Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Tranny ALPA MEC - Dragging their feet

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Ty Webb said:
Might want to let your "Checkairman buddy" know that AIP stands for "Agreement in Principle" which doesn't get voted on, ever.

The vote will be on the actual Agreement, which hasn't been finalized yet.

I'm sure he'll appreciate the clarification. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are going to call it. Over on this side of the fence we refer to it as SL9. I have no idea what AAI is going to call it so I refer to it as the AIP which I am sure everyone can understand.

We don't need any clarification Ty, thanks for the offer.

BTW, should this come out are you going to be allowed to vote?
 
Fubijaakr said:
LRJ can't understand that simple concept, so how could he possibly communicate it anyone?
Click to expand...

What simple concept?

The fact remains that an AIP was crafted and agreed to by both parties. SWAPA was able to finish up the final language in no time at all. ATN ALPA on the other hand couldn't find it's a$$ with a map. Delay, delay, delay, delay is all they know how to do.

All the while Gary Kelly is getting upset. ATN ALPA is costing Gary money and he doesn't like it.

If I was an AirTran pilot I would be quite concerned how their MEC is about to jeopardize my career.
 
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.
 
shagadelic said:
No, probably more like a 70 - 80 thousand raise... I'm close to 300 this year, but I'm a line holder. I'd vote no if I were you.
Click to expand...

Just have the AT MEC vote it down, and send it back for some more work. Those ratios are crazy ridiculous.


OYS
 
GhettoBeechjet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:

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?
 
As a ten year SWA FO in a no growth, acquisition era, I do not expect to ever upgrade...the 851 retention slots will keep me from excercising my seniority...the AAI CPs were protected (even those that upgraded after the snapshot)...this cost the AAI FOs...arbitration may give you a better seniority list, hey I would probably end up doing OK with DOH and a shorter fence...but turning down seat protection until 2020 and raises for everybody for the uncertainty arbitration is a ballsy move...if you get a really great arbitrated seniority list, let's say relative seniority, Mr Kelly will have to deal with 6000 REALLY PO'd SWA Pilots and 1700 overjoyed AAI pilots...
 
Like I said. I would not wish our level of disappointment on you guys.

Right now it is the other way around, and I doubt all 6000 of u will be PO'd even after it goes to arbitration. I serverly doubt it unless we get a 20% bump in senority and you guys take a 38% loss. I doubt even an arbitrator would do that.

I will take this bet.

Just because this POS somehow made it through the pipelines (and we are all trying to understand how) doesn't mean you guys even have a shot at this.

You know I am tired of the threats. Luv my arse. Go fek yourselfs. Suck my !#$!#$
 
Last edited:
You know I am tired of the threats. Luv my arse. Go fek yourselfs. Suck my !#$!#$

I wasn't threatening anything...I for one expect our accountant CEO to combine the carriers no matter what the arbitrator says...you will have to fly with the SWA pilots...
 
madjack said:
As a ten year SWA FO in a no growth, acquisition era, I do not expect to ever upgrade...the 851 retention slots will keep me from excercising my seniority...the AAI CPs were protected (even those that upgraded after the snapshot)...this cost the AAI FOs...arbitration may give you a better seniority list, hey I would probably end up doing OK with DOH and a shorter fence...but turning down seat protection until 2020 and raises for everybody for the uncertainty arbitration is a ballsy move...if you get a really great arbitrated seniority list, let's say relative seniority, Mr Kelly will have to deal with 6000 REALLY PO'd SWA Pilots and 1700 overjoyed AAI pilots...
Click to expand...
Actually, I think DoH and shorter fences would actually go over much better here. Some of the most junior CA's would likely get displaced when the fence came down, which would benefit your F/O's, our overall seniority hit would only be about HALF what it is with this deal, while your pilots would still gain some (about half of what you gain currently), and I doubt a DoH list holds off integration. Could be wrong, but I don't think so...

The only big unknown then becomes the 717 pay. Do they really hold it back and create a B-scale pilot group within the company? As soon as any seat locks or fences are down, you would see massive movement off the 717 as vacancies came available, before the aircraft are returned, thus resulting in MILLIONS in training costs as a seat shuffle begins... I don't see it. Again, could be wrong, but the negatives may just outweigh the benefits.
 
Cometman said:
I hope he doesn't have children. They deserve better. Listen to Lear70.
Click to expand...
He does and he's a nice guy, he just gets wound around the axle sometime.

Everyone's tensions are high, stuff like this is bound to happen among our more "high strung" on both sides as we go down the road for a while. Sorry.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top