SWA culture!

[Lear70]

Happy 4th of July, ladies and gents. Hope you're all somewhere enjoying with family or at least with a good crew and can have a good evening and reflect on the privilege of living in a country where we can even *HAVE* this kind of problem or debate. Life is good. :beer:

Fly safe, ya'll.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Great post. Look forward to working with you sooner rather than later.

I concur. Good post.

 

[rajflyboy]

FWIW, I think these are the type of posts that give AT pilots and outsiders the impression that SWA pilots view others as "inferior". In 18 years I've personally flown with probably 20 guys that got hired at SWA, in addition to about 20 guys who applied and didn't get hired. I can assure you that while most who left for SWA were great pilots/people there were a couple real head scratchers. By the same token a few of the best pilots/people I've ever flown with were turned down (some multiple times).

The AT group is proud of the airline it has built in spite of abusive management. In only 17 years it has grown to become a major airline with a better contract than some legacies. We are used to having to fight for survival, and when you imply that we are somehow not as good as you because xyz it only calls upon that pride that we've used to battle with Delta, SWA, and our management. You see, we've had to do more with less and done it well enough that you bought us rather than compete against us. The more you tell your little brother he's not as good, the harder he works to prove he is... This is why the more we are told what a crappy stepping stone airline we work for, we fight back harder. It's that pride that will help us fit in well with SWA. I will admit that sometimes it feels disrespectful.

Make no mistake, we realize it is a BLESSING to have an opportunity to be a part of SWA. We are not greedy or unappreciative and I can assure you we want the culture to thrive moving forward. In my opinion SWA is the best job in the biz, but please stop trying to convince us that our airline sucked and we are barely worthy of sharing the air with you. I'd bet a $100, 5 years from now you couldn't tell whether a SWA pilot was hired or acquired by watching he/she perform their duties.

More bees with honey fellas...

Happy 4th!!!

to be honest

you will never see this opportunity play out like you think it will

 

[MILF Hunter]

Thanks for the info, helps to understand why relative is so upsetting to most of your pilots, but I still don't understand the angst against DoH. It seems to level the field considerably for your pilots while simultaneously making us sacrifice a significant amount of relative seniority in exchange for the SWAPA contract and working relationship.

Lear, please carefully read the following quotes taken from our NC Update from two days ago.

Through all our negotiations, we've stressed that the following principles are to be followed to create a successful integrated seniority list. These principles are:
Any seniority list must preserve and enhance SWA pilots' career value
SWAPA pilots must be collectively and individually "unharmed"
The benefits of this acquisition should be shared among both pilot groups

Our talks are productive and ongoing. The AirTran ALPA Merger Committee understands -- and our Company supports -- our guiding principles.

According to several tranny friends, this is basically what your MC has been saying in your crew lounge.

Simply put, there are a number of scenarios that 'harm' SWA pilots, DOH likely being one of them. Our NC isn't out to oppress ATN pilots, but their guiding principles are to absolutely protect the career value of SWA pilots.

Like it or not, the options that follow those guiding principles (the one's your own committee recognizes) are probably few.

 

[rajflyboy]

Air tranny is gonna get dumped like a virgin on prom night

 

[no1pilot2000]

Visiting this web site from time to time is an interesting venture. Sometimes. it's better than reading the supermarket tabloids.

 

[rajflyboy]

Visiting this web site from time to time is an interesting venture. Sometimes. it's better than reading the supermarket tabloids.

Someone has to tell the truth

 

[Ty Webb]

Air tranny is gonna get dumped like a virgin on prom night

This is coming from the same savant who was posting last year that SWA would never buy AirTran, and ripping on SWA for requiring the type rating, even though your own employer, EJA, had a similar requirement until your most recent contract.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=1968786&postcount=71

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=2040116#post2040116

Nice.

 

[Dan Roman]

Funny how you are suddenly so disrespectful to your former coworkers, RAJ. Shows a real lack of integrity and character.

You know that guy and he is an ex AirTran bashing his former coworkers like that???? "Lack of integrity and character" is putting it mildly.

 

[Ty Webb]

You know that guy and he is an ex AirTran bashing his former coworkers like that???? "Lack of integrity and character" is putting it mildly.

