SWAPA looking to capture more Capt seats

[scoreboardII]

Word.

 

[freightdogfred]

I understand why the AAI pilots are upset with the COMPANY's decision to dispose of the 717. I also understand that having a B scale labor group on property is not good for anyone in the long run. That being said neither of these decisions have involved SWAPA or any SWAPA pilot. At no point in this whole process has SWAPA had any leverage. The AAI pilots say they voted with a gun to their heads. Well speaking for myself as a SWA pilot so did I. My choices were vote for this or not. SWAPA didn't write this SLI agreement SWA did. Voting yes meant accepting a b scale labor group, accepting a probable displacement out of my domicile for several years, and accepting seniority regression during the transition. Voting yes meant a permanent displacement and never upgrading.

Then what, pray tell, was your downside in voting no?

Ah yes, the dreaded arbitration, whereupon completely neutral observers, with no dog in the fight, would decide a fair, impartial SLI based on precedent, reason and fairness. It's quite obvious why your MEC exhorted your group to vote yes.

So apparently SC has no support among your group, who is the front runner to be elected? What is his platform, and is he a straight shooter?

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

Then what, pray tell, was your downside in voting no?

Ah yes, the dreaded arbitration, whereupon completely neutral observers, with no dog in the fight, would decide a fair, impartial SLI based on precedent, reason and fairness. Out of curiousity, did you for yes or no?

I voted yes because it harmed me the least. I point out so did most AAI pilots. I disagree that arbitrations produce fair results or even that the arbitrators are really nuetral. Looking at precedent like Alaska and Jet America just scrambles my mind. I think the system is flawed. Being an arbitrator is a good gig so they tend to produce results that keep the company happy in the form of minimal training cost regardless of how it affects the careers or income of the pilots involved. Arbitrators that keep companys happy get more arbitrating gigs so they are in fact biased.

 

[freightdogfred]

I voted yes because it harmed me the least. I point out so did most AAI pilots. I disagree that arbitrations produce fair results or even that the arbitrators are really nuetral. Looking at precedent like Alaska and Jet America just scrambles my mind. I think the system is flawed. Being an arbitrator is a good gig so they tend to produce results that keep the company happy in the form of minimal training cost regardless of how it affects the careers or income of the pilots involved. Arbitrators that keep companys happy get more arbitrating gigs so they are in fact biased.

If that is in fact your reasoning I'm surprised you didn't vote no, would not an even more lopsided SLI benefit the company? Your reasoning seems flawed.

 

[humveedriver]

I am unclear about what the AAI pilots expect from Steve Chase..

At this point nothing. I think he failed to deliver to his pilots what they wanted out of this SLI. Now we have moved on to the next phase of the operation, and he chooses to highlight the worst part of one sides predictment as the highlight of the others. How about not being such a devisive tool. But here is what I'm tracking so far.

1. Both sides vote in the SLI w/ AT Captains 717 until 2015.
2. 717 deal to go away away 6 months after SLI signed.
3. Steve announces win
4. Some 717s still in AT paint after 2015, maybe some intl'l AT 737s.
5. Steve asks SWA what the hell? Company says its on track, trust us!
6. AT ALPA asks SWA what about the transition bid validity? SWA says we will get back to you on that one...

And all this time most AT pilots want to be a part of a successful company, but since this deal was announced two years ago some shoe drops for us about every 6 months.

 

[scoreboardII]

Get used to that shoe, it drops here all the time.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

Then what, pray tell, was your downside in voting no?

Ah yes, the dreaded arbitration, whereupon completely neutral observers, with no dog in the fight, would decide a fair, impartial SLI based on precedent, reason and fairness. It's quite obvious why your MEC exhorted your group to vote yes.

So apparently SC has no support among your group, who is the front runner to be elected? What is his platform, and is he a straight shooter?

You edited this after I answered. Nominations haven't closed yet so we don't even know who the canidates are. I don't think they extorted a yes vote out of us. I think they informed us that in all likelyhood this was the best deal we were going to get. As in many things assuming that he does run again after the election closes we'll see what SC's support level really is. FI doesn't always reflect reality.

 

[scoreboardII]

Just as AT pilots are miffed by the departure of the 717, lots of angry SWA guys. Imagine what the list would have looked like with the knowledge GK was actively seeking a Delta agreement well before public announcement of the AT purchase? Think about "what do you do with all those pilots" and how it relates to merger law and you see why that info was never "shared" or acknowledged. A 737 only list would have been drastically different for all IMHO.

Water under the bridge, we all got played.

 

[dz505]

I am unclear about what the AAI pilots expect from Steve C. He has a duty to enforce the contract he and the SLI agreement he has today which is what he is doing. The most important thing he can do for ALL SWA pilots on both sides of the partition is pressure the company to comply with the Jan 1 2015 date which he is doing.

While I understand what your saying I think it is important to point out that even though we are all on one list. We are not all SW pilots. And unfortunately on the AT side there isn't a lot of communication coming from ALPA. Same old email every couple of weeks.
Blah blah

 

[jonjuan]

Then what, pray tell, was your downside in voting no?

Quoted because I enjoy people who speak in olde english.