What the 717 leaving means

[scoreboardII]

Rapidly? Two plus years is rapid?



Even if the arby lets the case be presented, he is going to be very lenient to the SWAPA side in allowing preparation or rebuttal seeing as the sole tactic is one of obfuscation.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

Its all related. What ALPA wants out of the process is as much as they can get which would be a new list. They claimed every AAI pilot was harmed up to and including the anchor man. The only way to really change the anchor man life is with a new arbitrated list. I expect they will argue that the 717 staying was a basically a condition of the vote and that the process was so flawed it needs to be done over again. I don't pretend to know if it will work or even what kind of remedy an arbitrator might have available. This really becomes important as we become overmanned by 400-1100+ pilots. I think we will see a furlough in 2015 so the makeup up the bottom of the list becomes critical. Also playing into this is our section 6. I think management will use the actual or threat of furloughs to extract contract concessions.

 

[scoreboardII]

So you want a new list? You do know the Dispute resolution agreement specifically prevents the arbitrator from modifying the list, so now what?

And be very careful what you wish for, if you cite that an arbitrator could go outside the DRP and give a new list, they could also cite new negotiations would be required, and since you now want to use the fresh evidence to support your claims, so would SWAPA, as in, less than 50% of the assets will remain at SWA. See where that leads?

 

[humveedriver]

Wow. You guys are feeding your own arguments and making stuff up now. I guess it's word association. Someone sees arbitration and they think seniority list. Also not clear on why it is viewed as going for it all by simply asking to keep what we were told we would have. An ATL base and seat protection. I'm not saying we are going to "get" anything. But why wouldn't we submit this dispute?

 

[Lear70]

SWAPA controls the Dispute Resolution Process. The agreement was written that way.

Incorrect.

The Dispute Resolution process is VERY clear on how it proceeds. BOTH sides have to agree to dismiss a claim. If one side votes to dismiss it (SWAPA) and one side votes that it's valid (ALPA), it goes to arbitration. Period. That's just the way it is. I don't know what SWAPA is saying or what the rumor mill is producing, but anything other than that is simply incorrect.

So you see no possibility an arbitrator will say "so there is a dispute resolution process, but you denied that avenue a chance because you kept the claim details from that process and you wanted to go directly to arbitration in violation of the DR process, and now you want ME to hear your case?"

Sounds like your side wants to get to arbitration, throw out a strategy of claims in arbitration without letting SWAPA hear those claims prior to arbitration, prevent the SWAPA side from having any chance to rebut those because of the nature of arbitration.

Arbitrators see right through that tactic as a failure of due process.

Good luck with that.

*sigh* No, no, no.

There IS no "right of discovery" in arbitration. None. Period. The end. In fact, one of the main complaints of people who have to go through arbitration who are unfamiliar with the process is that they have NO clue what's going to be thrown at them until the day of arbitration.

All three arbitrators are very experienced and will understand that basic premise. Might one of them demand more information to determine jurisdiction? Sure, and in that case ALPA will have to put more on the table. However, the jurisdiction issue may simply be an argument that all available avenues were followed BEFORE filing the DR, that the complaint is an alleged violation of the Seniority Integration Agreement itself, and that there is NO other avenue to resolve the complaint, having already tried all other, available avenues.

The whole idea that the DRC doesn't have jurisdiction over the process is quite simply laughable. SWAPA knows this, and is almost certainly using the first arbitration battle as an information-finding mission prior to the actual arbitration over the issues itself. It's good strategy, I don't fault them for trying, but I also have no doubt the complaint will be found to be under the jurisdiction of the DRC and that it WILL move forward.

Not really concerned about this part.

I think it is fair to say that the language of the agreement is not specific enough to answer the questions surrounding the transition of pilots with the 717 leaving so rapidly.

That's the issue in a nutshell. The agreement was never designed to deal with the 717's going away. The sole sentence in pages of documents that deals with this issue isn't enough to answer all the corresponding issues that result from the departure of the 717. The parties can't agree. So we go to someone impartial to help us figure it all out. That's what the DR process was designed to do.

So you want a new list? You do know the Dispute resolution agreement specifically prevents the arbitrator from modifying the list, so now what?

True story. And a very good question.

