to meet a deadline puts a gun to the negotiators' heads and precludes coming to a mediated agreement instead of a rushed arbitration. Plus, Ty will get to assuredly enjoy his Seat and Seniority in the meanwhile.

As for AAI ALPA transition to SWAPA representation, that should not happen until the process is complete. I could understand a time frame after SLI completion but not a hard date after the date of aquisition. Otherwise, SWAPA will be negotiating against itself and ripe for a DFR lawsuit. Also, ALPA would likely have a fit to lose their dues income without due process.

At the same time, it makes me happy to see AAI pilots spend ALPA money with ALPA having little hope of a future at SWA. Maybe Johnsonrod abd Dicko will have to pay an assessment to backup their positions--even better.

 

[Bill Nelson]

I don't understand the need for a firm date and date for SWAPA representation of all pilots. As the Republic/Midwest/Fronter SLI process has shown, SLI can take a long time

They want the Swapa contract and windfall as soon as possible. Its only about their seats after they get the contract windfall. Right now it is about getting the windfall then they will demand their seats and seniority. It is the definition of talking out both sides of your mouth.

 

[Bill Nelson]

It is either about the money or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.

 

[redflyer65]

Exactly.

Watch ALPA screw this up...

 

[Lear70]

I hope Airtran pilots are doing the same with their union. If this is going to be our largest single event, it should be yours also.

Oh we are... but past that, what can we do? Except continue to do our jobs, enjoy the flying and our coworkers, and go home and spend time with our families.

Really, getting worked up about all of it in the interim does exactly ZERO good, and may actually do more HARM than good, getting ourselves irritated and making decisions in anger rather than looking at the long-term track of working with each other for decades to come.

So yes, I voice my opinions to the MC and let our MEC know that I agree with their "hands-off" tack with the MC then simply sit back and let them do their job, knowing that beyond that, there's nothing I can do about what works out in the end.

 

[ivauir]

... let our MEC know that I agree with their "hands-off" tack with the MC

Lear,

What does this bit mean?

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

What does this bit mean?

ALPA has a standing policy on mergers/acquisitions that, rather than having the MEC Status Reps and/or Chair and Vice-Chair micro-managing everything the Merger Committee is working on, they let the Merger Committee operate completely autonomous from the MEC.

That means the Merger Committee doesn't answer to anyone except the line pilots. They give regular reports to the MEC in closed session regarding details of what's going on, sticky issues, and overall plan of action, and the MEC gives their thoughts and inputs on the issues, but the MEC doesn't DIRECT the course of action to the Merger Committee.

In most cases in an ALPA structure, each committee chair is appointed by the MEC Chairman or the MEC Reps by majority vote, then the committee chair appoints his/her committee members. In this case, each committee member was selected by all of the MEC Status Reps by majority vote (most were unanimous), and once appointed, are *SUPPOSED* to be left alone by the MEC reps and officers, simply being told "Go out and get the best you can get for our pilots".

A change in status structure (4 new voting reps and a shift in roll call voting ability as well) that we are looking at *COULD* alter this approach, depending on who gets elected next month in MKE and MCO. However, so many people are happy with the majority of the Merger Committee members and so few people have any issue with what's being done by this committee that I don't see that approach changing. It's possible, but you'd get a large amount of lash-back from the pilots who are already jittery as it is if you go changing something that's perceived to be working, especially given our internal political squabbles that pop up from time to time.

So, in summary, the "hands-off" tack that the union leadership has with our Merger Committee is one that I support. Micromanaging from the top usually ends up with bad results, a la Muse. So we let the MC do their job and, when they come back to us and say "This is what we have, it's the best for our pilots and for the merged group afterwards, now vote on it", the MEC won't have the ability to withhold it from vote while trying to get a sweeter deal, we'll vote on it and, assuming it also passes SWA vote, we'll move on with merging two great companies with one great future.

Sorry so long-winded, hard not to when it's that much info...

 

[Empennage]

A firm date on the SLI? That is flat out funny.

 

[Bill Nelson]

ALPA has a standing policy on mergers/acquisitions that, rather than having the MEC Status Reps and/or Chair and Vice-Chair micro-managing everything the Merger Committee is working on, they let the Merger Committee operate completely autonomous from the MEC

Is that the reason for LH and TO being in all of the M/C negotiations? To watch but not micromanage? It sure sounds like they are the problem and are holding up progress on the SLI. If it is ALPA policy, why are they there and why is your transition team involved with the process agreement? Doesn't seem to be in anyones best interest for this to continue.