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

[General Lee]

Howie,

Please explain why ZERO AT Capts were "allowed" to stay on the 737 in the left seat. They brought plenty to the table, along with options. That never would have happened in arbitration. When DL and NWA merged, FNWA 757 Capts stayed on their equipment. In fact, DL trained every FNWA 757 pilot on the 767, allowing each to do touch and goes at places like Duluth and Grand Rapids. It cost money, but DL trusted those guys could handle it, and adopt DL procedures. Why wasn't that the case with you guys, and what was your own personal opinion on the matter?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Tripower455]

Howie,

Please explain why ZERO AT Capts were "allowed" to stay on the 737 in the left seat. They brought plenty to the table, along with options. That never would have happened in arbitration. When DL and NWA merged, FNWA 757 Capts stayed on their equipment. In fact, DL trained every FNWA 757 pilot on the 767, allowing each to do touch and goes at places like Duluth and Grand Rapids. It cost money, but DL trusted those guys could handle it, and adopt DL procedures. Why wasn't that the case with you guys, and what was your own personal opinion on the matter?


Bye Bye---General Lee

It wasn't part of the agreement that all parties agreed to by a wide margin.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howie,

Please explain why ZERO AT Capts were "allowed" to stay on the 737 in the left seat. They brought plenty to the table, along with options. That never would have happened in arbitration. When DL and NWA merged, FNWA 757 Capts stayed on their equipment. In fact, DL trained every FNWA 757 pilot on the 767, allowing each to do touch and goes at places like Duluth and Grand Rapids. It cost money, but DL trusted those guys could handle it, and adopt DL procedures. Why wasn't that the case with you guys, and what was your own personal opinion on the matter?

I could care less how NWA and Delta did it, that simply is not the point. The only point I am trying to make is that you lied when you said this: "But, zero arbitration awards have NOT included Capt slots at BOTH sides, especially when both bring current planes or orders to the table."

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, an AIP was produced and voted on. It passed with 87% on both sides. And Lord knows your opinion can be totally disregarded since you don't work for either of the airlines involved in this acquisition. So, I will ask you one last time to admit that you either lied or were misinformed when you made the highlighted statement. It is simply no longer worth my time to point out this inaccuracy. Man up and own the lie or just drop it.

 

[General Lee]

It wasn't part of the agreement that all parties agreed to by a wide margin.

Ahahahahaha. We ALL know there is a lot more to the story. Come on now...


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I could care less how NWA and Delta did it, that simply is not the point. The only point I am trying to make is that you lied when you said this: "But, zero arbitration awards have NOT included Capt slots at BOTH sides, especially when both bring current planes or orders to the table."

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, an AIP was produced and voted on. It passed with 87% on both sides. And Lord knows your opinion can be totally disregarded since you don't work for either of the airlines involved in this acquisition. So, I will ask you one last time to admit that you either lied or were misinformed when you made the highlighted statement. It is simply no longer worth my time to point out this inaccuracy. Man up and own the lie or just drop it.

You too? You seem to forget one HUGE part of the AT decision. That is why you guys FAIL.

As far as my statement goes, can you provide an arbitrated award (not your Morris or Transtar examples that obviously weren't arbitrated) that didn't include some Capt slots on each side? That's my point----hasn't happened, unless you can prove it. If both sides provide planes that will still be used, there is bound to be a few, at least, Capt slots awarded by an arbitrator. That's why it's an accepted practice, for ALMOST every merger..... Don't try to get around this, find me proof, or YOU are wrong. Even the TWA guys got MD80 and 757 Capt slots in STL with their merger. They flew BOTH types. Get it yet Howie? Why not 737 left seat for the AT guys? Don't sidestep! Love the part by the way of you saying your opinion is irrelevant..... Well, if you think so.... I'm starting to agree.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HowardBorden]

As far as my statement goes, can you provide an arbitrated award (not your Morris or Transtar examples that obviously weren't arbitrated) that didn't include some Capt slots on each side? That's my point----hasn't happened, unless you can prove it.

Well, Gennie I have to admit I misjudged you. I was assuming all along you were lying but it turns out you are just woefully misinformed! Feel free to research the Chautauqua/Shuttle America Arbitration Opinion and Award by Richard Kasher, October 19, 2005. Please feel free to admit that your statement was wrong after you brush up on it. I can only assume that now that the error has been pointed out you will offer your heartfelt apology for the misinformation you have been spreading.

 

[scoreboardII]

Bam!

added for five.

 

[Tripower455]

Ahahahahaha. We ALL know there is a lot more to the story. Come on now...


Bye Bye---General Lee

What part of my post is inaccurate? Either party could've voted no, and gone to arbitration. The vast majority on both sides voted for the agreement we have now and all, apparently, hate.

 

[PCL_128]

Van de Ven is agreeing that he will abide by the new language, not that he HAS to.

Wrong. He never says that he "agrees" that SWA is a successor as defined by our CBA, he merely says that they are. Because he doesn't have to agree. He's bound by it.

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.

Wrong. He's saying that if there are changes to the Agreement as a result of processes under the RLA, that they will no longer adhere to the Agreement in place at the time of his letter, but would then have to adhere to the new language.

It's simple; SWA had two choices: 1) Adhere to the provisions of our agreement, including the changes that were made through negotiations; or 2) Not go through with the transaction and give up on the acquisition/merger.

That's it. Those were the only choices. Going through with the transaction and not abiding by our CBA, even the new one, was not a legal option. Really, you should talk to an RLA attorney before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[HowardBorden]

Wrong. He never says that he "agrees" that SWA is a successor as defined by our CBA, he merely says that they are. Because he doesn't have to agree. He's bound by it.



Wrong. He's saying that if there are changes to the Agreement as a result of processes under the RLA, that they will no longer adhere to the Agreement in place at the time of his letter, but would then have to adhere to the new language.

It's simple; SWA had two choices: 1) Adhere to the provisions of our agreement, including the changes that were made through negotiations; or 2) Not go through with the transaction and give up on the acquisition/merger.

That's it. Those were the only choices. Going through with the transaction and not abiding by our CBA, even the new one, was not a legal option. Really, you should talk to an RLA attorney before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

You really need to look up the legal definition of "bound" because you are clueless as to what it means.

Definition: Bound-Adj. : placed under a legal or moral restraint or obligation.

The only language SWA was bound to was the language that was on the books at the time the offer to purchase was made. That language was binding. SWA could not legally walk away from the deal over language that was in place at the time the offer was made. Any added language is not binding because SWA was not obligated to abide by it, meaning they could walk away if any language was added that they don't want to abide by. That is exactly what was said in the letter-"unless and until that Agreement is changed pursuant to the Railway Labor Act." Yes, their recourse was walking away from the deal.