And be very careful what you wish for, if you cite that an arbitrator could go outside the DRP and give a new list, they could also cite new negotiations would be required, and since you now want to use the fresh evidence to support your claims, so would SWAPA, as in, less than 50% of the assets will remain at SWA. See where that leads?

No, no, no. The assets DO remain under the ownership of Southwest Airlines. They are sub-leased, but at the end of the day, SOUTHWEST STILL OWNS THE PLANES.

In addition, McCaskill-Bond case law VERY specifically ruled that once ANY unionized employee group is integrated (Mechanics, F/A's, Gate Agents, ANYONE), then ALL other employee groups have to be integrated, regardless of the number of aircraft retained at the end of the day.

Not worried about an integration issue at this point. There's already case law for that argument. What I'm concerned about is that we get a ruling that either

A.) Increases training / transition costs substantially, or
B.) Increases payroll costs by $200+ Million (pay parity and CA pay protection for those who bid 717 CA until they upgrade at SWA), combined with the "No AAI CA can be a 737 CA until 1/1/15" equals double CA pay costs for over 500 people, AND

combined with an increase in fuel costs, a double-dip recession courtesy of Obama getting re-elected and the markets not liking it (clearly after today's market performance), and suddenly you have a marginally-profitable or possibly even UNPROFITABLE Southwest for 2 consecutive years during the integration and suddenly, the "No Furlough" clause goes out the window.

Two or three consecutive quarters of losses, but still a yearly net profit? Not enough to trigger the "escape clause" of the no-furlough language. Get one full year of losses followed by another quarter or two of losses the following year? Different story.

The economy isn't helping the situation any. Get a big fuel spike in combination with a big money award from an arbitrator with an overstaffed AirTran side of the Op = bad juju.

So yes, you're absolutely right when you say "Be careful what you wish for". We're going to have to tread VERY lightly on this one. That said, ALPA absolutely MUST pursue this grievance. If they don't, you're throwing another log on the fire for a Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit against ALPA for not going after the rights of the Captains who are being displaced in violation of what they voted for.

D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't.

 

[madjack]

SWA will NEVER pay...,

 

[scoreboardII]

What I'm concerned about is that we get a ruling that either

A.) Increases training / transition costs substantially, or
B.) Increases payroll costs by $200+ Million (pay parity and CA pay protection for those who bid 717 CA until they upgrade at SWA), combined with the "No AAI CA can be a 737 CA until 1/1/15" equals double CA pay costs for over 500 people, AND

combined with an increase in fuel costs, a double-dip recession courtesy of Obama getting re-elected and the markets not liking it (clearly after today's market performance), and suddenly you have a marginally-profitable or possibly even UNPROFITABLE Southwest for 2 consecutive years during the integration and suddenly, the "No Furlough" clause goes out the window.

Two or three consecutive quarters of losses, but still a yearly net profit? Not enough to trigger the "escape clause" of the no-furlough language. Get one full year of losses followed by another quarter or two of losses the following year? Different story.

The economy isn't helping the situation any. Get a big fuel spike in combination with a big money award from an arbitrator with an overstaffed AirTran side of the Op = bad juju.

So yes, you're absolutely right when you say "Be careful what you wish for". We're going to have to tread VERY lightly on this one. That said, ALPA absolutely MUST pursue this grievance. If they don't, you're throwing another log on the fire for a Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit against ALPA for not going after the rights of the Captains who are being displaced in violation of what they voted for.

D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't.

Lear, you just precisely detailed the foundation for the way SWA can with a good conscience furlough 500-750 pilots on the AT side.

"Southwest must unfortunately, because of the arbitrators award brought on by a claim from the pilots resulting in costs which are now unsustainable in the near term, reluctantly announce a furlough of 500 AT pilots, 800 flight attendants, and 1000 ground personnel commencing in 60 days."

Please research what SWA did with mechanics and reservation centers when presented with this same issue.

You're OK with that possibility? I wouldn't be, I'll say this for the first time in our discussion on this topic, good luck, because I've seen how SWA reacts to these purely business decisions.

 

[humveedriver]

Yeah. Everyone's fun meter is pegged right now.

 

[scoreboardII]

I agree.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

I could be wrong but I think we're over the fear factor. Now that we have a list, I don't see a problem with pursuning this as far as it will go. If WN furloughs, they failed and simply points out they couldn't have made the first deal work (which some of us have been saying anyway), because it was much more expensive.