SWA delaying new planes, adding used Westjet birds --article

[dalad]

Wow, that is great. Reminds me of the crews stuck in Europe due to that Icelandic volcano blowing up. Many got huge bucks for overtime, and got an extra week in Europe, with per diem.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Wrong. I was there, no reroute pay for that trip as it was beyond the company's control. Yes, I got a lot more time for my trip, but there was no premium pay. Being stuck at that crap hotel in AMS was no fun. Being stuck in SEA for Sandy was better, I got premium pay for that because they flew us one leg to MSP, so it constituted a reroute. Half the crap you post on here is flat out wrong.

 

[redflyer65]

Wrong. I was there, no reroute pay for that trip as it was beyond the company's control. Yes, I got a lot more time for my trip, but there was no premium pay. Being stuck at that crap hotel in AMS was no fun. Being stuck in SEA for Sandy was better, I got premium pay for that because they flew us one leg to MSP, so it constituted a reroute. Half the crap you post on here is flat out wrong.

And no one here is suprised by that factual post. But thanks for the actual inside info instead of the ramblings of a FI village idiot.

 

[Crash Pad]

How long do you have to work at SWA befor you break 80K?

 

[redflyer65]

Second year.

Fifth year and beyond you can make 170+, depending on how hard you want to work. It's nice to have the option if you need some extra coin.

 

[waveflyer]

Made $73k first year

 

[DonVerita]

Of the two FAT captains (now Southwest FOs) that I've flown with, one said he makes about the same, and the other said he makes more now as a Southwest senior FO. At the time, he was the number one FO in Las Vegas, so he came over from being a pretty senior AirTran guy He said he made about 5% more money now than he did at the Tran (tweaked his line, but didn't fly more than 15 days per month)

Does he commute to LAS? If so, he can subtract 4 days off that 15 to account for your non-commutable on one side AM/PM trips. If he lives in base then it's a non issue...until he re-upgrades; at which point he can look forward to commuting hell. At ATN, approx. 95% of our trips are commutable on both ends.

I could care less what the figures are for the pay credit kings on one end or the max QOL guys on the other end. It is the center of the bell curve that really matters; the average line pilot. The only constant is the hourly rate using the same metric. I hear what you're saying about east/west, over-rides, etc., but those don't occur for everyone on every trip.

Another subject that hasn't been discussed is the difficulty of the job. I have to admit that we have it pretty good over here at ATN in that department. Advanced aircraft and systems, 100% glass - no Classic(s) BS, a lot of automation, etc. all makes for a easier job each day.

 

[Tripower455]

I could care less what the figures are for the pay credit kings on one end or the max QOL guys on the other end. It is the center of the bell curve that really matters; the average line pilot. The only constant is the hourly rate using the same metric. I hear what you're saying about east/west, over-rides, etc., but those don't occur for everyone on every trip.

The only constant is pay per day worked. The average pay per day worked is pretty darn close between AT Capt and SW FO.

Another subject that hasn't been discussed is the difficulty of the job. I have to admit that we have it pretty good over here at ATN in that department. Advanced aircraft and systems, 100% glass - no Classic(s) BS, a lot of automation, etc. all makes for a easier job each day.

Really? Most of our airplanes are NGs, identical to roughly 30% of the AT fleet, without the "Christine" issues that the FAT 700s are plagued with, at least every time I fly one.

A classic is no more difficult to fly than an NG, unless moving throttles is a chore for you.

 

[PCL_128]

Your agreement said no such thing. The document in place at the time of constructive notice said the following:

E. Merger Protection:
1. In the event of a merger between the Company and another Air Carrier, where the surviving air carrier decides to integrate the pre-merger operations, the following procedures will apply:
a) The Company will provide for the integration of the seniority of the two pilot groups in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the Air Carrier and the representative or representatives of the pilot groups involved.

You can argue 'till the cows come home that a new contract signed after the date of constructive notice would ultimately be enforceable, but the case law is simply not on your side. SWA agreed to purchase an entity that would remain substantially unchanged from the date of constructive notice through corporate closing. Small insignificant changes aren't an issue but completely changing your scope clause and adding additional hurdles to an acquiring carrier are simply not allowed. Adding an 18 month window to facilitate the totality of an acquisition scenario is laughable when no such requirement existed at the date of constructive notice. ALPA knew that their contract at the date of constructive notice was woefully inadequate at protecting their interests in the event of an acquisition and scrambled to get better protective language in the document after they learned of an impending acquisition. Unfortunately for ALPA they couldn't fix the language prior to an acquisition scenario being revealed. Legally you are stuck with the exact language that was contained in the document when SWA made the offer to purchase.

