SWA to have a third aircraft?!?

[ASADFW7]

You can keep linden, we will get Ty drunk and take him to the new hire flight attendant room party to welcome him to the show.

 

[Lear70]

You need to study up if you think there is any law that would keep a company from implementing a probation period on new hire employees. I'm not certain that SWA will require probation but that is the rumor. I am certain that if SWA wants a probation period they will get a probation period just as they do with every other new hire pilot.

Nevermind. Just not worth feeding the flamebait.

 

[Ty Webb]

You can keep linden, we will get Ty drunk and take him to the new hire flight attendant room party to welcome him to the show.

OK, but I'm not going camping with you guys . . .

 

[ArcadiaMaxima]

Nevermind. Just not worth feeding the flamebait.

Why because you can't handle some possible truth. If you say it can't happen....your wrong. Respond to that Lear.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Nelson]

Man you guys are up tight. Speaking the truth about AirTran pilots possibly being on probation is not offensive.

The truth will set you free.

 

[Monkey Face]

Probation is a non-starter, it's not even on the table.

However, type ratings might be undecided for right now. There are most likely discussions of that ongoing and it remains to be seen what will be done with that. It's a pretty hefty financial chunk of change, our 737 F/O's aren't typed (unless they were typed somewhere else) and of course anyone wanting to transition to the 737 would have to be typed. Normally I'd say that Southwest would have to pay for that, but Southwest isn't a typical airline.

The sticky part will be how you deal with current 737 F/O's. How do you force someone to go buy training when they already have the job and neither CBA allows for a pilot to be terminated or displaced because of a type rating purchase. I imagine you'd wind up with a DFR lawsuit against ALPA by our F/O's pretty quickly if they deliberately negotiated away a $7k or $8k chunk of change from their pockets.

The only way I can see around that is if the ARBITRATOR includes it in his decision, and I highly doubt anyone would, as it's not germaine to a SLI decision. But as far as the 717 pilots who transition over at a later date... if it's not because of a displacement... you never know.

Just food for thought.

Stop wasting brain cells on this discussion, you'll be typed when you go through upgrade training. There is no additional cost to Southwest to have this done. When Southwest is no longer attracting the best candidates for selection, they will drop this requirement. They are only keeping it now to keep the pilot's that paid at bay.

 

[tankerhead]

Remind us all why SWA will "no longer attract the best candidates". This should be good....

 

[FlyinGuy]

SWA has required a type for several different reasons. One of the most important ones is they get a break on insurance because they have two "capts" up front. So this is not just a thing they do, they actually have a financial interest in requiring it. I guess SWA will determine the cost/loss of this requirement when it comes to the Trannies. Will you have to go buy one...probably not, but don't rule things out just because it does not sound "reasonable" to you. SWA does things for the bottom line, that is why we have had so many years of profitability!!!

 

[SWA/CA]

There are 7,000 applications on file right now for 100 openings at Southwest. Southwest still requires the type rating to be placed into class. I'd say we are still able to get the best most qualified Pilots.

Sadly, not all will make it. This is the selection process as this is not a draft...

 

[Lear70]

Why because you can't handle some possible truth. If you say it can't happen....your wrong. Respond to that Lear.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

That's the whole point. It's NOT possible unless OUR union (ALPA) *VOLUNTARILY* agreed to it during the SLI or Process Agreement discussions, which we won't.

Nothing SWA and SWAPA "agree" to can take precedent over our EXISTING CBA (which MV already agreed to uphold) and nothing can force conditions of an SLI unless it's either MUTUALLY agreed to by SWAPA and AAI ALPA *OR* ruled by an arbitrator. That's the law, and people are just going to have to accept that this is going to be done fairly. Putting a 5, 10, or 20 year employee back on probation ain't "fair" by any definition of the word.

I still think this is flamebait and don't really believe any of you really don't understand the RLA and A/M any better than this, but in an integration, NO ONE is a new-hire. They're all EXISTING employees being brought over at their EXISTING longevity.

