SWA is in position to dominate ATL

[Ty Webb]

Thanks Ty,

So you're saying that it MIGHT be Fair and Equitable for a 7 year Airtran Captain to lose "his" seat if he gets compensated FAIRLY and EQUITABLY?

Gup

If oil hits $200 a barrel, and there are pay concessions, and now he's making less than before AND has lost his seat, you going to give his seat back to him? :erm: Or just tell him "oops, my bad"?

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

I'm not going there!

I'm simply saying there are two sides to every coin.

Oh I don't disagree with that at all. Your senior F/O's have one thought about it and our junior CA's have another thought about it. Getting something that satisfies both parties is likely going to be one of the more difficult parts of finding a negotiated solution.

A neutral unbiased arbitrator that doesn't fly airplanes for a living and doesn't understand the nuances of our business?

I'm holding out for a negotiated settlement. It WILL be better for all of us.

Gup

Can't argue with that...

 

[PapaWoody]

Your question suggests you haven't read the definition of "windfall" in regards to M-B/ Allegheny Mohawk, etc.

"Windfall", in the context of SLI involves a "taking from one party" and "giving to another". Being on the same hourly pay is not a "windfall", since it doesn't take away from anyone.

Taking a Captain seat from one, and giving it to another would be much closer to the meaning of "windfall".
Actually, if you strike the responses from both AAI and SWA guys, (and the General and OYS) you'll find that most pilots on here are telling you that all that really matters in the end are seat, equipment, and how long you anticipate being in that seat for until you retire.

Hourly pay rates, drink specials, and friendly management aren't going to replace those constants.

Ty - Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that a lot of SWA guys on here don't seem to understand the discussion of "windfall" as it pertains to A/M and B/M. The law states that no party will receive a "windfall" at another party's expense - AAI guys falling under our contract and reaping the benefits of such, although maybe a windfall, doesn't come out our expense.

However - comma - we are talking about seniority, and by its very definition, seniority (and exercising it) will always come at someone's expense. So when considering how to mesh two groups that have such disparate career paths and expectations, we at SWA expect that those differing career expectations, that include more than just the seat you sit in, should be used to make the determination of "fair and equitable". I'm not saying that anyone should or will take your seat away from you. However, expecting that your seniority on a combined list at this more mature carrier (with all that entails, including pay and job security) should disregard our longevity at SWA would be not fair nor equitable, especially when the airline industry operates under a tenure based seniority system.

In summation, although I'm not so much concerned with whether or not you keep the seats that you bring to the combined list, I am highly concerned that your system seniority on that list not disregard my longevity and the disparate nature of our respective careers. To do so would be a windfall at my expense.

Respectfully and Fraternally,
PapaWoody

 

[Secret Squirrel]

A Very articulate and well thought out response. It has no swear words or condescending tone. It is so out of place on this web board that it should be deleted.

 

[Lear70]

A Very articulate and well thought out response. It has no swear words or condescending tone. It is so out of place on this web board that it should be deleted.

LOLOL so true!

Thanks for the well-spoken response, PW. :beer:

 

[dicko]

Ty - Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that a lot of SWA guys on here don't seem to understand the discussion of "windfall" as it pertains to A/M and B/M. The law states that no party will receive a "windfall" at another party's expense - AAI guys falling under our contract and reaping the benefits of such, although maybe a windfall, doesn't come out our expense.

However - comma - we are talking about seniority, and by its very definition, seniority (and exercising it) will always come at someone's expense. So when considering how to mesh two groups that have such disparate career paths and expectations, we at SWA expect that those differing career expectations, that include more than just the seat you sit in, should be used to make the determination of "fair and equitable". I'm not saying that anyone should or will take your seat away from you. However, expecting that your seniority on a combined list at this more mature carrier (with all that entails, including pay and job security) should disregard our longevity at SWA would be not fair nor equitable, especially when the airline industry operates under a tenure based seniority system.

In summation, although I'm not so much concerned with whether or not you keep the seats that you bring to the combined list, I am highly concerned that your system seniority on that list not disregard my longevity and the disparate nature of our respective careers. To do so would be a windfall at my expense.

Respectfully and Fraternally,
PapaWoody

Nice Job PW. Nice job.

I think you'll find that we have a great deal of empathy for your position. Well said.

 

[400ADude]

Let them keep their seats at there ch!tty payrates and domicile of ATL.

How about relative W2's???? That is fair isn't it??? Rack and stack according to your payrate and minimum gurantee. Bingo it's done1

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty - Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that a lot of SWA guys on here don't seem to understand the discussion of "windfall" as it pertains to A/M and B/M. The law states that no party will receive a "windfall" at another party's expense - AAI guys falling under our contract and reaping the benefits of such, although maybe a windfall, doesn't come out our expense.

However - comma - we are talking about seniority, and by its very definition, seniority (and exercising it) will always come at someone's expense. So when considering how to mesh two groups that have such disparate career paths and expectations, we at SWA expect that those differing career expectations, that include more than just the seat you sit in, should be used to make the determination of "fair and equitable". I'm not saying that anyone should or will take your seat away from you. However, expecting that your seniority on a combined list at this more mature carrier (with all that entails, including pay and job security) should disregard our longevity at SWA would be not fair nor equitable, especially when the airline industry operates under a tenure based seniority system.

In summation, although I'm not so much concerned with whether or not you keep the seats that you bring to the combined list, I am highly concerned that your system seniority on that list not disregard my longevity and the disparate nature of our respective careers. To do so would be a windfall at my expense.

Respectfully and Fraternally,
PapaWoody

I think I just heard him say "Hitler". Did you guys hear it, too? :laugh:

Just kidding. Thanks for an articulate post, and I think I actually do understand where you're coming from a little better.

I'm not sure that I understand your statement that " . . . by its very definition, seniority (and exercising it) will always come at someone's expense".

If you are adding employees without the airframes, yes, but we are adding employees and the airframes. How does that move you up or down a single number?

Regards,
TW

 

[Ty Webb]

Let them keep their seats at there ch!tty payrates and domicile of ATL.

How about relative W2's???? That is fair isn't it??? Rack and stack according to your payrate and minimum gurantee. Bingo it's done1

PW's post made sense. Yours is just more stupidity and insults.

Welcome to my ignore list. You should have been added a long time ago. You add nothing to the conversation, and never have.

 

[PapaWoody]

I think I just heard him say "Hitler". Did you guys hear it, too? :laugh:

Just kidding. Thanks for an articulate post, and I think I actually do understand where you're coming from a little better.

I'm not sure that I understand your statement that " . . . by its very definition, seniority (and exercising it) will always come at someone's expense".

If you are adding employees without the airframes, yes, but we are adding employees and the airframes. How does that move you up or down a single number?

Regards,
TW

I understand that you are bringing airplanes with you, and I understand that taking you guys out of your Captain's seats could be (let's be realistic, probably would be) a windfall for our senior F/O's at your expense. However, as stated my concern is and always has been system seniority and a fair and equitable rendering of that. IMHO, putting an AirTran pilot on the combined list senior to a SWA pilot hired at or before him/her would be unfair to the SWA pilot. Every pilot senior to you on said combined list will exercise that seniority at your expense, which doesn't make it unfair - that's just the nature of a seniority based system. I am just trying to point out that our industry has always employed a longevity-based seniority system, and to disregard that in this case would unfairly harm our pilot group in a demonstrable fashion.

Cheers,
PapaWoody

PS Thank God we have a seniority-based advancement system. If we had a performance-based system, I'd be screwed! :beer: