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

[PCL_128]

PCL,

Enlighten me why Gary couldn't have run Airtran seperately. I can name almost a dozen airlines that are either run that way now, or within the past 5 years. Are they breaking the law?

We've been over this before, red:

1. The AirTran CBA didn't allow it for more than 18 months

2. McCaskill-Bond didn't allow it after SWA filed with the SEC saying that their intent was to merge the carriers

3. They signed a Process Agreement saying that they would merge the carriers

4. Mike VdV signed a letter binding SWA to our scope language

 

[redflyer65]

I agree with every one of your points PCL.

And everyone of them could have been EASILY maneuvered, if he elected to do so.

 

[PCL_128]

I agree with every one of your points PCL.

And everyone of them could have been EASILY maneuvered, if he elected to do so.

Not really, but if it makes you feel better to think so, then go right ahead. I would say, though, that if you actually believe such nonsense, then having a CBA in the first place is pointless, and you might as well advocate for removing SWAPA as your collective bargaining agent and going it non-union to save yourself 1%. After all, if everything is really so easily "maneuvered," then having a union and a contract is useless.

 

[canyonblue]

The beauty of arbitration is that even if you don't personally agree with the result, it's a lot easier to accept when a neutral third party looks at the facts presented by both sides and comes to a decision, rather than a CEO holding a gun to your head and telling you to sign on the dotted line or else.

From one of our SWA Dispatchers:

Last week an arbitrator issued his ruling on the Southwest-AirTran dispatcher seniority list integration (SLI) case. He sided with our union and awarded us four extra years of seniority when we merge our seniority lists. This decision has implications for most dispatchers at each company, some good and some bad. For those who are interested, here are some details.

Background

The SWA dispatcher seniority list, counting all specialty positions and managers, has about 200 people, compared to about 45 for AirTran. Ideally, the two unions would negotiate an SLI agreement instead of going to arbitration. The SWA and AirTran pilots already did so successfully. If I understand correctly (I wasn?t involved), since both unions are under the Transportation Workers Union (TWU) umbrella, the AirTran union thought the only acceptable way to integrate the seniority lists per TWU bylaws was by date-of-hire into the dispatch office. In other words, if you were hired at AirTran before I was hired at Southwest, you?re senior to me. Our union countered that the AirTran dispatchers would be getting a much better contract (higher pay, better benefits, etc.) and more opportunity at a larger company, and the SWA folks should get something from the merger as well. Otherwise, it would be a huge windfall for AirTran with zero direct benefit to SWA. We tried to negotiate, but the AirTran union immediately filed for binding arbitration, thinking they had a strong case based on TWU documentation. Thus the decision fell to the arbitrator. At the hearing in February, AirTran proposed date-of-hire, and SWA proposed adding four years to all SWA dispatchers? seniority. He decided the latter was the fairer outcome.

So, even though I think the AirTran pilots (myself included) would have been happy with an arbitrated result, even if we weren't, it still would be a lot easier to accept and move on.

Believe me, if this had gone to arbitration, it wouldn't be the 2-3 year drop you currently have. Most SWA pilots were expecting more, and based on the Dispatcher's and Mechanic's awards, some obviously wish it had gone that way. And even if it had gone to arbitration, you would still be bitching like you do now, guaranteed.

 

[redflyer65]

Airtran could have been wound down within your 18 month timeline per your CBA. Let's even say they miss that 18 month mark and go to 24. What are you going to do? Sue Southwest for missing their mark by 6 months?

B-M has never really been challenged. There's probably better than a 50% chance that SW would win an arguement to be able to run their business as they see fit. After getting a court date in maybe 18 months. Airtran could have possibly already be gone. Are they going to force Gary to run a company that he doesn't want to run? Good luck with that.

I guess ALPA could sue over a process agreement. Again, the company would already be gone.

Your 4th point is tied to the first. Your scope...see above.

So hypothetically.....Airtran would be gone and IF (that's a big IF) they won some part of their lawsuits, what would they have won. Some small monetary judgement after 4 years of litigation?


I don't think Gary wanted to do any of the above, and that's why he was so intent in getting a negotiated deal. Does he look bad 'some' AAI employees now? Sure.

If he had completely gutted the company and jetison every employee, would he have looked even worse? Absolutely. He didn't want to go that far.

 

[PCL_128]

Airtran could have been wound down within your 18 month timeline per your CBA. Let's even say they miss that 18 month mark and go to 24. What are you going to do? Sue Southwest for missing their mark by 6 months?

B-M has never really been challenged. There's probably better than a 50% chance that SW would win an arguement to be able to run their business as they see fit. After getting a court date in maybe 18 months. Airtran could have possibly already be gone. Are they going to force Gary to run a company that he doesn't want to run? Good luck with that.

I guess ALPA could sue over a process agreement. Again, the company would already be gone.

Your 4th point is tied to the first. Your scope...see above.

So hypothetically.....Airtran would be gone and IF (that's a big IF) they won some part of their lawsuits, what would they have won. Some small monetary judgement after 4 years of litigation?


I don't think Gary wanted to do any of the above, and that's why he was so intent in getting a negotiated deal. Does he look bad 'some' AAI employees now? Sure.

If he had completely gutted the company and jetison every employee, would he have looked even worse? Absolutely. He didn't want to go that far.

An emergency injunction would have prevented what you suggest, and would have been easily obtained, since SWA was in no financial troubles that would have justified such actions and made a judge balk at an injunction until it was sorted out legally.

But that's really irrelevant, since Gary never would have tried such illegal nonsense in the first place. Just hollow threats and SWA pilot wet dreams.

 

[DonVerita]

If a FAT junior captain is now a senior Southwest FO, making the same money, and has better seniority for bidding, base, vacations, etc., then what's the harm?
Bubba

Bubba...you are wrong on the money part. Now that some OAT Captains have been at SWA for a few months, the comparison reports are starting to come in; and they aren't what you imply. The money is not the same. These guys are making less as SWA F/O's than they were as ATN CA's.

We need to talk apples vs. apples when discussing these pay rates. APC has taken the weird SWA TFP's and converted them to industry standard BLOCK pay rates. Go over there and take a look at ATN CA 12yr. rate vs. SWA FO 12 yr. rate. The difference is -$17/block hour.

Let's not throw in intangibles like premium pay, cartels, the far right end of the bell curve, or anything of that sort. Just stick with straight line numbers.

 

[madjack]

75 block hour limit...use to be 70...keep it real DV

 

[canyonblue]

We need to talk apples vs. apples when discussing these pay rates.

We need to talk apples vs. apples when discussing airlines too.

 

[HowardBorden]

We've been over this before, red:

1. The AirTran CBA didn't allow it for more than 18 months

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.