I may have him confused with another RAJ. I sure hope so.

 

[Dan Roman]

We = All Air Tran Pilots minus Ty Webb and PCL.

The day I interviewed at Southwest there were 12 in my group, they only hired 2. The day I interviewed at Air Tran (@ Air Inc.) there were 6 of us, they hired 5.

Good thing you had SWA as a backup!

 

[redflyer65]

The two sections of the email I found to be interesting..

The attrition at Airtran over the last 18 years has been significant because people left for better opportunities.

and with regard to causing any harm long-term to the SW pilots..

They can basically model the long term harm to SW pilots with some precision, and that all parties..including the company, agree that the final award will have to be weighted accordingly.

It's apparent that SWAPA has put the money and time into getting cold hard facts from every angle of this upcoming SLI. But I guess they've been saving and planning for this scenerio for a very, very long time and it shows.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/airlinemg.pdf

From F&H:


Legal Alerts
Newsletters
Events and Seminars
Blogs & Podcasts
In the News
Press Releases
Media Resources
Quiz Yourself
Links
Search News
EMAIL PAGE » ***** PDF »
LEGAL ALERTS

Airline Legal Alert: Allegheny-Mohawk LPP Amendment Added to FAA Reauthorization Bill

5/21/2007

*****

On May 16, the Senate Commerce Committee added an amendment to the FAA Reauthorization bill (the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, S.1300) that would impose Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (LPPs) on any future airline mergers or acquisitions. If the bill is approved with this amendment, it will significantly impact the financial feasibility of future airline mergers and acquisitions. It could also nullify existing merger provisions in collective bargaining agreements negotiated between airlines and unions.
Specifically, the amendment (proposed by Senator McCaskill from Missouri) amends § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 156, by providing that "with respect to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the [RLA], the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB] in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the covered employees of the covered air carrier." The amendment also provides that any individual, including a labor organization representing the individual, claiming to be aggrieved as a result of a violation of the LPPs may file suit in federal court.

The LPPs referred to in the amendment were established by the CAB in 1972. The CAB routinely imposed LPPs in the 1950s and 60s in airline mergers and, in its 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk decision, formalized a standard set of LPPs granting specific forms of financial aid and other rights to employees affected by a CAB-approved merger. These provisions included:

A monthly "displacement allowance" for employees who, as a result of the merger, were placed in jobs that paid less than the jobs the employees held prior to the merger. The displacement allowance was based upon the employee's average monthly compensation in the higher paying job for the twelve months immediately preceding the employee's displacement. This average monthly compensation was the minimum amount guaranteed to the displaced employee. In any month in which the employee's compensation in his post-merger position was less than the average monthly compensation, the employee was to be paid the difference. This protection applied to displacement occurring within a period of three years from the effective date of the merger. Employees were entitled to the displacement allowance for a period of four years from the date of the employee's displacement.
A "dismissal allowance" for employees who lost their job as a result of the merger, within three years from the effective date of the merger. This allowance was 60% of the employee's average monthly compensation for the prior twelve months in which the employee earned compensation before being deprived of employment as a result of the merger. The length of time the employee received this allowance varied based on the employee's length of service, with a maximum of five years for employees who had been employed for fifteen years or longer.
A requirement that provisions be made for the integration of seniority lists "in a fair and equitable manner," including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the airlines and the representatives of the employees affected. The LPPs did not define "fair and equitable."
Other provisions included continued access to job benefits such as health insurance for affected employees and reimbursement for specified moving and traveling expenses, and for expenses and losses resulting from the sale of their homes for employees required to relocate.

After deregulation, the CAB announced that it would no longer require LPPs as a matter of course, but only under special circumstances. When the Department of Transportation (DOT) acquired jurisdiction over the airline mergers in 1985, it reiterated the policy against LPPs and consistently rejected requests for their imposition. The DOT has repeatedly stated that mandatory LPPs are inconsistent with deregulation and that if employees want merger protections they should obtain them through collective bargaining. Accordingly, airline unions have routinely negotiated merger and succession provisions into their labor contracts.

