SWA to speed up Airtran integration.....article

[PCL_128]

In all fairness, PCL, and without getting into it again, a large part of the blame falls with the union leadership at the time (LH) in that they never prepared our pilot group for the kind of fight it would have taken to get to arbitration and then, later, to implement the award.

Would our pilots have stood stronger on it and not buckled and started writing "please staple us" letters if we had? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know. But looking back it seems pretty clear that IF the MC was briefing the MEC that threats were being made about non-integration by SWA senior management BEFORE SIA 1, and IF we were going to continue to play the game of brinkmanship we started to play by voting down SIA 1, we should have prepared our pilots, IN ADVANCE, for the kind of lashback that came shortly thereafter in the GK letter.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, I know, but I'm not going to blame our pilots for our failure of leadership (I know, I wasn't in any position at the time of SIA 1, but I still should have seen past the facade of friendliness sooner). It was a battle I would have liked to have fought. Now it's just time to move on. :beer:

Lear, while I can't argue that LH and others left much to be desired in the leadership department, it's just not right to blame them for the crapstorm that followed GK's threatening letter. If you want to blame anyone, blame the NC. They fomented the crapstorm. They spread fear. Making idiotic comments like "vote yes if you want a job, vote no if you don't." No matter what the MEC did, they never could have counteracted such nonsense. The NC signed our death warrant.

 

[Ty Webb]

Monday was three days ago. There will be no Thursday afternoon quarterbacking.

Put that on a sticker will ya? I'll buy one. :beer:

 

[maxblast72]

If you're claiming the 71's going away as an excuse for your failure, why didn't you speak up when RM from WN mgmt was tounting the 71 staying for the full duration of thier leases during roadshows to promote SLI2? If you knew they were going away early, wouldn't it have been prudent to share that rumor as it was for all the other crap you guys spewed?

Gary Kelly made his opinions on the B717 very clear at the July 14th, 2011 meeting in the big D. At Southwest employee labor rates and Jet A prices over $3/gallon, he stated the B717 didn't have enough seats to make money. In September of 2010, Jet A was only $2.20/gallon. By the time we had meeting in Dallas in July 2011, Jet A was over $3/gallon.

If you ever talked to me post AIP #1 signing (July 16, 2011) and before August 18th (MEC vote), I told guys I would feel much more comfortable going to arbitration if we had 140 B737-700s. But the reality was we had a 2nd fleet type that comprised over 60% over our fleet. The 2nd fleet type, the B717, couldn't do anything the 737 couldn't do and add the complexities and costs associated with the second fleet type.

Then post MEC vote, SWA management was telling us they didn't like the B717 or the B737 classics. They did stress they were worried about more "pop" tops. However, I never thought Boeing would let their most popular selling aircraft get grounded for a long period of time and couldn't forget what Gary Kelly had said at the July 14th meeting about the B717.

The biggest wildcard was were any airlines in the world interested in taking 88 B717s off our hands. There are very few airlines in the world big enough to take them. However, the high fuel prices are dictating the end of the 50 seat popularity and Delta is going to upgage alot 50 seat flying to CRJ-700/-900s and B717s.

PCL128, would you still rather be at PCL versus your current position in light of their bankruptcy proceedings?

 

[maxblast72]

I'm only aware of this one

http://ia700806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.gand.181455/gov.uscourts.gand.181455.1.0.pdf

Actually, that complaint was amended in June of last year to add the other 116 plaintiffs. Your link goes to the original complaint filed in February of last year to meet the time limitation of filing a DFR (within 6 months of the Aug 18, 2011 MEC vote).

 

[maxblast72]

Monday was three days ago. There will be no Thursday afternoon quarterbacking.

The MC was consistent from July 16th through August 18th in strongly recommending to the MEC to allow our pilots to vote in light of what was said by Gary Kelly at the July 14th meeting. No Thursday afternoon quarterbacking here

 

[maxblast72]

The fact the NC overstepped thier bounds should not be lost on anyone. A good list would not have required all the flimsy C&R's.

For everyone else reading this outside of WN/FL, who'd have wanted to vote on a deal that would have resulted in up to a 32% seniority loss? Would it have even been worth it? It's embarrassing to even explain to those outside the deal. The most common question I get is "why would you ever vote to accept that?" and my only answer is that 87% were afraid of thier jobs based on hearsay and lack of belief in the current law.

