What the 717 leaving means

[UALX727]

Just wondering if SL9 would have passed on the SWA side if it got that far. From the SWA guys I've talked with...probably not. So in reality I guess it didn't matter as it probably never wouldn't have happened anyway without a SWAPA yes vote even if the AAI guys got to vote it in. Who knows.

 

[bladeusa]

The biggest mistake was NC bringing back SL9 in first place. The two sides were too far apart and there was a timeline and process in place to bring them together. This whole process has moved at a glaciers pace.. ohh except for one thing. -GK and co showing up and negotiating all thru thru night to push that thru.
I blame those amateurs on our merger committee and no leadership Linden, not SWAPA.

 

[Ty Webb]

Just wondering if SL9 would have passed on the SWA side if it got that far. From the SWA guys I've talked with...probably not. So in reality I guess it didn't matter as it probably never wouldn't have happened anyway without a SWAPA yes vote even if the AAI guys got to vote it in. Who knows.

There really is no point in debating it; too many moving parts, weak language, and "what ifs". it's like trying to figure out if your unemployed neighbor would be employed if McCain had won the election.

Me, I'm still holding decent lines in ATL, and getting the same pay and schedules. I'm happy doing what I'm doing, and the rest will get sorted out over time.

CYU in SJU, Wacky Jack! :laugh:

 

[GoodTimes]

Well said, Ty

 

[UALX727]

CYU in SJU, Wacky Jack!

Hey Ty, I think I know who you are referring to...but I think you got me confused with someone else.

 

[madjack]

There really is no point in debating it; too many moving parts, weak language, and "what ifs". it's like trying to figure out if your unemployed neighbor would be employed if McCain had won the election.

BS and you know it, the current predicament at AAI is the direct result of the MECs decision to discard SL9 without a mbrship vote...if the MEC mbrs were influenced by ALPA and other AAI pilots then lay blame where it belongs and don't go looking for handouts from SWA, especially if they come at the expense of SWA pilots...bottom line, AT ALPA played hardball for more seniority and then blinked, that strategy bit them in the A$%.

 

[Just thinking]

"What I don't get now is the complaint from the AAI side that they never saw the -717 going away...as soon as SL10 was ratified (with absolutely no protections for AAI pilots and therefore no restrictions on SWA) the 717 was doomed."...............

Nobody on the AT side has ever said that the 717 was NOT going away. What we were told by management (ad nauseam) was that the schedule for the draw down would START in 2017 as the leases started to expire. We were told to bid accordingly. This was a bid that we would be held to and there would be no other bid. pages of documentation and publicly released information can substantiate all of this. Investor questions were answered in relation to the 717 which further document the plan.

Since you are in the know, which words from management do YOU believe and listen to? Why do you even conduct negotiations with the SWA management since every word they say is the gospel truth and must be adhered to without fail? Do you ratify everything the company throws at you? With all the blue juice you consume you must look like a stupid smurf.

 

[27 driver]

There really is no point in debating it; too many moving parts, weak language, and "what ifs". it's like trying to figure out if your unemployed neighbor would be employed if McCain had won the election.

BS and you know it, the current predicament at AAI is the direct result of the MECs decision to discard SL9 without a mbrship vote...if the MEC mbrs were influenced by ALPA and other AAI pilots then lay blame where it belongs and don't go looking for handouts from SWA, especially if they come at the expense of SWA pilots...bottom line, AT ALPA played hardball for more seniority and then blinked, that strategy bit them in the A$%.

Ya, ALPA forced management into awarding us positions in a bid then taking those slots away. They changed the rules after the fact and now need to negotiate a new solution. If they don't an arbitrator will rule on it.

 

[humveedriver]

ALPA didn't buy AirTran. ALPA lawyers didn't pound the table with their fists and try to tell us how to vote. ALPA didn't negotiate the early release of the 717. Our MEC made a tough decision. If the first deal had passed most of us would have lost our seats and been locked out from upgrade until 2020. So I still think we came out ahead. It's mainly the FO's at Airtran who realized the bigger pay loss/differential and in some cases got stapled. And the junior SWA FO's who are going to get displaced out of base who the biggest losers here. Ty, me and Madjack were all hired in the fall of 2001, we will be just fine. Even Steve Chase in his email said you can't blame the AirTran pilots for filing the dispute. Why? Because we are just asking them to follow the agreement and or acknowledge that circumstances have changed. Maybe SWA pilots feel we should SWA management a pass on everything they do that we interpret as a violation of signed agreements.

 

[OldManPilot]

ALPA didn't buy AirTran. ALPA lawyers didn't pound the table with their fists and try to tell us how to vote. ALPA didn't negotiate the early release of the 717. Our MEC made a tough decision. If the first deal had passed most of us would have lost our seats and been locked out from upgrade until 2020. So I still think we came out ahead. It's mainly the FO's at Airtran who realized the bigger pay loss/differential and in some cases got stapled.

SOME F/O's got stapled. .... Try 20% of the AT pilots got Fu*ked.... Stop thinking of it as a tiny group of pisses off pilots... 20% got tossed aside like yesterday's garbage...

 

[humveedriver]

SOME F/O's got stapled. .... Try 20% of the AT pilots got Fu*ked.... Stop thinking of it as a tiny group of pisses off pilots... 20% got tossed aside like yesterday's garbage...

I really am sorry that happened. But you didn't fly 767's at AirTran so you know this industry better than I.

 

[DonVerita]

Madjack...the MEC voted it down because the SLI did not adhere to the most basic of functions that was set in stone and agreed to by both sides at the onset, that being -- "Fair and Equitable".