You just plain don't have a clue what you're talking about. Date of constructive notice is only relevant to seniority integration issues, not to any other contractual issues. Which is exactly why Mike Van de Ven signed a letter stating that SWA was indeed bound by AirTran's new scope language after the new CBA was signed, including the 18 month limit. Are you calling Mike a liar and an idiot?

 

[HowardBorden]

It wasn't allowed to happen, even though EVERY other merger in the past 5 years allowed it. You see, in MOST mergers the management wants to stay out of pilot politics, so as not to seem favoring one group over the other, and therefore not gaining an upset chunk of pilots. It's never good to have a pretty good sized chunk of pilots upset. When you do arbitration, nobody except the #1 pilot wins, and everyone has someone in common to point the finger at---the arbitrator(s). Then management moves along with the new group and everyone tries to get along. That is how MOST airlines do it. Your group is the exception, and that might not be a good thing....

As far as arbitration awards, look at CURRENT awards (within this last round of mergers) and see what happened. If the airlines are close in size and both bring like sized planes to the table, some Capts keep their seats on BOTH sides. AT wasn't a 5 plane operation, it was significant in size, and brought ATL and DCA slots plus 737s and orders. You may call that insignificant, but an arbitrator would NOT. Welcome to the new World Howie, and I can see why some are upset at the deal. That is allowed, right?


Bye Bye---General Lee

ENGLISH!-Do you speak it? Stop tap dancing and admit you were wrong. You made a completely false statement in order to bolster your argument. We don't need to discuss how arbitrated awards have played out because all parties agreed they preferred to reach a negotiated list and that is what transpired. But, if you do want to express an opinion about what might have happened please refrain from lying when you do it, it doesn't help your argument. "But, zero arbitration awards have NOT included Capt slots at BOTH sides, especially when both bring current planes or orders to the table." You can talk all day about current or non current and relevant versus irrelevant but you cannot represent the highlighted statement as true because it is demonstrably false. You seem to be so fond of pointing out inaccuracies in others statements yet when someone points out yours, you are simply unable to admit you were wrong.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Does he commute to LAS? If so, he can subtract 4 days off that 15 to account for your non-commutable on one side AM/PM trips. If he lives in base then it's a non issue...until he re-upgrades; at which point he can look forward to commuting hell. At ATN, approx. 95% of our trips are commutable on both ends.

No, he lives there. Or at least he lives there now; I don't know if he moved there after transition or not. When he re-upgrades, he'll still be right there in LAS, I assume, since he's senior to me and I'm a LAS captain. He's actually senior enough to be a captain in any base (although I suspect that he'd be on reserve in Dallas, our most senior base). And you're right about commuting being a bitch, but that's true anywhere. About half of our guys do it, and I think I heard that even a higher percentage to it at AirTran.

I could care less what the figures are for the pay credit kings on one end or the max QOL guys on the other end. It is the center of the bell curve that really matters; the average line pilot. The only constant is the hourly rate using the same metric. I hear what you're saying about east/west, over-rides, etc., but those don't occur for everyone on every trip.

I don't really care about those extreme ends either; just pointing it out. I agree that the average line pogue is what you have to compare, but it's NOT just the hourly rate that matters, no matter how many times you say it. Since the way we work is so different, it doesn't really show anything about how much money the average captain vs FO makes, which was the original point of the discussion. Monthly credits, or average workday credits (as Trippower suggests) is better, since that's what you actually make. If the average AirTran line pays 80 hours (I'm guessing here), and the average Southwest line pays 100 TFP (I'm NOT guessing here), then APC's computed "hourly" comparison doesn't mean jack squat.

Look, not trying to get into a pissing contest here, just pointing out factual information about a discussion on real pay. The two companies work differently. That's undeniable. If you like the way it works at AirTran, and don't like the way it works here, then no amount of discussion is going to change your mind. All I'm saying is that the guys I've talked to over here who have made the transition have also made the adjustment, and are happy about it. Will that be true for everyone? Of course not. Hopefully it will be true for you, since there's really nothing you or I can do to change how Southwest works. You guys are over there; I'm just telling you how it is over here. That's important, because we're ALL gonna' be "over here" in the next 18 months.

Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

You just plain don't have a clue what you're talking about. Date of constructive notice is only relevant to seniority integration issues, not to any other contractual issues. Which is exactly why Mike Van de Ven signed a letter stating that SWA was indeed bound by AirTran's new scope language after the new CBA was signed, including the 18 month limit. Are you calling Mike a liar and an idiot?

If Van de Ven did in fact sign a letter after the new contract was signed agreeing to the newly negotiated scope changes then of course that is a different argument altogether. I haven't been able to find that letter so please post it. Agreeing to abide by scope changes and being legally bound to do so are two completely different things altogether.

The purchasing entity in a corporate transaction is agreeing to purchase a relatively unchanged product. If you negotiated a daily guarantee of 15 hours, would SWA be obligated to pay that rate? If you negotiated a clause that said in the event of merger the acquiring company must pay each pilot $500, would that be enforceable? The answer to both those questions is no. If you add hurdles to an acquisition scenario after the acquisition is agreed to those portions are not enforceable. If they are AGREED to after the fact that is a completely different scenario.

 

[Ty Webb]

The only constant is pay per day worked. The average pay per day worked is pretty darn close between AT Capt and SW FO.



Really? Most of our airplanes are NGs, identical to roughly 30% of the AT fleet, without the "Christine" issues that the FAT 700s are plagued with, at least every time I fly one.
.

Curious what this is about? We've had very few problems with our NG's. Even MEL's are pretty infrequent.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

What you ignore is that contracts in the pilot world are much different than contracts in the ramper and gate agent world. When a ramper takes a pay cut in bankruptcy, his pay might go down 10%. When a pilot takes a pay cut in bankruptcy, his pay goes down 50%. Raises are similar, with 35%+ raises in new contracts not unheard of for pilots, but anything more than 10% for a ramper or gate agent is virtually never seen. For this reason (the volatility in pilot contracts), trying to base an SLI on CBA disparities would be absurd. The highest paid pilot group one year can be the lowest paid pilot group a decade later. It's a useless metric in SLIs, and arbitrators rightly ignore it.

PCL did you pull these numbers out of thin air or do you have something to back them up? Any system that would give a pilot whose only realistic career expectation was unemployment within days (Jet America) a Captain seat at a healthy airline (Alaska) is absurd. Fact is arbitrators consider NOTHING but seat placement and they construct lists around that fact. "Fair and Equitable" have nothing to do with the result.

 

[JT12345]

It was not a guess. It was a process agreement. Then he changed his mind after the first vote did not go his way. So he made an agreement then broke it. I was shocked, but some were not as surprised as I was. They did not think this stuff in writing meant anything and believed the rumors more. If only there was no process agreement in writing and the rumors going around were in writing. Turned out the stuff on paper meant nothing and the rumors meant everything.

What is done is done. No sense in talking about it in the workplace. No good can come from it. Stressing about it will just make you lose your medical quicker or kill ya quicker in the end.


http://swamedia.com/releases/e92ed2d6-ca48-da7f-caa0-6b004da76053

Southwest Airlines Pilots, AirTran Pilots, and Carriers Reach Four-Party Agreement
Pact Provides for Implementation Schedule
Earlier today, the respective Unions representing Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) and AirTran Airways Pilots, as well as both Companies signed a Four-Party Process Agreement that provides for the two pilot groups to begin their seniority integration discussions prior to legal closing of the AirTran acquisition. It also outlines provisions of an implementation schedule in the event an agreement is reached on an integrated seniority list (ISL). Southwest anticipates closing on its acquisition of AirTran Airways in second quarter of 2011.

"This is yet another important step in the overall process of bringing these two great carriers together," said Mike Van de Ven, Southwest Airlines Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. "I applaud both sides for signing this important agreement that lays the groundwork for bringing together these two hard working Pilot groups."

The Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) and the Air Line Pilots' Association (ALPA) can now begin the work of integrating seniority lists in accordance with the McCaskill-Bond Act. This new Four-Party Process Agreement also creates a timeline for SWAPA and ALPA to reach an ISL agreement. If an agreement is not reached during this timeframe, the matter will be sent to arbitration and a new implementation process will have to be negotiated.

