Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
No, not really, it's fixing language to be acceptable. Here's one loophole for you from your Side Letter 9 that HAS to be fixed in the 4-party agreement before we can move forward:It's another stall to make sure we know "who's in charge". More of the same that they did with the process agreement. Negotiation 101. They are just trying to sweat eveyone out to see if someone flinches and comes back to the table with a better deal.
The funny part about your Side Letter 9, now that I've had a chance to really analyze it... it doesn't say a THING about taking as many AAI pilots into training as they pull AAI aircraft out of service. It actually would allow for Southwest management to NOT take an even number of crews over to Southwest and only take, say, half the crews for a certain number of aircraft removed from service here and accelerate your -300 retirements, allowing our pilots to be furloughed (new section 27.C.1 - the NUMBER of pilots transitioning over is subject to the needs of Southwest airlines).
The paragraph on furloughs at the bottom of SL9 only references YOUR contract (Section 22). We don't go on your contract until we start training. So we would be subject to furlough per OUR contract, which actually matches your SL8 - our pilots furloughed prior to yours.
Staying separate prevents more than 8% of our ASM's in terms of aircraft from being transferred to SWA AND prohibits ANY aircraft transfer if such a transfer will cause furloughs. MV agreed to abide by that language, so we are at an impasse until we can get the language in OUR LoA (our version of your SL9) and the 4-party agreement to actually guarantee what was promised in the AIP.
There's a LOT of things that have to happen in the 4-party agreement in order for us to be able to buy off on it. That takes time. It's not a stall tactic, it's making sure we don't get hosed. Would you do any different if you found such a problem in the language?