No MEC worth their salt at any airline would have allowed that lopsided agreement to go out to a membership vote. Had the MC (you erroneously stated "NC" in your post), come back with an agreement that was a fair compromise, such as straight date of hire even though we wanted Relative, along with the other base protections and fences, then that would have been plausible and the MEC would have sent that out for a vote.

 

[madjack]

"If the first deal had passed most of us would have lost our seats and been locked out from upgrade until 2020. So I still think we came out ahead."

If you are better off with the SL10, which is debatable (i.e. the 10 year seat/base lock with snap up pay vs AAI pay and no base/seat protections) than why file a grievance at all?...because management accelerated the demise of the 717 at SWA?...yes I trust mgmt to do the right thing for the health of SWA, but I realize that may come at my expense...not long ago SWA downgraded 100 CPs and it took 1.5 years for those pilots to get their seats back... As a result of SL10 SWA pilots are being displaced from east coast bases by former AAI pilots. These are business decisions that came at the expense of SWA pilots.... SWA made it quite clear that the 717 was history at SWA...just because the company accelerated that plan and it came at the expense of AAI pilots, does not mean that is a bad thing for SWA (or former AAI pilots for that matter). But AAI pilots seeking damages that may impact SWA pilots, well that seems like an effort to get the deck reshuffled in their favor:

"They changed the rules after the fact and now need to negotiate a new solution. If they don't an arbitrator will rule on it."

 

[madjack]

DV,

"No MEC worth their salt at any airline would have allowed that lopsided agreement to go out to a membership vote."

I realize that ALPA merger policy and history came into play in the decision to not send SL9 to the mbrship...that mentality backfired and now it is costing the AAI pilots. But to seek damages from SWA that may cost SWA pilots (displacement rights due to loss of airframe) after the AAI side rejected base/seat protection and pay in an effort to gain seniority is not going pass the smell check with your future SWA bros and Sis's (just my opinion)...

 

[humveedriver]

Downgraded only 100 Captains and got their seats back in 18 months. I had no idea how bad it was over there. I stand corrected. Just kidding anyway. Only management wins, and as you pointed out, that means everyone wins. On our side of the partition, that's just too big of leap to make right now. Surely you understand.

 

[madjack]

"On our side of the partition, that's just too big of leap to make right now"

I understand...but lay the blame where it belongs...mgmt and AAI MEC...If your grievance is successful, SWA pilots may end up paying for it...

 

[Ty Webb]

I understand...but lay the blame where it belongs...mgmt and AAI MEC...If your grievance is successful, SWA pilots may end up paying for it...

Ahh, so this is what's bugging you. Why didn't you just say that, instead of going all "dung-beetle" over SLI 9?

 

[madjack]

"Ahh, so this is what's bugging you. Why didn't you just say that, instead of going all "dung-beetle" over SLI 9? "

Fair question...SL9 contained seat/base and pay protections for AAI pilots that would have made the accelerated demise of the 717 costly for SWA...those protections were willingly discarded by the MEC in the hopes of achieving better seniority (through arbitration) and SL10 did yield better seniority for AAI pilots sans protections...

Let's say you raised your car insurance deductible and then totaled your car...are you going to ask your insurance company if you can pay the lower deductible because you did not know you were going to total the car?

Nobody knew (or knows) what SWA is going to do...that is part of the business...Your cheese was moved after you gave away base/seat and pay protections for 10 years...now you want a redo (more $$/displacement rights whatever you are seeking)...good luck with that...the only power you have is your sick bank...

 

[Lear70]

"On our side of the partition, that's just too big of leap to make right now"

I understand...but lay the blame where it belongs...mgmt and AAI MEC...If your grievance is successful, SWA pilots may end up paying for it...

That's not an ENTIRELY accurate portrayal of the situation.

IF, and that's a big IF an arbitrator helps return our CA seat protections that were negotiated for, albeit on the 737, they WOULD come at the expense of your pilots not upgrading into those slots, but be honest, we all know those ADDITIONAL slots weren't there for your pilots before the announcement of the 717 assignment to Delta.

In fact, your very own Steve Chase gloated about "Capturing more Captain seats" because of it.

If you'll recall, the Classics were going away and you were getting our -700 delivery slots, upgraded to -800 delivery slots in addition to the deliveries you already had, plus the CA seats on the 737's we were bringing with us. That was going to net you approximately 300 additional CA seats above and beyond the pre-AAI purchase announcement delivery schedule from that point until 1/1/15. Your senior F/O's will upgrade MUCH sooner than planned into OUR 737's we're bringing with us, and those were the ONLY Captain seats you were supposed to get.

With the 717 announcement, SWA decided not to retire the Classics and only deferred a small number of new deliveries, bringing the total hulls on property by 1/1/15 UP to account for our pilots coming over. However, since they are all coming over as F/O's, you will now upgrade an additional 350-400 CA's by 1/1/15 than you were SUPPOSED to with the agreed SIA by virtue of the Classics not going away PLUS new deliveries PLUS our 737's.

That's an additional 350-400 CA seats you weren't supposed to get with this deal.

In other words, the departure of the 717 robbed OUR CA's of their seat (albeit on the 717) and gave YOUR F/O's even MORE upgrades you weren't expecting when you signed the deal. That's why Steve Chase wanted it all done by 1/1/15 so you could "capture" those additional CA seats that weren't previously included in the deal.

An arbitrator returning those CA seats to us would simply return the playing field back to where it was when the deal was inked, netting you the increase in CA seats you were expecting when you voted in SL10 and retaining the CA seats WE negotiated when we voted in the SIA.

So yes, it "technically" would come at the expense of SWA pilots upgrading, but only those who weren't supposed to upgrade with this deal to begin with. Fair is fair, you keep your CA seats you were expecting to get when the SIA was signed, we keep ours we were expecting to keep.

 

[FIREMAN]

Stop with the facts Lear , they don't respond well to them.