SWAPA is a joke

[redflyer65]

I think Gary will at least pull the 717 payrates (=737) as soon as it's voted down. Those rates will then be negotiated later.

 

[Fubijaakr]

I think Gary will at least pull the 717 payrates (=737) as soon as it's voted down. Those rates will then be negotiated later.

Scare tactics don't work, especially here, Ace.

 

[redflyer65]

Scare tactics don't work, especially here, Ace.

Not a scare tactic Ace. Just basically what Gary agreed with your MC. I didn't craft this deal..so vote however works best for you.

 

[Lear70]

well if we dont what are our options? Recall ALPO perhaps? lets hope we dont have to cross that bridge...

It wouldn't pass (changing representative agents is expressly forbidden by the Process Agreement, it would get legally blocked until this was done), and there's not enough time anyway. By the time you could organize it, file the cards with the NMB, and have a vote, you'd be looking at 90 days. We'll be finishing arbitration by then.

Gotta stay the course. If the full language of the LOA for our CBA and the 4-party agreement meets the AIP, it'll probably go to pilot vote. If it doesn't, I expect the MEC to kill it. It's bad enough already, but if the language doesn't support the "protections", it shouldn't be put out as it didn't meet the AIP.

 

[GuppyWN]

Not a scare tactic Ace. Just basically what Gary agreed with your MC. I didn't craft this deal..so vote however works best for you.

To further this thought. I just got off the phone with one of my reps. He said 717 rates, probation, longevity and other things I won't discuss are ALL on the table if this deal doesn't go through.

I suggest BOTH sides call your reps if you want more details.

Gup

 

[Lear70]

All but longevity and probation is correct. In that, your reps and our reps disagree.

From the "FWIW" files...

 

[Ty Webb]

Gup . . . Longevity isn't "on the table", unless there was a massive re-write of Federal Labor Law that we've all missed.

 

[frqntflyr]

It wouldn't pass (changing representative agents is expressly forbidden by the Process Agreement, it would get legally blocked until this was done), and there's not enough time anyway. By the time you could organize it, file the cards with the NMB, and have a vote, you'd be looking at 90 days. We'll be finishing arbitration by then.

Gotta stay the course. If the full language of the LOA for our CBA and the 4-party agreement meets the AIP, it'll probably go to pilot vote. If it doesn't, I expect the MEC to kill it. It's bad enough already, but if the language doesn't support the "protections", it shouldn't be put out as it didn't meet the AIP.

Are you sure its SWAPA that is messing with the AIP? Good luck Fing w GK...hope your MEC shoots this down.

 

[Lear70]

Are you sure its SWAPA that is messing with the AIP? Good luck Fing w GK...hope your MEC shoots this down.

Nobody said anything about "messing with the AIP". Nobody said anything about "Fing" with GK, either.

What I *DID* say was that OUR Merger Committee brought the AIP to us in bulletpoints when your SL9 came out. It listed all the protections that the AIP is supposed to contain for us, according to their understanding of it.

They spent last week and all this week finishing our LOA and the 4-party agreement which is supposed to fully detail those protections. We don't vote on an AIP. We vote on a FULL AGREEMENT DOCUMENT which includes an ISL and all the changes to our CBA. That's our process.

If the bulletpoints are not ALL fully satisfied by the language they are working on, then I expect it to die, as it did not match the Agreement they signed with SWAPA. It's not "Fing" with anyone. It's matching the full Agreement language that we have to live with to the AIP. No need to make it personal.

 

[JT12345]

This reminds me of the realestate bubble burst and how buyers (facing 1000s in underwater realestate) looked for inaccuracies in the floor plans and contracts to get out of the deal.... sounds good.

 

[JT12345]

To further this thought. I just got off the phone with one of my reps. He said 717 rates, probation, longevity and other things I won't discuss are ALL on the table if this deal doesn't go through.

I suggest BOTH sides call your reps if you want more details.

Gup

Sounds good. No need to call my reps. Back to the table.

Unless they vote yes then lots of road shows for them to explain why.

