SWAPA might like SWA proposal

[ASADFW7]

It is sad the narcissistic posting of partial details when all sides have been asked not to post anything yet, as well as non disclosures.

 

[Flycatcher99]

When I've spoken to 1/3 of our MEC officials and they're all saying the same thing? Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable relying on it. Some are saying more than others, some are more positive, some are more negative, but the basic info is the same.

Additionally, a few things I posted above are being posted on our internal forum directly from the MC to counteract some bad info that's being passed around 3rd and 4th hand and getting people really riled up, so yeah, what you see above I think is pretty dang accurate.


I think I already said that it was obviously not the entire picture, just a few snapshots. I'm not trying to aggravate anyone, just passing on some basic info. If no one wants it, I'll stop passing it on. Jeez, talk about shooting the messenger...

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm only pointing out the difference between ALPA protocol (leaking bits of information prematurely, perhaps for ulterior purposes in some cases) versus SWAPA, who has been absolutely tight-lipped, as Rob alluded to above, as it should be.

It's a huge difference in levels of professionalism. And, by the way, a resulting difference in reliability, no matter how many sources you quote.

 

[Lear70]

Unfortunately, MKE will probably close. I can't make a guess on MCO. Can someone share the number of pilots currently based in MCO with the number of gates used? Thanks.

44 717 CA's
43 717 F/O's
29 737 CA's
25 737 F/O's

They upgraded 5 MCO F/O's to CA end of last year and didn't hire pilots to replace them so we're a bit short-staffed on the F/O side.

Gates 90-97, 8 gates.

We're told MCO was opened post-constructive-date so even though it was PLANNED and the vacancy was being bid on when the notice came out, that it's not recognized as a 737 base and, thus, all 737 pilots will be considered ATL-based - no base holding rights for 737 crews, we all get displaced once we go through training.

The 717 pilots, since it's fenced and a different fleet type in MCO, get to stay in MCO (at least unless and until those planes are re-deployed elsewhere).

 

[Lear70]

It is sad the narcissistic posting of partial details when all sides have been asked not to post anything yet, as well as non disclosures.

I didn't get a memo not to post anything... it's being discussed on our internal forum. Did you guys get some kind of memo we didn't?

 

[Lear70]

Every gate in ATL will be filled with an RON aircraft, that seems to be the one constant in our system. Wherever we go, every gate is pretty much full the next morning..even in the hubs/bases. I would say it points to complete gate utilization from the beginning of the day to the last arrival.

Nashville's not. There's at least 15 gates and only 5 RON aircraft on a regular basis (according to our BNA gate agents). Not that it means anything, just throwing it out there.

 

[400ADude]

I'll add let's look at MDW as an example. I would assume ATL would eventually have more departures than MDW. Chicago currently has 1,061 pilots.

It will not be as big as Midway. Chicago as a town has twice as many people (local traffic) and is a great location in the middle of the country for a stop on the way to the east or west coast. Atlanta doesn't have enough local traffic and is too close to MCO IMHO.

 

[Empennage]

It will not be as big as Midway. Chicago as a town has twice as many people (local traffic) and is a great location in the middle of the country for a stop on the way to the east or west coast. Atlanta doesn't have enough local traffic and is too close to MCO IMHO.

So ATL is to have fewer daily departures than MDW? That's not what I'm hearing.

 

[ASADFW7]

The SWA guys are in lock down out of respect for the process. We want a balanced discussion in the proper context of the whole agreement not to keep slinging mud and pissing each other off. Both sides have lumps in the deal so the context of what was the negotiated middle ground is bound to keep brining up heated discussion. Our executive wants us to wait till the final wording comes out.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

I agree. I just hope all on this board will be as mature as you with this "rumored" information. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

 

[Roomwithaview]

SnoopDawg

I agree. I just hope all on this board will be as mature as you with this "rumored" information. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

I'm not really sure what that means. It's not like it is a loaded weapon or nuclear missile. It's what some Airtran pilot who I assume will soon be a Southwest pilot is telling us his MEC is telling him.

RWAV

 

[flynvixen]

Greed is good, do you want to join my cartel in Atlanta?

Only if your my FO..........you will enjoy it I promise

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

I'm not really sure what that means. It's not like it is a loaded weapon or nuclear missile. It's what some Airtran pilot who I assume will soon be a Southwest pilot is telling us his MEC is telling him.

RWAV

I am agreeing with you. And hope all will take any info on this or other forums as "rumors" until we hear from our respective MECs and BODs. And then after that conduct ourselves appropriately.

 

[Lear70]

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm only pointing out the difference between ALPA protocol (leaking bits of information prematurely, perhaps for ulterior purposes in some cases) versus SWAPA, who has been absolutely tight-lipped, as Rob alluded to above, as it should be.

It's a huge difference in levels of professionalism. And, by the way, a resulting difference in reliability, no matter how many sources you quote.

Well, there's a bit of internal politics going on inside the MEC structure, which is why more details are going out.

Some sides are releasing some of the negative aspects without releasing the positives so the rest of the guys are releasing positive things to stop a groundswell of negativity from taking root.

Not all the details are getting out, but enough to get people to calm down and wait for the whole package. I know that's aggravating to you guys, all I can say is sorry, it's not me releasing it, I'm just passing some of it on.

 

[Lear70]

The SWA guys are in lock down out of respect for the process. We want a balanced discussion in the proper context of the whole agreement not to keep slinging mud and pissing each other off. Both sides have lumps in the deal so the context of what was the negotiated middle ground is bound to keep brining up heated discussion. Our executive wants us to wait till the final wording comes out.

I understand and can truly appreciate that approach and I agree the "middle ground" items are certainly going to be sore subjects for some people.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag on this side of the curtain for some of the details and it's caused such an internal furor on our message board that other sides had to calm things down and the only way to do that was "rumor control".

I hope that information I posted wasn't seen as "slinging mud", just trying to answer a few rumors that were already flying on here about base size, stock options, etc so that the discussion here didn't jump the shark and get ugly again.

 

[Lear70]

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm sure I'll be pulling gear for you someday (since I'm junior to every one of you unless you were hired after 9/27), so maybe we'll get a chance to have a frosty one on an overnight somewhere.

I am agreeing with you. And hope all will take any info on this or other forums as "rumors" until we hear from our respective MECs and BODs. And then after that conduct ourselves appropriately.

True that.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

I'm having a hard time following the math on this.

Can you explain for a gradeate of the Texas Public Edumicational System?

From a secondary source (MEC member, not MC), the ratios change quite a bit for different segments of our list. Most seniority lost is 35% (senior Captains going from #1 to # 1,680+), least seniority lost is 22% - the 3 year F/O's stapled to the bottom. Total 650+ AAI F/O's stapled.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

See. I didn't get that out of your post.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm sure I'll be pulling gear for you someday (since I'm junior to every one of you unless you were hired after 9/27), so maybe we'll get a chance to have a frosty one on an overnight somewhere.

 

[Lear70]

Lear 70

I'm having a hard time following the math on this.

Can you explain for a gradeate of the Texas Public Edumicational System?

Heh heh... yeah, it's a lot of info and I don't have the exact ratios, but as explained to me, it works a little like this:

Your top pre-93 hires are on top and untouched.

Our #1 guy starts just below them and it's ratio'd pretty evenly for the '93 hires and our senior CA's (I don't know how many), but we end up with the top half of our CA's ratio'd in with your post-'93 CA's.

The next half of our CA's get ratio'd in with your top F/O's.

The top 150 of our F/O's get ratio'd in with your BOTTOM F/O's.

The remaining 650 AAI F/O's get stapled to the bottom of the pre-9/27 list, starting about year 6 F/O for us and lower.

Your post-9/27 new-hires are stapled below them. Our post-9/27 new hires are stapled at the very bottom.

Those are VERY rough numbers, but present a good broad picture of how it went. The average seniority gain on a combined list on the SWA side is 6%, the average seniority loss on the AAI side is 22%, with spikes among our senior CA's (up to 35%) and senior F/O's (up to 28% - mine is a 26% relative seniority loss).

edit: my first post said our "least amount" of seniority loss was 22%. It's not, that's the AVERAGE seniority loss. They said something about our mid-level CA's take the smallest loss, but I don't remember the exact number, sorry.

 

[SWA/FO]

Our post-9/27 new hires are stapled at the very bottom.

