SWA today like the airline in the book, "Nuts!"?

[waveflyer]

You're all in ARENT you PCL?

Every response I see out of you is defensive based on you royally screwing the AT pilots you plan on leaving.

I agreed with you earlier- now....it's max's time- as a fellow guy who earns much more outside of aviation than I do in it- I find your exuberance ridiculous- your life doesn't depend on aviation- as much as I beg pilots from all sectors of the industry to have solid backups- I understand that most do not and aren't as free to roll the dice...

 

[fam62c]

Everything in bargaining is about weighing risk and making value judgments about what is and isn't posturing. Unless you're willing to undergo that exercise, you might as well not even take part in bargaining. Just get down on your hands and knees, lick the boots of the other side, and grovel for whatever they'll give you. Maybe you find that to be an acceptable way to go through life, but I don't.

No matter what anybody says you will always believe that if your group had stayed the course and taken SW on head-to-head that somehow "right" (or what you believe is right) would have prevailed and you would have ended up with a much more favorable list that would have been crammed down the throats of the SW pilots as the companies were fully integrated. I don't believe that would have happened and the majority of your group didn't believe it either but maybe you are right, we will never know for sure. What I do know for sure is that the consequences for your pilot group would have been catastrophic if you had been wrong.

 

[PCL_128]

What I do know for sure is that the consequences for your pilot group would have been catastrophic if you had been wrong.

Management made threats far more drastic than what Gary and crew were making here when we were in contract negotiations. Should we have caved then, too, because the "consequences...would have been catastrophic" if they hadn't been bluffing? Of course not. Leaders make judgment calls based upon experience. The leadership determined then that the threats were nothing but posturing, so negotiations continued rather than leaking it to the pilot group and getting everyone scared. But when the merger talks come around, an inexperienced and gullible MC pisses their pants, leaks standard run-of-the-mill threats to the membership, then the membership pisses their pants, and leverage evaporates overnight. This is not leadership, and it's certainly not very smart.

Again, if you aren't willing to call someone's bluff on the most outlandish of threats, like shutting down an airline you just purchased when the law is clearly on our side, then you might as well not even engage in bargaining and just get right to begging.

 

[humveedriver]

Management made threats far more drastic than what Gary and crew were making here when we were in contract negotiations. Should we have caved then, too, because the "consequences...would have been catastrophic" if they hadn't been bluffing? Of course not. Leaders make judgment calls based upon experience. The leadership determined then that the threats were nothing but posturing, so negotiations continued rather than leaking it to the pilot group and getting everyone scared. But when the merger talks come around, an inexperienced and gullible MC pisses their pants, leaks standard run-of-the-mill threats to the membership, then the membership pisses their pants, and leverage evaporates overnight. This is not leadership, and it's certainly not very smart.

Again, if you aren't willing to call someone's bluff on the most outlandish of threats, like shutting down an airline you just purchased when the law is clearly on our side, then you might as well not even engage in bargaining and just get right to begging.

Says the guy who has no intention of sticking around. Why don't you give me 10,000 dollars of your own money and I'll go to Vegas with it? I appreciate your passion, but you have NO life experience (kids, marriage, manager of say 50+ people), these things matter too. I know you believe the words you say, but they are mostly meaningless until you have a lived a little more life. IMO anyway, I know you will find folks who agree with you and those are the voices you will listen too.

 

[maxblast72]

We had an appropriate venue, which was shut down when you refused to stop posting privileged information.

No, the ATN forum was shut down because of all the personal attacks and occasional threats of violence. Maybe if pilots like yourself could debate without calling people names we would still have a forum today.

Notice that not one of the people you refer to are making posts on a public forum. Not one member of the Merger Committee. Not one member of the Negotiations Committee, not one member of the LEC, not the "former Communications Committee".

None of the people you mentioned have access to all 335,000 pages of documents and have attended 4 out of first 5 depositions taken.

 

[maxblast72]

Management made threats far more drastic than what Gary and crew were making here when we were in contract negotiations. Should we have caved then, too, because the "consequences...would have been catastrophic" if they hadn't been bluffing? Of course not. Leaders make judgment calls based upon experience.

