SWAPA Info packet FEDEXed to all AirTran Pilots

[madjack]

GB,

I was referring to today $$ and bidding power but I agree, over time...the demographics will result in another GAIN for the AAI pilots as a result of this acquisition...I ask again do the SWA pilots get to share in the spoils of this acquisition or do they all go to AAI pilots?

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

Plus, growth at a bigger company requires more airplanes to see the same relative gains in seniority. Growth from this acquisition is not guaranteed. I don't see it happening at all. GK is so caught up in his 15% ROIC before growth that I don't believe that we see any growth until he leaves or that metric is dispelled.

Bing Bing
We have a winner. The whole industry is in a no growth mode based on costs and yields.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, Let's agree to stay on topic,

I *WAS* on topic. I was answering a question YOU asked, where you listed a scenario where AAI CA's would end up senior to people hired before them at Southwest. I was responding that just because a fence gets put up that keeps CA's in their seats doesn't mean they automatically end up senior to your F/O's.

the AAI pilots will receive IMMEDIATE gains as per the SWA CBA. In your DOH/Fence scenario I on the other hand gain nothing...in fact I must wait until the fence protections go away to achieve the benefits of seniority my longevity allows???? I gain nothing while the AAI pilots gain a great deal... the AAI pilots, in good faith, should want share the gains and risk of this aquisition...

The questions you're asking are things our MC has asked us not to discuss (getting in to what we're willing to give or not). SOME of your gains (any immediate monetary gains) will have to be negotiated with Southwest. Other gains will be worked out between our two negotiating committees. Sorry I can't be more specific on here, but as I said, I do think that you should get SOMETHING out of the deal.

I have never advocated a staple and you and I both agree that the we have no idea what Mr Kelly or a panel of arbitrators will do...

There's probably a lot we would agree on, as would many of our pilots. We have a lot of reasonable people over here, I'm sure it'll all work out.

 

[Ty Webb]

Madjack,

I think you make a valid point; the SWA pilots will need to see some tangible benefits in order to earn their "yes" vote.

Also, a creative solution will need to be found to address the retirement issue, so that former AAI pilots don't become disproportionate or "clump" in parts of the list.

Hopefully, creative solutions will be found.

 

[Lear70]

Lear,

The "roll the dice, takes ur chances" comment is construed as "give us what we want or an arbitrator will take it...more subtle but still just as much a threat as the nuclear option...I think the arbitrators will ask the same questions I am asking...

I'm not saying they won't, and it's not a threat, I'm sorry you took it that way. If we go to arbitration, WE roll the dice, too.

Don't for a second think that we're not aware that if it went completely relative (unlikely) that you guys wouldn't scream bloody murder for GK pulling the plug and, if he didn't, start looking at the USAPA playbook (your update from Aaron made it perfectly clear that you would).

We don't want to be in that situation, and it would hurt us a lot more than it would hurt you while we were waiting in limbo for years for all the legal wrangling (we'd be the ones losing $40-50k a year while everyone had injunctions from doing ANYTHING until the legal battles were heard). So don't think it's a threat towards you, it's a mutually-bad road for arbitration - way too much inherent risk on BOTH sides.

 

[Lear70]

Bing Bing
We have a winner. The whole industry is in a no growth mode based on costs and yields.

So you trust your CEO or you don't. Which is it?

If he says on one hand that he will protect your pilots from suffering a loss as a result of this acquisition AND he ALSO says that Southwest will be entering a growth mode from this acquisition, how can you believe him on one count and disbelieve him on another?

Not understanding the double-talk coming from some of you about your CEO...

 

[shootr]

Lear,

Gary's definition of growth and a pilot's definition of growth are possibly not the same.

shootr

 

[madjack]

Lear said: Pushing your CEO to lose hundreds of millions of dollars pulling the "nuclear option" ripcord if it totally screws the majority of your pilots for years to come is one thing (and he very well might). Asking him to do the same thing for something that's close to what the negotiators were pushing for might be something else altogether.

