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.