What I don't understand is why any of you would deliberately post something so inflammatory against your future, fellow coworkers. The more you anger people, the less reasonable they are likely to be in any proposed solution the Merger Committees come up with, thus increasing the odds that this will end up in arbitration.

Why would you do something like that when it's so obviously NOT a possibility? NOT the way to start a working relationship, but I guess it makes for the normal FI pot-stirring drivel, so carry on if it makes you feel better.

 

[USAFftrplt]

Not a bone in the fight

I hardly ever make comments on here and I am not associated with either of the companys. I work for another airline.

I agree with Lear that the more you guys piss in each others cherio's the less tolerant your work force will be to get along and close the deal. Thus dragging this whole process out and potenitally squashing the whole deal.

Just remember something until the fat lady sings nothing is a done deal. It is all about money; and if the two labor forces dont come to an agreement management will at some point cut their losses. Dont be stupid! Shoot for the moon but reality better set in a some point!

I hate to say this but a staple (with all things considered) would be better than what AIrtran employees have right now.

For whatever its worth. Just an opinion, kinda like a--h-le-, everyone has one.

 

[Lear70]

SWA has required a type for several different reasons. One of the most important ones is they get a break on insurance because they have two "capts" up front. So this is not just a thing they do, they actually have a financial interest in requiring it. I guess SWA will determine the cost/loss of this requirement when it comes to the Trannies.

That's what I'm hearing, too. Not that it's decided yet, but it may still be on the table for discussion.

 

[Monkey Face]

Remind us all why SWA will "no longer attract the best candidates". This should be good....

Gladly! Remember the days when a type was required to interview?
When the other majors were hiring and some not coming to SWA, they changed the requirement to what it is now.

This type rating requirement costs SWA nothing! Its benefit for what ever reason is no longer valid. When SWA starts to lose good canditates because of this outdated requirement, you watch, they will change their postion to benefit SWA.

Those that paid for theirs, will just have to get over it! Besides, they already have some from Morris that were typed when they went through upgrade. I believe the precedence has been established.

 

[Ty Webb]

USAFfrtr- I was in complete agreement until I saw this :

I hate to say this but a staple (with all things considered) would be better than what AIrtran employees have right now.

For whatever its worth. Just an opinion, kinda like a--h-le-, everyone has one.

That's a very capricious statement. I'm a tenth-year Captain, and if I wanted to trade my seniority here in order to start over at the bottom of the SWA list, I would have done so a long time ago. This merger, while positive for both pilot groups, is not a voluntary decision, and our rights should not be abrogated haphazardly.

 

[Bob Dylan]

But I'm hearing you will be offered pay protection and no furlough clause. That's not exactly starting out at the bottom.

 

[orangebellyav8r]

"while positive for both pilot groups"


What is positive on the SW side?

 

[jonjuan]

Growth and movement, i.e. upgrades, versus the previous no growth and no upgrades. At least Gary seems to think so, but then again, what would he know?

 

[redflyer65]

What movement and growth?

 

[ivauir]

Growth and movement, i.e. upgrades, versus the previous no growth and no upgrades. At least Gary seems to think so, but then again, what would he know?

Jon,

Hopefully the combined company will enjoy opportunities that neither could have exploited alone. But the fact is Southwest has significant retirements pending, a powerful band, and a company with the capital and network to grow. Any growth opportunities would be far more accessible to Southwest than AirTran as independent companies, and any growth resulting from that acquisition is more of an additional benefit to AirTran pilots than it is to Southwest pilots.

Southwest's financial resources will bring opportunities that AirTran would not have been able to access by itself.

Growth in this environment is exceedingly difficult.

becoming more uncertain that AirTran had the ability to grow and remain competitive in an industry where the size of a carrier's route network is increasingly important

 

[Bob Dylan]

Boy, I sure agree with that post.

Southwest pilots are getting the shaft on this deal, especially the junior SWA pilots. AirTran pilots just hit the mega jackpot. Now, stapling the AT pilots to the SWA list would make this deal fair for bothe groups. Hopefully the AT guys will soon realize that.

 

[SWA/FO]

Growth and movement, i.e. upgrades, versus the previous no growth and no upgrades. At least Gary seems to think so, but then again, what would he know?

