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

[SWA 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.

Straight line numbers that you advocate is NOT an "apples to apples" comparison of what actually happens on each company's payday. In fact, I'm sure you know that there's no actual way on earth to make such a comparison between two dissimilar companies. Regardless, you can't make your "apples to apples" comparison simply the way you did it either. Since there's so much difference between all the other things that make up one's pay besides the rate. Especially since Southwest doesn't get paid by the hour. You can't even simply apply a "fix" to out TFP rate to get an hourly rate, like APC tries to. Since a TFP is based on mileage, and then adjusted for time and other factors, legs blocking the exact same time can pay somewhat different if you're going east or west. Plus the differences in scheduling and rigs also make direct pay comparisons invalid.

A better way to compare pay would be to look at the guaranteed minimums per month times payrate. Also look at practical, or typical, average lines times payrate, and then possibly a nuanced look at how easy it is to get overtime and/or premium overtime.

Madjack says you guys have a 75 hr/month limit. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I can tell you that the average line here pays 95-100 TFP for an average 14 days of work/month. That's before any adjustments, trades, pickups, giveaways, etc. That's basically a guy who works his line, and does nothing else. If you're a senior FO, you can get much better deals than that. If you're on reserve, the minimum guarantee is 90, and occasionally 96. So realistically, the average Southwest guy can multiply his TFP rate times 100 to get his minimum average monthly pay.

At any rate, as I said, a direct APC comparison of "computed hourly rates" isn't a fair comparison of actual pay. DV, how about you try comparing the monthly gross pay of: 1) each company's high earners; 2) each company's slack-ass, lazy, don't-like-to-work pukes; and finally 3) each company's average line pogue. I think you'd find a much more valid comparison.

Bubba

 

[Tripower455]

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.

Are they working the same number of days per month?

I'm flying with a FAT Capt (senior MCO FO) next trip (great guy, btw), and will grill him about this again. Last time I flew with him, I asked him about the pay disparity, and he said he was making a little less over here, but he is also working less days and doesn't play the OT or premium game at all. He flies his line and maybe ELITTs up a little. At his level of seniority in MCO, he'd make a killing in premium if he wanted to, making even more for less days worked. He is happy as a pig in mud, btw. All of the other FAT Capts I've discussed this with said they are making more over here than they ever did over there.

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.

We definitely need to compare apples with apples. How much does each make at the end of a typical work day/month. That's the barometer we should be using. If I make $1000 per hour, and work one hour in the month, am I earning more than I do working 85 hours at $216 per?

The APC chart only show min guarantee. The only time I've ever seen min guarantee on the bid lines is in Jan or Feb, and it's not been close to every year. IIRC, it's happened less than half a dozen times.

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.

Agree, but you do have to account for the difference in productivity per day and the ability to make a lot more with little effort.

A senior FO at SW (which most of the FAT guys over currently here are) can easily exceed what he was making over there as a Capt.

I have flown with a few hard charging FOs over the years that made damn near what I make as a 17 year Capt. A few made more than I typically do flying my line plus a little.

 

[SWA 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.

As far as your FAT former captains' current pay, your mileage (and theirs) may vary. It all depends on your seniority, just as it does for every aspect of every other airline pilot. 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 (in fact, he's above me on the combined seniority list). He got his first choice in lines, he got to fly whatever days he wanted and whatever days off he wanted; basically he got his first choice of everything (including overtime). 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), and was looking forward to a 50% payraise in 18 or 20 months when he upgraded.

Will this deal be this good for all FAT guys as they transition? No, of course not. As always, the more senior you are, the better off you do. However, the same can be true for how this worked out for Southwest guys. Like I said, it's MY OPINION that the deal should have included pay protection, but when you look at reality rather than just APC computed hourly rates, there's little if any difference.

Bubba

 

[shagadelic]

I just flew with an FO who has 198 TFP on his board for May. Granted he lives in base and only had 9 full days off...but he did fly a bunch of turns so in effect he was home quite a bit. He's in the top 30 FO's in base. His check will be $26,100 for May. I'm thinking that's not bad as an FO. I'm curious how many Captains at AT could pull down that kind of coin if they wanted to?

 

[SWA Bubba]

I just flew with an FO who has 198 TFP on his board for May. Granted he lives in base and only had 9 full days off...but he did fly a bunch of turns so in effect he was home quite a bit. He's in the top 30 FO's in base. His check will be $26,100 for May. I'm thinking that's not bad as an FO. I'm curious how many Captains at AT could pull down that kind of coin if they wanted to?

The all-time Southwest record for one month is a MDW captain who got 345 TFP last August. He did it by having two weeks' vacation that month, then working premium during those paid vacation days. Plus he did a lot of stuff with deadheads and generous rigs that didn't count against his 100 in a month. And I suspect he had a lot of "cartel" help. 345 TFP x $190/trip is $65,500 gross for the month. That's crazy sh1t! Obviously, not everyone can do this (and only once a year, when the conditions are perfect), and I think he "worked" over 25 days in the month. Who the hell wants to be a slave to the company (and computer)? Or to work that hard?

Bubba

 

[General Lee]

Actually, General, the "loss of captain seats" isn't as dire as you make it. The overall seniority list is what determines who is a captain and who isn't, after Jan '15. That means those AirTran captains who are holding out at AirTran until the last possible moment will come over shortly before that date, and if they're senior enough to be one, the will "re-upgrade" almost immediately. In fact, it will be nothing BUT former AirTran guys upgrading for quite a while after that date. There are some very senior FAT captains who already came over, and are quite happy being super-senior FOs for now, with Southwest captain seats waiting for them just 18 months from now. And, like I mentioned, the ones holding out (like Ty Webb and others) are still captains now (AirTran ones, at AirTran CBA rates), and will only be over here for a few months before they can re-upgrade (assuming they're senior enough to do so).

In MY OPINION, what should have been done, was make the overall seniority list with whatever DOH adjustment was deemed "fair" (like the average 2.5 years on the accepted list), and when an AirTran guy transitioned, he would be a captain if his seniority could hold it, and an FO otherwise. (Rather than wait several months to 1.5 years first, depending on when he came over.) And I'd also pay-protect anyone who has a new payrate lower than his old one. That doesn't really affect many guys (if any), and being an FO for some months before regaining one's captain seat isn't THAT far from what I described as fair above.

If you're REALLY arguing that they should have kept their captain seats forever, just because (and it seems that IS what you're arguing), then I disagree that it's fair. Nobody on this board has ever given me an answer to why they think that six years' AirTran service is more deserving of a Southwest captain seat, than ten years' of Southwest service is. Do you have one a justification for that, General? In MY OPINION, that wouldn't have been fair to orig Southwest senior FOs who couldn't upgrade.

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? I mean, the guys who bitch say it's not about the money, but downgraded junior FAT captains actually have BETTER QOL as senior Southwest FOs, assuming they make the same money. And eventually, they can trade in that QOL for a 50% payraise when they have the opportunity to upgrade to Southwest captain. Just like anybody else. Some guys stay senior FOs for QOL, and some chase the captain seat.

And to actually answer the question you posed in your post, General, YES. In the first package (the one vetoed by AirTran's MEC), every AirTran captain was given a "captain retention slot" by name. He would be a Southwest captain no matter what base he went to. Forever. (junior base if he was junior, and more senior bases as he could hold it). The only way for him to lose his captain seat was in the even of an overall reduction of captains companywide (or for him to leave the company, or to voluntarily downgrade). Their junior former AirTran captains would probably be on Southwest Captain reserve for years, due to them being junior to many of our FOs, who, when they upgraded, would start off as captains senior to them. They bitched about that, but the only way to change that (since it took less time to upgrade at AirTran than Southwest) would be to give them captain seats, and THEN give them a large INCREASE in seniority over what they had at AirTran. Does that sound fair to you?

Anyway, I'm not saying that these guys don't have anything to bitch about (mainly the change in their careers from the 717s going away, and they way they're being transitioned), but the deal they got (and the one they turned down) is not as bad as you're making it. I don't know if you honestly don't know this, or you're just doing this for SWA-bashing sport. But, there's some facts for you.

Bubba

Thanks Bubba for that response. I do understand your opinion, and I accept it. My opinion differs, of course. Not allowing any AT Capt into a plane that they already operate seems "interesting" to me. Yes, they could have bumped down to the 717s to keep their left seat, but that almost appears like someone didn't want certain pilots in certain seats. It doesn't really make sense. The top 10 guys at AT probably had the seniority to do it, and yet they have to do right seat training again. In arbitration, the likely result would have probably been a lot different. DL management trusted the FNWA Capts to be highly skilled and professional, and never dictated rules otherwise. FNWA pilots flew with a mix of pilots, including FDAL FOs, and everyone learned pretty quick how to fly the way the airline wanted them to. They let arbitrators decide the SLI and fence stuff, and in the end nobody was mad at management about SLI issues.

I see your point, and I just think the 18 month delay was unnecessary. At this stage of the game, a couple sims on procedures and maybe a line check maybe could have sufficed. Regardless, I hope the transitions go well for all of your combined group.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I just flew with an FO who has 198 TFP on his board for May. Granted he lives in base and only had 9 full days off...but he did fly a bunch of turns so in effect he was home quite a bit. He's in the top 30 FO's in base. His check will be $26,100 for May. I'm thinking that's not bad as an FO. I'm curious how many Captains at AT could pull down that kind of coin if they wanted to?

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

 

[shagadelic]

The all-time Southwest record for one month is a MDW captain who got 345 TFP last August. He did it by having two weeks' vacation that month, then working premium during those paid vacation days. Plus he did a lot of stuff with deadheads and generous rigs that didn't count against his 100 in a month. And I suspect he had a lot of "cartel" help. 345 TFP x $190/trip is $65,500 gross for the month. That's crazy sh1t! Obviously, not everyone can do this (and only once a year, when the conditions are perfect), and I think he "worked" over 25 days in the month. Who the hell wants to be a slave to the company (and computer)? Or to work that hard?

Bubba

My record is 192 this past December....with Christmas week off. I had one week of vacation the week before Christmas and scored 5 premium trips over it.

Now that Denver is a base and I'm driving to work I find 140 is not hard and I still have more time off than when I commuted.

Oh, and that guy with 345 does not have a "cartel". His board is open. He does it the old fashioned way. I think this "cartel" thing is way overblown.

 

[Ty Webb]

Madjack says you guys have a 75 hr/month limit.

Wacky Jack is about as reliable as Jay Carney. :laugh:

Our minimum guarantee is 75/76. That's the least you can possibly make flying your awarded line, not the most.

 

[Ty Webb]

I just flew with an FO who has 198 TFP on his board for May. Granted he lives in base and only had 9 full days off...but he did fly a bunch of turns so in effect he was home quite a bit. He's in the top 30 FO's in base. His check will be $26,100 for May. I'm thinking that's not bad as an FO. I'm curious how many Captains at AT could pull down that kind of coin if they wanted to?

Probably not, but I had 11 more days off than that guy, I don't have to live in base, and my trips were commutable 3 day trips with nice long layovers.

I wouldn't trade with him . . . . and he probably wouldn't want to trade with me either.

What's your point?

PS., I did make more than that in May, but it wasn't all at the Tranny.

 

[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?