After nearly 40 years of service, Southwest Airlines continues to differentiate itself from other low fare carriers--offering a reliable product with exemplary Customer Service. Southwest Airlines is the nation's largest carrier in terms of originating domestic passengers boarded, now serving 72 cities in 37 states. Southwest also is one of the most honored airlines in the world known for its commitment to the triple bottom line of Performance, People, and Planet. To read more about how Southwest is doing its part to be a good citizen, visit southwest.com/cares to read the Southwest Airlines One Report(TM). Based in Dallas, Southwest currently operates more than 3,400 flights a day and has nearly 35,000 Employees systemwide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines

An entity called Guadeloupe Holdings was formed by Southwest and currently acts as a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines and holding company for AirTran's current operations and assets. Southwest's organized labor groups have ceded contractual "scope" provisions pending acceptable negotiated seniority integration agreements. Operations of the two airlines will remain isolated until terms of this integration are fully negotiated (or arbitrated). Bound by federal law, such as McCaskill-Bond legislation, as well as a four-party process agreement, Southwest has confirmed that it will integrate all of the pilots in a fair and equitable manner.[6]

Now wiki can be edited.

No response to this because there is no defense against it and no laws supporting the verbal word over the written word except the saying "might makes right" when he finally put the rumors and threats in a written message. We had an agreement and laws to go to arbitration and they were circumvented and tossed aside and you wonder why your piers were shocked and we feel betrayed. Most of your piers at other airlines think so too. Just ask them if you think this is just one sided.

 

[HowardBorden]

No response to this because there is no defense against it and no laws supporting the verbal word over the written word except the saying "might makes right" when he finally put the rumors and threats in a written message. We had an agreement and laws to go to arbitration and they were circumvented and tossed aside and you wonder why your piers were socked and we feel betrayed. Most of your piers at other airlines think so too. Just ask them if you think this is just one sided.

What portion of this statement was not followed as stated?

 

[madjack]

Most of your piers at other airlines think so too. Just ask them if you think this is just one sided.

Its spelled peers, but if you mean the SWA bashing trolls on FI, I guess you have a point...

 

[Tripower455]

Curious what this is about? We've had very few problems with our NG's. Even MEL's are pretty infrequent.

Me too. Mostly weird electrical stuff that fixes itself, after it's been written up, of course.

 

[PCL_128]

If Van de Ven did in fact sign a letter after the new contract was signed agreeing to the newly negotiated scope changes then of course that is a different argument altogether. I haven't been able to find that letter so please post it.

Here it is (sorry for the poor formatting):

February 21, 2011

Linden D. Hillman
AirTran MEC Chairman
Air Line Pilots Association
100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 450
Atlanta, GA 30354

Dear Linden,

We appreciate your willingness to work with Southwest and SWAPA to achieve a
successful merger. The prospects and potential benefits of our combined operations are truly
exciting, but they will be fully realized only if we all are committed to the same objective.
If our merger transaction successfully closes, Southwest Airlines will be a "successor" as
defined in the Agreement between AirTran and ALPA. As such, Southwest agrees that during
the period of separate Pilot operations following close, it will adhere to and apply the provisions
of the AirTran/ALPA Agreement to AirTran Pilots, unless and until that Agreement is changed
pursuant to the Railway Labor Act.
With regard to the integration of Pilot seniority lists, Southwest is both statutorily and
contractually bound to follow the requirements of Sections 3 and 13 ofAllegheny-Mohawk. It is
our understanding, which you confirmed in your letter, that ALPA and SWAPA are currently
working on a process agreement to facilitate and accomplish those requirements. It is our intent
to fully support that process and abide by its results.
It is too early in the process for us to have a clear and comprehensive picture of how and
when flight operations and the two networks will be combined. There is much work yet to be
done, and many questions still to be answered. At the appropriate time, we certainly intend to
engage in meaningful dialogue with you. In the meantime, and until such time as there is a
single representative of the combined Pilot groups, you should continue to deal with AirTran
management, and we will continue to work with SWAPA to establish. a framework for an orderly
transition.
We look forward to having you and all AirTran Pilots as part of the Southwest Family.

Agreeing to abide by scope changes and being legally bound to do so are two completely different things altogether.

Read it. He doesn't just make some new agreement, he acknowledges that SWA is indeed a "successor" as defined by our CBA. And on the date of this letter, our CBA had been the new one for about three months already.

The purchasing entity in a corporate transaction is agreeing to purchase a relatively unchanged product. If you negotiated a daily guarantee of 15 hours, would SWA be obligated to pay that rate? If you negotiated a clause that said in the event of merger the acquiring company must pay each pilot $500, would that be enforceable? The answer to both those questions is no. If you add hurdles to an acquisition scenario after the acquisition is agreed to those portions are not enforceable. If they are AGREED to after the fact that is a completely different scenario.

Wrong. You really don't understand how this works. We have antitrust laws in this country that prevent an acquiring company from exerting any sort of control over an acquired company until after the transaction has actually closed. SWA was prohibited by law from having any involvement in negotiations over anything with ALPA, the AFA, or any other entity prior to DOCC. In fact, AirTran had an obligation under the RLA to continue bargaining and make a good faith effort to resolve disputes. SWA had the right to cancel the transaction prior to the date of corporate closing if there was an adverse material change, but they couldn't stop AirTran from entering into agreements, and if they did not cancel the transaction, then they were bound by anything that AirTran agreed to prior to the transaction.

 

[RLAblows]

SWA management hasn't followed any of their agreements except for "we won't give them the pay until January 1st 2015." So it really doesn't matter what they say or sign. They won't abide by it anyway.

 

[HowardBorden]

Here it is (sorry for the poor formatting):

February 21, 2011

Linden D. Hillman
AirTran MEC Chairman
Air Line Pilots Association
100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 450
Atlanta, GA 30354

Dear Linden,

We appreciate your willingness to work with Southwest and SWAPA to achieve a
successful merger. The prospects and potential benefits of our combined operations are truly
exciting, but they will be fully realized only if we all are committed to the same objective.
If our merger transaction successfully closes, Southwest Airlines will be a "successor" as
defined in the Agreement between AirTran and ALPA. As such, Southwest agrees that during
the period of separate Pilot operations following close, it will adhere to and apply the provisions
of the AirTran/ALPA Agreement to AirTran Pilots, unless and until that Agreement is changed
pursuant to the Railway Labor Act.
With regard to the integration of Pilot seniority lists, Southwest is both statutorily and
contractually bound to follow the requirements of Sections 3 and 13 ofAllegheny-Mohawk. It is
our understanding, which you confirmed in your letter, that ALPA and SWAPA are currently
working on a process agreement to facilitate and accomplish those requirements. It is our intent
to fully support that process and abide by its results.
It is too early in the process for us to have a clear and comprehensive picture of how and
when flight operations and the two networks will be combined. There is much work yet to be
done, and many questions still to be answered. At the appropriate time, we certainly intend to
engage in meaningful dialogue with you. In the meantime, and until such time as there is a
single representative of the combined Pilot groups, you should continue to deal with AirTran
management, and we will continue to work with SWAPA to establish. a framework for an orderly
transition.
We look forward to having you and all AirTran Pilots as part of the Southwest Family.



Read it. He doesn't just make some new agreement, he acknowledges that SWA is indeed a "successor" as defined by our CBA. And on the date of this letter, our CBA had been the new one for about three months already.



Wrong. You really don't understand how this works. We have antitrust laws in this country that prevent an acquiring company from exerting any sort of control over an acquired company until after the transaction has actually closed. SWA was prohibited by law from having any involvement in negotiations over anything with ALPA, the AFA, or any other entity prior to DOCC. In fact, AirTran had an obligation under the RLA to continue bargaining and make a good faith effort to resolve disputes. SWA had the right to cancel the transaction prior to the date of corporate closing if there was an adverse material change, but they couldn't stop AirTran from entering into agreements, and if they did not cancel the transaction, then they were bound by anything that AirTran agreed to prior to the transaction.

Actually PCL you are the one who does not really understand how this works.

Van de Ven is agreeing that he will abide by the new language, not that he HAS to. Please read this statement again:"If our merger transaction successfully closes, Southwest Airlines will be "successor" as defined in the Agreement between AirTran and ALPA. As such, Southwest agrees that during the period of separate Pilot operations following close, it will adhere to and apply the provisions of the AirTran/ALPA Agreement to AirTran Pilots, unless and until that Agreement is changed pursuant to the Railway Labor Act" Southwest AGREES and it will ADHERE to and apply the provisions. They are agreeing to adhere to the changes in the CBA, they are not REQUIRED to. Why would VDV mention "unless and until that Agreement is changed pursuant to the Railway Labor Act." Because he does not need to comply with any changes made to the agreement unless he wants to. In other words: if you change something again through a side letter or other provision we will need to look at the changes and decide if we will ADHERE to those changes.

Of course SWA cannot exert control over AirTran prior to corporate closing, they are competitors and can't interfere with the company until they own it. However you are correct that they can decide not to purchase the company if it was substantially altered before corporate closing. AirTran could have sold off all their 737's before the deal closed but what do you think that would have done to the agreement to purchase?