Sounds just like my tranny buddy... Who calls me everyday.. To tell me: "we get ATL, we are going to grow, we are going to take over the world, SWA is getting us for so cheap (until I reminded him of the billion or so in debt we are assuming), then he closes by saying you bought us for our airplanes... Did you know, we (tranny) get our 737 cheaper then you guys do (from Boeing)?

Then I say "are you high?".

 

[Ty Webb]

Did you know, we (tranny) get our 737 cheaper then you guys do (from Boeing)?

Then I say "are you high?".

And then he says, "Our 737's were negotiated just after 9/11 . . .we were a day or two away from signing with Airbus, and Boeing made us an offer we couldn't refuse . . . . and, although the terms are confidential, it is common knowledge they are at or below SWA pricing".

If AirTran management played hardball with labor contracts, they played smashball with suppliers and vendors.

 

[texman]

I just love the ( airtran is here to save swa) talk. Swa was in real bad shape.LOL we would never grow agian.LOL. will AT help? Sure. Cash is king though. GK had a sells job to do and he did just fine.

 

[Cometman]

That's the whole point. It's NOT possible unless OUR union (ALPA) *VOLUNTARILY* agreed to it during the SLI or Process Agreement discussions, which we won't.

Nothing SWA and SWAPA "agree" to can take precedent over our EXISTING CBA (which MV already agreed to uphold) and nothing can force conditions of an SLI unless it's either MUTUALLY agreed to by SWAPA and AAI ALPA *OR* ruled by an arbitrator. That's the law, and people are just going to have to accept that this is going to be done fairly. Putting a 5, 10, or 20 year employee back on probation ain't "fair" by any definition of the word.

I still think this is flamebait and don't really believe any of you really don't understand the RLA and A/M any better than this, but in an integration, NO ONE is a new-hire. They're all EXISTING employees being brought over at their EXISTING longevity.

What I don't understand is why any of you would deliberately post something so inflammatory against your future, fellow coworkers. The more you anger people, the less reasonable they are likely to be in any proposed solution the Merger Committees come up with, thus increasing the odds that this will end up in arbitration.

Why would you do something like that when it's so obviously NOT a possibility? NOT the way to start a working relationship, but I guess it makes for the normal FI pot-stirring drivel, so carry on if it makes you feel better.

1. You said that is the law. What law are you talking about? Can you give me the law so I can look it up or does it just sound good to say THAT IS THE LAW?

2. You might go to SWA and be put on the seniority list but I do not think longevity is an automatic. Remember, you will have ZERO time with SWA. You might be number 1 on the SLI but you could end up with first year pay on their scale. However, you would still see a pay raise. I would not count on longevity as a given.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Historically middle of the pack wages/benefits. Swa has been able to be selective the last few years due to the bankruptcies of the legacies. Prior to 9/11 the legacies were the place to be. Most of the people that refused to pay for a type (same that refused to pft) had swa as a 5th to 8th choice behind the top 4 to 5 legacies and fdx, UPS. Obviously guys on the back end of legacy hiring would currently be doing much better at swa. Long-term I if under 45 they are better off with one of the top 3(AA, UAL, and DAL).

Remind us all why SWA will "no longer attract the best candidates". This should be good....

 

[Whataburger]

That's the whole point. It's NOT possible unless OUR union (ALPA) *VOLUNTARILY* agreed to it during the SLI or Process Agreement discussions, which we won't.

Nothing SWA and SWAPA "agree" to can take precedent over our EXISTING CBA (which MV already agreed to uphold) and nothing can force conditions of an SLI unless it's either MUTUALLY agreed to by SWAPA and AAI ALPA *OR* ruled by an arbitrator. That's the law, and people are just going to have to accept that this is going to be done fairly. Putting a 5, 10, or 20 year employee back on probation ain't "fair" by any definition of the word.

I still think this is flamebait and don't really believe any of you really don't understand the RLA and A/M any better than this, but in an integration, NO ONE is a new-hire. They're all EXISTING employees being brought over at their EXISTING longevity.

What I don't understand is why any of you would deliberately post something so inflammatory against your future, fellow coworkers. The more you anger people, the less reasonable they are likely to be in any proposed solution the Merger Committees come up with, thus increasing the odds that this will end up in arbitration.

Why would you do something like that when it's so obviously NOT a possibility? NOT the way to start a working relationship, but I guess it makes for the normal FI pot-stirring drivel, so carry on if it makes you feel better.

You don't have 20 yr employees.
You sure run your mouth a lot for a "moderator."
BTW, Alpo has proven for the last 20 years that everything they agree to ain't worth the paper it's written on.
I am for "fair," but speculation by a "moderator" on a SLI that we won't see for 2 years is plain stupid!!!!!!

Alpa ain't worth ******************** and your speculation on a SLI is ********************.

 

[dh82dvr]

Why would GK pursue this deal if there was no benefit for SWA?

 

[dh82dvr]

:smash:

blah blah blah blah.

Southwest pilots are awesome. AirTran pilots suck. blah stapling blah blah blah. staple staple staple blah blah blah.

uke:

 

[Midge]

You don't have 20 yr employees.

So does that give you the right to a staple?

You sure run your mouth a lot for a "moderator."

The moderating on this board has sucked for the past 2 years.

BTW, Alpo has proven for the last 20 years that everything they agree to ain't worth the paper it's written on.

I'll agree, but ALPA has other aspects that help make up for its shortcomings, AERO medical, and legal for example.

I am for "fair," but speculation by a "moderator" on a SLI that we won't see for 2 years is plain stupid!!!!!!

What's fair in one person's eyes won't be in another's. That's why yours will wind up in arbitration.

Alpa ain't worth ******************** and your speculation on a SLI is ********************.

ALPA is a necessary evil. Yes they suck, but they are necessary. Imagine life without a union?

Carry on.

 

[Lear70]

You don't have 20 yr employees.

You deliberately sidestepped the point, nicely done.

You sure run your mouth a lot for a "moderator."

I don't moderate these threads. I voluntarily stopped moderating the AAI/SWA threads so I could continue to discuss it freely. If you don't like it, you're free not to read it or you can put me on your ignore list, I really don't care either way.

BTW, Alpo has proven for the last 20 years that everything they agree to ain't worth the paper it's written on.
I am for "fair," but speculation by a "moderator" on a SLI that we won't see for 2 years is plain stupid!!!!!!

Alpa ain't worth ******************** and your speculation on a SLI is ********************.

Just as I believe people's opinions stating that AirTran pilots will end up back on probation is pure ******************.

Opinions vary, and I could honestly care less if you like mine or not.

1. You said that is the law. What law are you talking about? Can you give me the law so I can look it up or does it just sound good to say THAT IS THE LAW?

It's very simple Allegheny-Mohawk, which I already mentioned, but you deliberately ignored. Nicely done as well. IF operations are merged, then A/M does not allow for creating new terms of employment or re-triggering probationary periods or any OTHER item contrary to either side's CBA unless *BOTH* sides agree to it OR an arbitrator rules it (which has yet to happen in any pilot arbitration ruling I've ever read).

You can't just screw over one segment of the merging employee groups simply because you might wish to. Again, I'm shocked one group of pilots would wish to do that to another.

2. You might go to SWA and be put on the seniority list but I do not think longevity is an automatic. Remember, you will have ZERO time with SWA. You might be number 1 on the SLI but you could end up with first year pay on their scale. However, you would still see a pay raise. I would not count on longevity as a given.

I absolutely count longevity as a given.

I have *YET* to see a recent arbitrated SLI that resulted in a pilot having longevity taken from them for the purposes of pay and/or probation. If you know of one, please feel free to post a link.

The only other way it would happen is if both sides AGREED to it, which we're not going to do. This isn't a bankruptcy acquisition where the acquiring carrier MIGHT take some pilots, a la ATA. This is an acquisition with the announced MERGING of ALL employee groups per A/M.

I don't know why you guys are so anxious to try to screw another group of pilots over. Pretty crappy thing to wish on someone, quite frankly. YMMV