However, if the proposed amendment becomes law, such negotiated provisions would apparently be rendered void if they conflict with the LPPs. Additionally, the potential financial burden imposed by the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs would likely be so significant that most airline mergers would be economically untenable.

In Allegheny-Mohawk, a case that occurred prior to the Airline Deregulation Act, the CAB found the merger of the two airlines to be appropriate in part because it would resolve Mohawk's financial difficulties. Additionally, the CAB examiner found that the merger generally would not result in a reduction in employment because Allegheny would absorb most of the surplus employees with the exception of five dispatchers who would likely be dismissed. Thus, the financial impact of the LLPs in the Allegheny-Mohawk case was limited due to the limited number of employees affected.

In today's economic environment, where airline mergers and acquisitions may affect hundreds or even thousands of employees, the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs are simply financially infeasible. Imposition of such requirements would not protect employees of financially struggling airlines. Instead, the ultimate impact of this amendment will likely be that many such airlines will go out of business and all of their employees will be unemployed.

In addition to the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP provision, the FAA Reauthorization Bill contains a number of other employment-related provisions, including the following:

a requirement that all flight attendants have a minimum level of English language skills;
authorization of a study of pilot fatigue and direction to the FAA to consider the study results in its rulemaking proceeding on flight time limitations and rest requirements;
direction to the FAA to initiate a process to carry out the recommendations of the CAMI study on flight attendant fatigue;
a provision requiring the administrator of the FAA to establish milestones for the completion of work began under the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and OSHA and requiring the FAA to develop a policy statement setting forth the circumstances in which the Occupational Safety and Health Act will apply to crew members while working in the aircraft cabin; and
a provision modifying the FAA's age 60 rule for pilots.
The FAA Reauthorization Bill must still be approved by the full Senate and House and will not become law without the approval of President Bush. Airlines may want to consider contacting their senators or representatives to express their views on the Allegheny-Mohawk amendment.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact the Ford & Harrison attorney with whom you usually work.

 

[Lear70]

I may have him confused with another RAJ. I sure hope so.

You don't.

Yet another person who has nothing useful to input to the conversation added to my ignore list. I don't mind people who debate an aggressive position, it's when they just say "STAPLE, STAPLE" or "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BE OUT OF A JOB", etc that is ridiculous and offensive and I have better things to do with my time.

Lear, please carefully read the following quotes taken from our NC Update from two days ago.

Quote:
Through all our negotiations, we've stressed that the following principles are to be followed to create a successful integrated seniority list. These principles are:

Any seniority list must preserve and enhance SWA pilots' career value

SWAPA pilots must be collectively and individually "unharmed"

The benefits of this acquisition should be shared among both pilot groups

Our talks are productive and ongoing. The AirTran ALPA Merger Committee understands -- and our Company supports -- our guiding principles.

According to several tranny friends, this is basically what your MC has been saying in your crew lounge.

Not exactly. While the MC has *MENTIONED* those ideas which SWAPA is using to guide their proposals, our MC hasn't said that *WE* are agreeing that those are the ONLY acceptable guidelines. That's why it's called "negotiations". If the MC agreed, we'd already have an SLI T.A.

Simply put, there are a number of scenarios that 'harm' SWA pilots, DOH likely being one of them. Our NC isn't out to oppress ATN pilots, but their guiding principles are to absolutely protect the career value of SWA pilots.

I understand what your MC's guiding principles are, but there's a big difference in interpreting what "protecting the career value of SWA pilots" means.

Like it or not, the options that follow those guiding principles (the one's your own committee recognizes) are probably few.

Recognition is not agreement. As far as having few options... Possibly... the MC has said that it's not an easy job (in part because of SWAPA's stated goals), but I'm still optimistic. Next week should be interesting... although our group has a slightly different take on it than yours (big shocker) lol

 

[tico]

They can basically model the long term harm to SW pilots with some precision, and that all parties..including the company, agree that the final award will have to be weighted accordingly.

