SWA to have a third aircraft?!?

[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