How many did you guys hire after 9/27/10?

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Lear 70,

This is where your information gets fuzzy. You say earlier that your senior Captains would go from #1 to #1680+, but then say there is a ratio of Captains starting with SWA's 1993 hires. #1680 on the SWA list is a mid 1997 hire.

There a huge difference (about 1000 numbers) between the two.

 

[ASADFW7]

The politics of both sides shows a little something about what is going on. Though swapa is not perfect we are working at respecting our association, and respecting the fact even with the bump to the SWA cba the AAI pilot group has to process the agreement differently. If swapa was posting the details we would still be bullying and beating AAI down with even a just the facts post. I am sorry for the disparity that is between us. It existed before September 27th and has been beaten to death since.

I hope when everything comes out the middle ground that was negotiated will work for both sides. A long back and forth for one or two percent may not help either side. I already know our senior first officers hate the no bump and flush, and many AAI pilots hate the disparity of seniority. I am just glad I am not anywhere else right now. I would rather work this out between us than trying to figure out the scraps some place else. SWA first officers make captain wages at most other companies. Not selling this, I will be an first officer for a long while longer myself.

 

[Lear70]

Lear 70,

This is where your information gets fuzzy. You say earlier that your senior Captains would go from #1 to #1680+, but then say there is a ratio of Captains starting with SWA's 1993 hires. #1680 on the SWA list is a mid 1997 hire.

There a huge difference (about 1000 numbers) between the two.

You're absolutely right. If you look back at my post, I said that particular bit of information comes from a secondary source. The first part of it is directly from the MC (it's been pulled off our web board by the MEC now, but it was there for a bit), but that "seniority snapshot" comes from one level down.

While the approximate cutoff points are "close" (especially on the F/O side, which is what my conversation focused on because, let's face it, it's human nature to want to know how we're affected first, then figuring out the bigger picture), the "exact" numbers are data I wasn't given and haven't asked for.

Sorry I don't have more detailed info, just where the general numbers are. We'll have to wait to get the exact ratios and cutoffs, which I hear may be a little bit longer; our Negotiating Committee wasn't available to go to Dallas this week with our Merger Committee (big grievance case with the company this week which involves what was negotiated for our CBA) so they're not going to be out there this Thurs and Fri as planned from what we hear, working on dates first of next week.

 

[Lear70]

The politics of both sides shows a little something about what is going on. Though swapa is not perfect we are working at respecting our association, and respecting the fact even with the bump to the SWA cba the AAI pilot group has to process the agreement differently. If swapa was posting the details we would still be bullying and beating AAI down with even a just the facts post. I am sorry for the disparity that is between us. It existed before September 27th and has been beaten to death since.

I hope when everything comes out the middle ground that was negotiated will work for both sides. A long back and forth for one or two percent may not help either side. I already know our senior first officers hate the no bump and flush, and many AAI pilots hate the disparity of seniority. I am just glad I am not anywhere else right now. I would rather work this out between us than trying to figure out the scraps some place else. SWA first officers make captain wages at most other companies. Not selling this, I will be an first officer for a long while longer myself.

Well-said.

 

[On Your Six]

I can't read what was said, she's already yanked it, but she says that it was from a "SWAPA union official". FWIW

Directly from the horse's mouth: ATL will grow in size insofar as the NUMBER OF DAILY DEPARTURES, however it will be a bit like Nashville. Lots of gates, not as many overnighters, mostly thru-flights (they said that we are 4 times the size of crew base in terms of RON's that we need currently). They *DO* plan on reducing the BASED PILOTS down to 850 total pilots, or 425 crews (mix of 717's and 737's - more 717's than 737's), a little less than 1/2 its current size of a crew base to accommodate 1st and last bank of flying (EMO's and CDO/Red-eyes, which will continue until further notice). This WILL result in displacements (although it will be a while before that starts to happen and isn't going to happen all in one big clump).

Because of the displacements and the way the ratio shook out, the vast
majority of pilots who get displaced from ATL will be bottom of the totem pole in whatever SWA base they get displaced to. However, because it will take up to 3 years from now to complete training and integration, with SWA hiring more new-hires for growth starting 2nd Q next year, those displaced pilots may not be on reserve, depending where they get displaced to. Too many moving parts of that to figure out quite yet (and not all the language has been drafted of course).