I was referring to this comment, you and I are not discussing nuclear options...but you cannot expect that the gains from this acquisition should all go to AAI...what I have heard from your side is in the "nothing less then DOH with fences" all the way to "relative seniority"...In that range of SLI I gain nothing?? I may lose as many SWA pilots and some AAI pilots have mentioned because of the demographics of the AAI group...again why would I agree to gain NOTHING while the AAI pilots achieve immediate and long term GAINS??

 

[madjack]

Lear Said: If he says on one hand that he will protect your pilots from suffering a loss as a result of this acquisition AND he ALSO says that Southwest will be entering a growth mode from this acquisition, how can you believe him on one count and disbelieve him on another?

Mr Kelly may be a shrewd airline CEO but last I checked even he cannot predict the future...AAI pilots must SHARE with the SWA pilots the RISK that SWA may NOT grow due to the economy. Also we must negotiate what we have now and it must be fair and equitable...even to the big, mean, greedy, cocky (and a slew of other insulting descriptors I have read on this forum) SWA pilots. ALL THE GAINS CANNOT GO TO AAI!!

 

[Lear70]

Both good points, MadJack. I don't have an answer for all of it, as I don't know all the moving pieces. That's why we both have Merger/Negotiating committees. I only know what they've released and what's been publicly stated by GK, MV, BJ, and others.

(and not all of you are mean, greed, or cocky, and I have no clue how "big" you guys are, or if we should start a contest). (disclaimer: most of your pilots are great people in person, although I've met some not-so-friendly ones since this started. Fear makes otherwise decent people do ugly things, fact of life on BOTH sides of the table).

Shootr, that's a good point, but then, to play Devil's advocate, might GK's view of "not harming Southwest pilots" also be different in his eyes versus yours? (I don't mean that aggressively or meanly, I'm just playing devil's advocate with the whole "trusting GK implicitly" thing that seems to come out every so often).

 

[redflyer65]

Lear,

Just trying to clarify, we trust Gary will do the right thing with this SLI.

He has continually stated he needs 15% ROI before he will grow the airline. Those are his words, not mine. I have to say though, he really has stuck to what he says...whether I like it or not.

There has been areas where Southwest could have grown, but Gary has really stuck to the 15% number. That number in the airline business is pretty high..but in the end, he's at the helm.

Just trying to show where we've been over the past few years.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Both good points, MadJack. I don't have an answer for all of it, as I don't know all the moving pieces. That's why we both have Merger/Negotiating committees. I only know what they've released and what's been publicly stated by GK, MV, BJ, and others.

To add, we here at SWA trust GK. It's just that sometimes announcements are made with a fair amount of optimism (which is what one would expect a leader to do), that perhaps later will not come true, often due to changes in circumstances (oil prices, economy, etc). Plus, there is much speculation here as to whether SWA will continue to serve many AAI cities, ones that simply never would have been considered outside of this acquisition, and ones that may still not hold up to the post-merger business plan. It's entirely likely that these decisions have yet to be made, and thus would be a change in plans that would negate possible growth.

(disclaimer: most of your pilots are great people in person, although I've met some not-so-friendly ones since this started. Fear makes otherwise decent people do ugly things, fact of life on BOTH sides of the table).

Very true. Looking forward to working with you all, and going up against the other majors with you all along.

Shootr, that's a good point, but then, to play Devil's advocate, might GK's view of "not harming Southwest pilots" also be different in his eyes versus yours? (I don't mean that aggressively or meanly, I'm just playing devil's advocate with the whole "trusting GK implicitly" thing that seems to come out every so often).

This is true. We honestly do not know the position that GK and the rest of the SWA management will take with this, which is why you see much angst on our side of this situation. The suggestions that GK might not merge operations are not threats, but honest speculation at the extent to which SWA mgmt honors their promise to preserve our interests, if the AAI MC makes demands that would potentially harm SWA pilots' career value.

 

[shootr]

Shootr, that's a good point, but then, to play Devil's advocate, might GK's view of "not harming Southwest pilots" also be different in his eyes versus yours? (I don't mean that aggressively or meanly, I'm just playing devil's advocate with the whole "trusting GK implicitly" thing that seems to come out every so often).

Lear,

I don't claim to KNOW what's in GK's mind or exactly what he'll do about what. I will say that based upon experience, GK's decisions over what to do about our SLI have less to do with "not harming Southwest pilots" and more to do with avoiding a Cactus type fiasco because of the effect on the bottom line. "Harm" is in the eye of the beholder and the only people who will know what "harm" to a Southwest pilot is and what SWAPA will do about it...will be Southwest pilots.