The MEC made the right decision in not even bothering with sending out a sub-standard deal. After that, they got weak due to the sh!t storm created by the NC. There is plenty of blame to go around, however, had the NC not over-stepped thier bounds and left Dallas when negotiations moved passed just a "list", we'd be in a much better position than we are now. Regardless of perceived threats, SWAPA communications, etc., I'd have happily tested MB to achieve a fair SLI.

If it was such an embarrassing deal and the pilot group was behind the MEC (as the MEC said they were from all the emails they got), why didn't they shoot down SIA #1, fire the entire MC for bringing back an "embarrassing" deal, and show Gary Kelly who was boss? The MEC had the balls to shoot down $100 million per year in possible raises for the AirTran pilots but didn't have the balls to fire the MC?

 

[maxblast72]

If the first deal had passes you would have gotten a temporary pay raise to SWA CA and then been bumped down to FO with the 717 departure. There would still be something to complain about. There always will be.

Actually, had SIA #1 passed both sides, the Captain Retention slots were non-aircraft specific. Had any B717 CAs lost their seat during the fleet replacement, no SWA FO could upgrade until every AirTran pilot with a Captain Retention slot had been offered their Captain seat back.

You never hear me complain about SIA #2. I voted for it. What you hear me complain about is how the MEC prevented the MC from having 30 days of roadshows and a pilot vote for SIA #1. The MEC knew that if JM and FE had 30 days to explain what happened, that more pilots would believe JM and FE than TO, AC, CJ, RM, or BS (the biggest 4 names that were against SIA #1).

 

[Just thinking]

Do we have to call your wife to take away your computer access again?

Your belief that the language in SIA#1 would have protected Captain seats or that banishing a junior Captain from the FAT group to a life of perpetual reserve was a good deal is quite telling.
The MC, MEC and LEC failed this pilot group. Anyone at the meeting could readily see that we had a house divided and you all were more focused on fighting each other rather than fighting FOR the pilot group they were supposed to represent.

That time has passed. You did not accomplish a fair and equitable integration, Period.

You have seen the "worth" that our operation has provided GK and the shareholders. Our worth as an operation was immediate. Hundreds of millions of dollars in bag fees alone. So much so that they raised the bag fee for this year to squeeze more dollars while they can. It has been the SWA operational efforts that have drained money from the company. They have just finished training their type rated FO's to start the motors. Have not yet implemented the single engine taxi. Million wasted. Just now getting code share by second quarter 2013? Maybe. Jumping around like they just landed on the moon when all they accomplished was the San Juan runs.
All of you worked extremely hard and fought for what you believed to be what was best. We had NO leadership from lh at a time when we needed it the most. You (MEC, LEC and MC) had to deal with a management group that was dishonest and deceitful (AIRTRAN AND SWA). You were over-matched and outwitted.
Did this pilot group deserve better treatment? Depends on which side of the partition you are standing. Will we live with it and still be professional pilots? Every single day.
SWA will continue to take the profits from the AirTran operation while chanting about 15% ROI while they piss away money because "that is not how SWA does it." Their anemic efforts at a code share has already cost millions of dollars in revenue. The "productivity" of the operations at SWA are becoming more and more evident as we see behind the purple curtain. SWA pilot group is efficient and work hard. SWAPA will lose language to prevent the Cartels and tournament level players from fleecing the company. Costs for every other employee group are excessively high and will continue to drain from the bottom line. (Kind of like the cabin cleaners at NWA being with the mechanics union..... too much money for too little return.)
Costs will have to be curtailed and unless SWA embraces an operation that can expand more quickly to capitalize on opportunities they are on a very rocky uphill road.

 

[Lear70]

If you ever talked to me post AIP #1 signing (July 16, 2011) and before August 18th (MEC vote), I told guys I would feel much more comfortable going to arbitration if we had 140 B737-700s. But the reality was we had a 2nd fleet type that comprised over 60% over our fleet. The 2nd fleet type, the B717, couldn't do anything the 737 couldn't do and add the complexities and costs associated with the second fleet type.