The 1,000 shares (if any) aren't for AAI pilots.

From a secondary source (MEC member, not MC), the ratios change quite a bit
for different segments of our list. Most seniority lost is 35% (senior Captains going from #1 to # 1,680+), least seniority lost is 22% - the 3 year F/O's stapled to the bottom. Total 650+ AAI F/O's stapled.

ALL SWA pilots gain relative seniority. No SWA pilot loses one iota of relative seniority OR has a slower upgrade as a result of the integration. Zero-growth numbers are projected 10-12 year (from now) upgrade for AAI senior F/O's (including me, 15-17 years total as an F/O, 8-10 years as a SWA CA), 12-15 more years to upgrade for our mid-level F/O's, 15-17+ for our junior 1/3. Some AAI F/O's may never upgrade. Anything above zero growth at SWA, upgrades happen faster.

No "guaranteed" aircraft growth (the 180 aircraft rumor is pure rumor and is NOT part of the deal nor was it mentioned by GK), but growth more than zero is projected to start once integration starts - fleshing out our Caribbean flying from many different SWA bases.

That's about all I have right now, the rest is speculation and rumor. We're all waiting for the full language to be drafted over the next week or so and see what the MEC does with it.

Still cautiously optimistic. :beer:

Hmmmm. I don't know if I would like that deal as an Airtran pilot? It's obvious GK wants this deal done, with all of the aircraft and RON planning already done apparently. Looking at the other recent arbitration awards, you might be able to get a better deal that way. Maybe even a threat of arbitration might get you a slightly better deal or ratio. Displacement rumors are troubling, unless you can keep all of your current Capt seats, regardless of the bases the planes are going to. More details coming out will help make the vote decision a bit clearer. You don't have to vote yes the first time. Godspeed!



OYS

 

[Cometman]

Hmmmm. I don't know if I would like that deal as an Airtran pilot? It's obvious GK wants this deal done, with all of the aircraft and RON planning already done apparently. Looking at the other recent arbitration awards, you might be able to get a better deal that way. Maybe even a threat of arbitration might get you a slightly better deal or ratio. Displacement rumors are troubling, unless you can keep all of your current Capt seats, regardless of the bases the planes are going to. More details coming out will help make the vote decision a bit clearer. You don't have to vote yes the first time. Godspeed!



OYS

Airtran is very lucky to have you on their side. Apparently they would not know what to do so having you available to tell them what to do must make them feel very good. Keep up the good work. Your parents must be real proud of you.

 

[waveflyer]

Is Fredo part of this misinformation vote no campaign Lear? Bc I've been told he (PCL)and 2 other MEC reps are.

Yes, we've been asked to not discuss rumors until the full language is worked out.

Again for the 1000th time- what motivation is there on ALPA's side to facilitate this smoothly and not drag it out for as long as possible? Why not try to weaken a competitor, try to weaken the culture, and collect north of $250,000/month in dues while dragging it out?-- all while winning points with other ALPA members for fighting the good fight against evil SWA.

PCL- defend yourself- is this you? Lear? Just who exactly is leaking that impartial info. Your statements are right in line with what I'm hearing- there are 2 current and 1 recalled malcontent trying to torpedo this deal....

Ive said all along- im nobody- but i sincerely hope that has consequences for the individuals involved.

 

[texman]

Lear I head it would be a 6-8 year upgrade with no growth mode, using the same numbers.

 

[redflyer65]

Is Fredo part of this misinformation vote no campaign Lear? Bc I've been told he (PCL)and 2 other MEC reps are.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that were true. I can easily see PCL spinning this out of control, and continueing to kick this can down the road. The reality is that the vast majority would rather put this behind us if it is within a few percentage points of what we preceive as fair. Of course everyone's position is different.

I think AAI ALPA is already in the hole with ALPA national. The numbers would be interesting to see though..

RF

 

[MRW]

6% seniority boost vice 40-50% pay raise and our work rules...I shout BS on this rumor from LEAR as well. This would easily push a 60% no vote from SWA and is no where near what our Union has said would pass the LITMUS test. We will wait and see.