So it would seem that swapa will define "long term harm" as the lack of movement brought about by the swa decision to purchase airplanes with pilots included. To define harm, you would need to know the wants of each pilot and how those would have been satisfied by purchasing just 140 airplanes. To accurately model this, a timeline for a 140 airplane purchase would need to be developed. To accurately build this timeline, substantial input would be required from swa management. I am sure that all of this work was completed prior to the aquisition of AirTran Holdings inc. and in preparation for the merger of airtran airways and southwest airlines. Gary Kelly will have to allow that harm will be brought to the swa pilots unless the timeline of expectations can be materially met in the merger process....sounds like a phased" bump-and-flush " combined with all movement going to the swa seniority list as it existed the DOCC....if it goes down this way it will likely be the blueprint followed as the rest of the small airlines(hawaiian, jetblue, alaska etc)....get eaten

 

[Lear70]

So it would seem that swapa will define "long term harm" as the lack of movement brought about by the swa decision to purchase airplanes with pilots included. To define harm, you would need to know the wants of each pilot and how those would have been satisfied by purchasing just 140 airplanes. To accurately model this, a timeline for a 140 airplane purchase would need to be developed. To accurately build this timeline, substantial input would be required from swa management. I am sure that all of this work was completed prior to the aquisition of AirTran Holdings inc. and in preparation for the merger of airtran airways and southwest airlines. Gary Kelly will have to allow that harm will be brought to the swa pilots unless the timeline of expectations can be materially met in the merger process....sounds like a phased" bump-and-flush " combined with all movement going to the swa seniority list as it existed the DOCC....if it goes down this way it will likely be the blueprint followed as the rest of the small airlines(hawaiian, jetblue, alaska etc)....get eaten

Interesting theory.

So to make sure I understand you, you're saying that if an agreement can't be reached and it goes to arbitration, SWA management would be called to testify of hits model and hope than an arbitrator agrees?

Or are you saying that GK will interject SWA management into the Process of negotiating/mediating/arbitrating and provide the above model with the expectation that the AAI MC abide by it, thus basically controlling the SLI? If so, what was the purpose of signing a Process Agreement at all?

Secondly, would GK not ALSO have to acknowledge the model for projected growth brought about by the same purchase and the resultant increase in projected career worth to the SWA pilots as a result?

 

[redflyer65]

So it would seem that swapa will define "long term harm" as the lack of movement brought about by the swa decision to purchase airplanes with pilots included. To define harm, you would need to know the wants of each pilot and how those would have been satisfied by purchasing just 140 airplanes. To accurately model this, a timeline for a 140 airplane purchase would need to be developed. To accurately build this timeline, substantial input would be required from swa management. I am sure that all of this work was completed prior to the aquisition of AirTran Holdings inc. and in preparation for the merger of airtran airways and southwest airlines. Gary Kelly will have to allow that harm will be brought to the swa pilots unless the timeline of expectations can be materially met in the merger process....sounds like a phased" bump-and-flush " combined with all movement going to the swa seniority list as it existed the DOCC....if it goes down this way it will likely be the blueprint followed as the rest of the small airlines(hawaiian, jetblue, alaska etc)....get eaten

Tico,

The entire email from SWAPA NC is quite long and it defines (in various terms) what 'harm' is to the Southwest pilots, and the fact that management is on board with the definition and possibly the outcome to avoid it.

I didn't read any conciliatory comments in the entire message, like Ty said there would be. Interesting..

RF

 

[ivauir]

Or are you saying that GK will interject SWA management into the Process of negotiating/mediating/arbitrating and provide the above model with the expectation that the AAI MC abide by it, thus basically controlling the SLI? If so, what was the purpose of signing a Process Agreement at all?

The law is clear that the Company has the right to participate in the process. Nothing in the process agreement weakens that right. Hope that helps.

 

[kwick]

Neither Relative Senioity or DOH
harms any SW pilot career progression
or bumps him out of a Captain seat!

 

[shagadelic]

Neither Relative Senioity or DOH
harms any SW pilot career progression
or bumps him out of a Captain seat!

When I retire I'll be around number 100. If you put 400 guys above me, mostly younger than me , when I retire I'll be around number 500 instead of number 100. So, yes, I will be harmed. That's just me personally, compound that problem for the FO's. Sorry, DOH is a non-starter and Relative is dreamland.