Don't the MEC had a 98% strike vote supporting calling management's bluff. After the Merger Committee heard Gary Kelly threaten separate ops/717 fragmentation scenarios on July 14, 2011, we felt the pilots should have a say on whether they wanted to call Gary's bluff. Even your king of scope attorney could not guarantee the outcome on Aug 17, 2011 as outlined by my friend on the ATN forum several months back:

"What you and Txxx have failed to mention every time you address specifically what Abrams said with regard to M/B is the second half of his statement which I will summarize: "You have a strong case in court, but it might take a long time to claim a legal victory. You might win the case but find yourself without a job. What you might actually end up with is a monetary settlement. I don't know if many of you would call that a victory." This is not word for word but I took notes that day and that is exactly the sentiment he conveyed to the entire room with a microphone in his hand. I heard every word he said and my summary is not an exaggeration or dramatized for effect."

 

[intooclose]

Management made threats far more drastic than what Gary and crew were making here when we were in contract negotiations. Should we have caved then, too, because the "consequences...would have been catastrophic" if they hadn't been bluffing? Of course not. Leaders make judgment calls based upon experience. The leadership determined then that the threats were nothing but posturing, so negotiations continued rather than leaking it to the pilot group and getting everyone scared. But when the merger talks come around, an inexperienced and gullible MC pisses their pants, leaks standard run-of-the-mill threats to the membership, then the membership pisses their pants, and leverage evaporates overnight. This is not leadership, and it's certainly not very smart.

Again, if you aren't willing to call someone's bluff on the most outlandish of threats, like shutting down an airline you just purchased when the law is clearly on our side, then you might as well not even engage in bargaining and just get right to begging.

There was no law "clearly" on our side. We live in a world that has no guarantees, only calculated risk. No law that I know of compels a company to be run in a certain way, beyond being criminal. Bond-McCaskill.....give me a break. Really?

We were not dealing with Airtran management any more. You and Slick were fighting the last war. Once we were bought the risk equation changed dramatically for most of us. That is what leadership is suppose to see and adjust to new realities. You did not, and you failed. Our leadership failed us at a critical moment. Or should I say revealed itself. You are pathetic.

 

[RLAblows]

Management made threats far more drastic than what Gary and crew were making here when we were in contract negotiations. Should we have caved then, too, because the "consequences...would have been catastrophic" if they hadn't been bluffing? Of course not. Leaders make judgment calls based upon experience. The leadership determined then that the threats were nothing but posturing, so negotiations continued rather than leaking it to the pilot group and getting everyone scared. But when the merger talks come around, an inexperienced and gullible MC pisses their pants, leaks standard run-of-the-mill threats to the membership, then the membership pisses their pants, and leverage evaporates overnight. This is not leadership, and it's certainly not very smart.

Again, if you aren't willing to call someone's bluff on the most outlandish of threats, like shutting down an airline you just purchased when the law is clearly on our side, then you might as well not even engage in bargaining and just get right to begging.

They are shutting down our airline! They are getting rid of 88 of our planes. They are even paying the competition to take them. (of course that was all a bluff according to the MEC members at the time) I'm sure a long drawn out arbitration battle would have given us great security seeing that more then half of the airline is being given away. You are so disconnected from reality, and your age and experience shows. To compare contract negotiations with our old management vs. negotiations with the management that just bought the airline is ludicrous. One management team needed us to keep their jobs and be successful. The other, well, not so much. It should be more then obvious now why we were bought. It wasn't for our planes, reservation system, people, gates..........

 

[Crash Pad]

You do realise that management was actively selling the airline during contract talks. They were just stalling because you don't make repairs until after the home inspector and buyer request them. Stop with this "we fought for what we got". You took what management gave you when they were ready to give it. Our FO rates are still below industry average, you caved on scope, and you brought our reserve system up to ASAs level. Way to go Patton! No retreat, no surrender my ass.

 

[Ty Webb]

No, the ATN forum was shut down because of all the personal attacks and occasional threats of violence. Maybe if pilots like yourself could debate without calling people names we would still have a forum today.

Time to face facts-

The current leadership investigated ways to bar YOU from the forum. According to ALPA rules, it is almost impossible to ban a single member, so they did the next best thing. This research, again, was done specifically to deal with you, Colonel Kurtz.

None of the people you mentioned have access to all 335,000 pages of documents and have attended 4 out of first 5 depositions taken.

Newsflash- if they had ten million pages of documents they still wouldn't be showing their ass on by re-posting snippets of private emails. It's called integrity and judgement, two character traits you obviously do not have.