We may better understand GK's plan, soon. Using Cactus as an example of what he doesn't want to happen would be a useful explanation to the shareholders about any decisions he makes.

shootr

 

[Lear70]

Fair enough points, gents. It will be a while before we know how all this goes, but it's good to have open, respectful discussion, and I appreciate you sharing what you guys are thinking.

Enjoy your week, heading out on vacay tomorrow.

 

[PCL_128]

Boy you guys sure are spinning this well...I am a 10 year SWA FO and if all your CPs keep thier seats and obviously are senior to me......

Lear is correct. Just because our captains don't lose their seats doesn't necessarily mean they're senior to you. They may be, or they may not be. SLI agreements and arbitrated awards always contain "no bump/no flush" provisions, which mean that regardless of what your seniority is, you can't be bumped out of your seat, equipment, or domicile. That means that an AirTran captain could be 20% junior to you on a combined list, but he doesn't lose his seat. But, when you upgrade into a captain vacancy, even though he's been a captain for all of that time, you'll be ahead of him on the captain list.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

So you trust your CEO or you don't. Which is it?

If he says on one hand that he will protect your pilots from suffering a loss as a result of this acquisition AND he ALSO says that Southwest will be entering a growth mode from this acquisition, how can you believe him on one count and disbelieve him on another?

Not understanding the double-talk coming from some of you about your CEO...

Lear the answer is yes and no. Let me explain
Do I trust my CEO to take care of his employees? Yes absolutely because on a very personal level he has demonstrated it to me. In 2009 and early 2010 when things were in the toilet several anaylists were publically calling on him to cut staff and downgraded our stock when he didn't. He ignored them. Any cut he made would have most certainly included me. In the long run by any measure he was correct because by mid 2010 we needed people and it would not have been cost effective to furlough but no one knew that at the time. But the fact remains he kept all of us when it would have been easier not to. SO on that count I trust him.

On Gary's growth predictions no not so much. We live in a very changable world and he has given himself the tools to change with it. Just because he says he plans growth for 2013 now and means it doesn't mean it will happen. If we get to 2013 and things have changed he has no problem changing course. The bar he requires for growth is very high.

 

[madjack]

PCL said: SLI agreements and arbitrated awards always contain "no bump/no flush" provisions, which mean that regardless of what your seniority is, you can't be bumped out of your seat, equipment, or domicile. That means that an AirTran captain could be 20% junior to you on a combined list, but he doesn't lose his seat.

Well this is not your typical acqusition...there is one side that stands to gain much more significantly than the other. The scenario you describe needs to also compensate the SWA pilot as well as the seat protected AAI CP...Arbitrators are neutral and will find a solution for this that is fair and equitable for the SWA pilots also...

 

[Bill Nelson]

SLI agreements and arbitrated awards always contain "no bump/no flush"

Not ALL of them.

 

[PCL_128]

Not ALL of them.

Except for Shuttle America (which was going out of business), I'm not aware of any other arbitration decisions that didn't include it.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear is correct. Just because our captains don't lose their seats doesn't necessarily mean they're senior to you. They may be, or they may not be. SLI agreements and arbitrated awards always contain "no bump/no flush" provisions, which mean that regardless of what your seniority is, you can't be bumped out of your seat, equipment, or domicile. That means that an AirTran captain could be 20% junior to you on a combined list, but he doesn't lose his seat. But, when you upgrade into a captain vacancy, even though he's been a captain for all of that time, you'll be ahead of him on the captain list.

Once again PCL, you can't have it both ways, our contract and our seats.

Your hiding behind the "you won't be harmed" mantra when in fact harm is done by lost pay until upgrade.

So, are YOU willing to fund pay protection for SWA FO's delayed in upgrade because an AT captain is holding that seat? If not, you alluded then that SWA is therefore responsible. OK, if it is then OK to pay protect a SWA FO, it sure as heck is OK to pay protect an AI captain soon to be SWA FO. And probably cheaper.

How's that Skywest ASA deal working out?