What the 717 leaving means

[scoreboardII]

Good luck. But there needs to be a point you cut your losses and move on.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

 

[scoreboardII]

Didn't say over, under

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Roger.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

A huge fly in the ointment here is that at the end of the day there will be at least 13-29 fewer airframes needing Captains if there is no ASM growth. The real number of lost airframes will probably be much higher because there 717s are not currently at full utilization which means they are producing even less ASMs and will require less lift to replace. That being the case someone is going to have to lose expected captain seats for the other side to come out even.

 

[scoreboardII]

Agreed, my feeling is someone pre-gonculated those uneeded airframes would be absorbed by retirements (300 pilots, about 30 jets) so no fuss. Unless you delete the jets early before retirements happen and very near 2015.

 

[Lear70]

Good luck. But there needs to be a point you cut your losses and move on.

I'm sure that point will come after all the DR and Grievance routes have been exhausted, unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable.

People don't want to be like this, it sucks to be constantly stressed out not knowing what tomorrow is going to bring that changes signed agreements of yesterday. It does, however, seem that we're hosed either way. Don't cooperate and you get hosed (GK letter after SIA 1 was turned down). Cooperate and you get hosed (717 deal after all the promises both verbally and in writing in SIA 2).

Based on that, there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to file these disputes to try to get back some of what we negotiated and which was agreed to that has been taken away.

As I said before, I don't think you guys would be reacting any differently if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact, Steve Chase's actions only go to prove that you WOULD. Hence the firm enforcement of the 1/1/15 date when management makes hints that they might not make the date, so you can be sure to capture all the CA seats. SC's email was very clear that you would use every avenue to enforce the 1/1/15 date for that very reason, regardless of what the company wanted.

We're simply doing the same thing. Using every avenue to enforce the deal we negotiated. At this point there's no compelling reason NOT to. As long as the planes get flown and the company makes money, the no-furlough clause remains in place, people keep transitioning, and we all keep moving down the road to becoming one, big, happy family.

The Great Pumpkin is coming! GOOOO Cowboys! (in other words, enjoy your life, it goes by awfully fast, and stressing about this won't make it all be done any easier or faster).

 

[madjack]

"unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable."

Good luck!

 

[K-Mart]

Sounds like you guys are the ones stressed and should take some of you own advice. I haven't flown with anybody here at SWA who has even talked about AirTran or this lawsuit or anything else about this AirTran acquisition. No one seems to care on our side.

 

[madjack]

"The main reason I don't agree is because I was there, and I know what the intent was when we negotiated it: protecting our Captains until the point where their seniority would hold their CA seat as the planes went away under their normal lease expiration dates."

So where is the language protecting those seats? It was in SL9, which your MEC rejected in a bid for more seniority, which they got in SL10. The seniority gains of SL10 cost the 717 CPs their protections...you have to ask yourself was it worth it?