What the 717 leaving means

[madjack]

" 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. "


I agree, the transitioned AAI folks I have met for the most part seem excited to be here...not one has said, boy I wish I was back at AAI, or that SWA had not purchased AAI...

 

[fam62c]

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).

Is there actually a no-furlough clause on the AT side or does it say that if any AT pilots are furloughed SW can't add any pilots to the master seniority list? I'm asking because I'm not sure how that would work in practice. If they pulled some capacity back on the SW side and got rid of some older airplanes quicker could they "park" some excess AT pilots on the street for awhile if they had enough pilots on the SW side already to cover the AT planes that would cross the fence? What if they accelerated the 717 deliveries to DAL or just idled a bunch of them early?

 

[scoreboardII]

There are no furlough clauses on both sides of the agreement, both useless for all intensive purposes.

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).

Yes there is a reason, move on, your employed in the worst economy since the 40's and have assurance your jobs won't go away.

SC was merely going after verbatim contractual adherence, a transition by a set date in the contract, your hoping to rewrite an agreement which doesn't exist in it's present form, never existed in a voted form, and goes counter to public statements made by the CEO. Back room dealings are just that, back room, look at the four corners of the document, thats contract law 101. Your trying to prove fraud, good luck.

As has been well documented, your bid to go after more seniority at the expense of captain seats cost you those seats, hard to justify to an arbitor how you are owed anything in the way of seat protection when you yourself voted to give that away.

If it makes you happy to be sad, go for it.

 

[Cruncher]

Lear,

Well, I'll leave you with one gem as a hint. It's in the first part of the sentence you quoted above:

Quote:
"After December 31, 2014, AirTran pilots whose seat positions are eliminated by reduction of the B717 fleet will bid system seniority for their new assignment."

Wouldn't that then mean, BEFORE December 31, 2014, this applies?

"AirTran pilots will be prohibited from holding a Captain or Lance Captain position on the Southwest B737 until the January 2015 bid period."

The other gem in my post.

Actually, SL10 spells out B717 fleet reductions occur prior to 1/1/15:

"AirTran Pilots whose seat positions are eliminated by reduction of the B717 fleet will bid system seniority for their new assignment."

Now before you pull that above quote out, read it in the context of the entire agreement, namely two quotes up.

Also, you mentioned furlough protection. The only protection I read was in the B717 equipment lock section (which I will not post here). Can you direct me where (for some reason my search function doesn't work on the .pdf, literally).

-C

PS no one wants to see any furlough, and I think if the idea is floated you'll find guys on this side more sympathetic than just words. We are all labor and soon we'll be one happy group

 

[fam62c]

There are no furlough clauses on both sides of the agreement, both useless for all intensive purposes.
Yes there is a reason, move on, your employed in the worst economy since the 40's and have assurance your jobs won't go away.

SC was merely going after verbatim contractual adherence, a transition by a set date in the contract, your hoping to rewrite an agreement which doesn't exist in it's present form, never existed in a voted form, and goes counter to public statements made by the CEO. Back room dealings are just that, back room, look at the four corners of the document, thats contract law 101. Your trying to prove fraud, good luck.

As has been well documented, your bid to go after more seniority at the expense of captain seats cost you those seats, hard to justify to an arbitor how you are owed anything in the way of seat protection when you yourself voted to give that away.

If it makes you happy to be sad, go for it.

For all INTENTS AND PURPOSES, not intensive purposes. Not trying to be a vocabulary Nazi but I thought I would mention it for future reference You can also use "for all practical purposes" as a substitute.....carry on, sorry. My posts contain plenty of mistakes as well, none of us are pefrect

 

[Speeeedbump]

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.

Well, perhaps that serves to demonstrate which pilot group is under more duress. Why might that be? One group lives in uncertainty over whether their current domicile will ever become a base and gets fed very little information (or outright lies) from management. On the AirTran side of the fence there are very few people who have not by now become utterly disappointed or downright disgusted by the way things have turned out. The blame can be assigned in multiple directions, I know, but I think most outside observers would agree the AirTran pilots took it in the teeth the most. Over and out.

 

[B73av8r]

"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?

No matter how many times one keeps repeating it, this is not true or correct. If one were to simply read the bullet points of the agreement, they may come to that conclusion. On the other hand, if one were to read the entire document, t[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]he language in SLI9/AIP 1 simply did not support keeping Captain seats or provide protections.


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[madjack]

B73,

BS and you know it...CP seats (slots) were protected for 10 Years, ATL domicile fenced for 10 years...snap up pay...all that was given up for seniority...hey I get it that it sucks to be you now right now... But your side dropped the ball and now you want a redo at the SWA pilots expense...what a bunch of KRAP...

 

[redflyer65]

There absolutely was a fence in the first agreement.

The Airtran MEC pushed for more and didn't allow their members to vote the agreement up or down. They wanted more. We said numerous times that if SW was pushed, you'd most likely get less. It all came to fruition.

It was like watching a slow speed crash, all the while knowing it would turn out horribly. I wish it didn't turn out that way. All the blame rest with the MEC in the end.

 

[B73av8r]

B73,

BS and you know it...CP seats (slots) were protected for 10 Years, ATL domicile fenced for 10 years...snap up pay...all that was given up for seniority...hey I get it that it sucks to be you now right now... But your side dropped the ball and now you want a redo at the SWA pilots expense...what a bunch of KRAP...

As was mentioned previously, one can keep repeating that mantra and try to convince through continued repetition of something that is false, it's called the repetition and persistence principle. Even if it is not true, the facts don't support it, if one repeats it enough, it becomes real to the deliverer as well as the receiver.

The fact is, there were no realistic Captain seat protections nor an ATL fence, the manner in which the language was written, they did not exist.

Your opinion of the agreement is not supported by the facts and actual language of the document, irregardless how many times you repeat that it does.