__________________

OP,

SWAPA is not even close to a joke. Just ask any AAI pilot. Savvy mofos is a better description.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Seriously, guys, this "deal" needs to be DOA. Let the arbitrator sort it out. Stapling 650 guys and banning them from upgrading for a decade is bogus.

 

[redflyer65]

Fubi, why are you on here? You are beginning to sound like General Lee, and you know how many people like him.

 

[shootr]

Nobody is "banned" from upgrading. The proposed seniority list and realistic expectations for upgrade afterwards rule. There are no extra provisions saying no upgrades for 10 years. It's just the list.

 

[Lear70]

Nobody is "banned" from upgrading. The proposed seniority list and realistic expectations for upgrade afterwards rule. There are no extra provisions saying no upgrades for 10 years. It's just the list.

That's semantics.

You're absolutely correct that the list was crafted so that there ARE NO F/O's at AirTran who are senior to MC (the #1 person after the last 10/3/07 class at SWA). So by virtue of a highly-unequal Seniority List Integration, we are essentially prohibited from upgrading by virtue of lost seniority, but "it's just the list".

So how about you take out the provision in SL9 that the number of Captain Retention Slots DECREASES with our own retirements and voluntary downgrades, and fix the number of Captain Retention slots at a fixed number that doesn't change?

 

[waveflyer]

My career expectations were to upgrade at some point prior to the tricentennial. So no, expectations not met.

Please. As you prove on your next post your career expectation is to get paid as a pilot to never fly. Your expectation is to move up the ALPA political ladder and rub elbows with Washington power brokers.
You weren't going to have your expectation met no matter.
But by all means- serve your master and stretch this process out- keep alpa dues flowing in for as long as possible- try and poison the culture of a future alpa competitor.
Everything I predicted you'd be doing- you are.
Youre scheduled to retire #2 - just how you of all people can vote no on this bc of some short term issues is incredible. I guess if you're not getting a short cut, you don't know what to do.

 

[dicko]

Please. As you prove on your next post your career expectation is to get paid as a pilot to never fly. Your expectation is to move up the ALPA political ladder and rub elbows with Washington power brokers.
You weren't going to have your expectation met no matter.
But by all means- serve your master and stretch this process out- keep alpa dues flowing in for as long as possible- try and poison the culture of a future alpa competitor.
Everything I predicted you'd be doing- you are.
Youre scheduled to retire #2 - just how you of all people can vote no on this bc of some short term issues is incredible. I guess if you're not getting a short cut, you don't know what to do.

How about this for a reason. If he votes NO and proclaims the unfairness of the entire agreement he is in a win/win situation;

- EVP at ALPA is against agreement. Agreement passes . ALPA was just sued and lost for DFR in a merger, and EVP is on record against this agreement. ALPA protected. Box checked.

- Agreement fails. ALPA continues. Box checked.

- Agreement passes. PCL retires #2 at SWA. Box checked.

 

[madjack]

So how about you take out the provision in SL9 that the number of Captain Retention Slots DECREASES with our own retirements and voluntary downgrades, and fix the number of Captain Retention slots at a fixed number that doesn't change?


OK, then let's take away the 1:1 furlough...hey it was all part of negotiations...it was what the NC/MC came up with...longevity, probation, 717 payrates...all cost the company $$ and Mr Kelly brought that to the table...

 

[Lear70]

So how about you take out the provision in SL9 that the number of Captain Retention Slots DECREASES with our own retirements and voluntary downgrades, and fix the number of Captain Retention slots at a fixed number that doesn't change?


OK, then let's take away the 1:1 furlough...hey it was all part of negotiations...it was what the NC/MC came up with...longevity, probation, 717 payrates...all cost the company $$ and Mr Kelly brought that to the table...

*chuckle*

I was just pointing out the fallacy that there wasn't anything except the list that was crafted to make sure your F/O's upgrade ahead of most of ours on the pre-9/27 list. Our senior F/O's are kept from upgrade when OUR OWN pilots retire because of that clause.

Besides, the 1:1 furlough protection doesn't help until we're all on a combined Southwest operation. That's already been brought up by about a dozen of us, including the attorney, as soon as we saw SL9. So sure, I'll trade you that.

 

[madjack]

Ok well probation didn't cost SWA nothing...but it sweetens the deal...