I did. Twice. Once before SIA 1 was released for public viewing, once afterwards and before the vote asking WTF you brought that back for and why I should even consider voting for it.

Your answer the first time, was "wait until you read it". Your 2nd answer, right before the vote, was very, very clear. "If you want a good list, vote No and we'll go to arbitration. I think the financials in this are very good, and offset the seniority loss, but vote how you want to. I'm looking forward to presenting our arguments in arbitration."

FE said roughly the same thing and went on to say that the risk of non-integration was so slight as to not be worth consideration, and to vote my conscience.

Your attempt to re-write history simply... won't... work. You didn't warn ANYONE of ANYTHING like you are writing now. You may have had those THOUGHTS prior to the SIA 1 vote, but you sure as hell weren't telling anyone. If any of you WERE, knowing how involved I tend to get, telling ME your "high risk thoughts" in our off-the-record phone conversations would have been a d*mn good idea, now wouldn't it?

If you remember, we had this exact discussion Wed night in Dallas, and neither you nor Frank corrected me when I set you straight on your lack of communication of the risk you LATER started talking to everyone about. Your position on SIA 1 was simple: in SIA 1, YOU kept YOUR Captain seat that you would never have held with even a DoH list. You likely would have lost it for a few years towards the end of the 717 retirements between 2019-2022 when attrition let you regain it, but that pay during the 2013-2019 period was worth an extra $600,000 to YOU personally, regardless of what it did to everyone ELSE'S seniority. You were pretty clear about that later, and haven't shut up about "the money it cost you". It was always about your personal situation and what was best for you, not about your fears of non-integration; THAT argument didn't come until later.

I don't do revisionist history. It happened the way it happened. You're not going to weasel out of your part of the blame. I have mine. You have yours. Be a man and own it.

The MEC knew that if JM and FE had 30 days to explain what happened, that more pilots would believe JM and FE than TO, AC, CJ, RM, or BS (the biggest 4 names that were against SIA #1).

That's 5 names, Mr Numbers...

That was the concern, that you along with SWA Management would scare the bejeezus out of the pilot group and SIA 1 would pass 60/40. Who knew that they'd throw some logs on the fire with their threats of non-integration and scare people into an 85% vote on something worse?

You said it correctly in one of your first posts back from your wife's restriction of your internet privileges a few days ago: "GK and SWA Co rolled the MEC after SIA 1". And the Merger Committee helped them.

GK took advantage of a scared pilot group, and the MC helped. JM is a great guy, he was the LAST to cave on SIA 1, when he realized he was outnumbered and Linden was going to sign it anyway, but PCL's assessment of the MC's complicity is 100% accurate. In the end, FE's sound byte for "Vote Yes if you want to work for Southwest, vote No if you don't" which finished off the threat work laid by the GK letter sealed the fate of this pilot group.

Again, your attempts at revisionist history will not be successful. People are coming to terms with what happened, how, and why. Why you're trying to skew the facts to try to avoid blame at this point is beyond me. If you're still mad, look in the mirror. You never should have brought back SIA 1 unless you were prepared to defy the MEC and come out in the open about the threats you never told anyone ELSE about until after the GK letter 3 days after the vote.

Truth be told, if we were going to go this route, you should have left FE's slide in the presentation or Frank should have gotten up in defiance of the MEC and told the hundreds of pilots present what the "risk" was. Hell, even tell us PERSONALLY, off-the-record, BEFORE the meeting. But you didn't. He didn't. And here we are.

Lots of blame to go around, and I'm not really sure why we're rehashing it. I'm happy to let it go if you'll quit trying to publicly rewrite history.

 

[humveedriver]

Actually, had SIA #1 passed both sides, the Captain Retention slots were non-aircraft specific. Had any B717 CAs lost their seat during the fleet replacement, no SWA FO could upgrade until every AirTran pilot with a Captain Retention slot had been offered their Captain .

See, you still would have lost your seat, you just would have gotten it back a little sooner out of seniority order. No matter which way we slice it, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. In Jan of 2015 our seniority will enable the AT pilots with enough seniority to bid Captain. Sounds like a retention slot to me only its seniority and not arguable language that gets you there. Neither deal was a win, you just liked the first one better. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong in my book.