What the 717 leaving means

[madjack]

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"

And here is where the rubber meets the road...the agreement inked (SL10) was based on AAI having airplanes they now will not bring over...the 717s... When a 717 goes away, that seat goes with it (remember your argument during negotiations that you were bringing planes and therefore seats to the deal)...you cannot have it both ways, now that the airplanes are not coming over, the CP seats no longer exists...

That is why base/seat and pay protections in SL9 would have come in handy now that the company has made a business decision to lease the 717s to DAL during the transition.

The details of the agreement may become moot if the transition schedule is not completed by 01JAN2015 and 737s/717s are still on the AAI side of partitiion...but assuming it gets done...the agreement states no AAI pilot may hold the left seat until after 01JAN2015, and then he/she can bid CP if their seniority can hold it and there is a CP vacancy...

 

[Lear70]

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"

And here is where the rubber meets the road...the agreement inked (SL10) was based on AAI having airplanes they now will not bring over...the 717s... When a 717 goes away, that seat goes with it (remember your argument during negotiations that you were bringing planes and therefore seats to the deal)...you cannot have it both ways, now that the airplanes are not coming over, the CP seats no longer exists...

Ah, but now, because of our 717's going away, you will be retaining your 737 classics, whereas before you weren't going to.

That was part of the basis of the negotiations for the Captain seats we retained. You had a retirement schedule of Classics and our 737's netted you XXX number of additional Captain seats than your pilots expected before SWA acquired us.

Those Classics would NOT be staying if our 717's weren't going. And now you want THOSE Captain seats, too.

This all goes to expectations when the SIA was inked. The deal was structured to net SWA pilots XXX number of CA seats and for AAI to retain XXX number of CA seats.

SWA management changed the playing field, and we are simply trying to retain the expectations of both pilot groups in terms of number of Captain seats that both parties agreed to.

You can't have your cake and eat ours, too.

 

[Phlintstone]

MJ,

Explain how, in your opinion, SL9 provided seat/base protections...

 

[madjack]

So conversely when an airplane is purchased/retained that CP seat is added/retained and as per SL10 that seat will be manned by a SWA pilot (vs AAI pilot) until after 01JAN2015.

My point is when you gave up the protections of SL9 (for seniority), you opened the door for SWA to get rid of the 717 sooner than later, and a grievance now is too late...

 

[madjack]

"Explain how, in your opinion, SL9 provided seat/base protections..."

A 10 year fence in ATL (and a guaranteed ATL base)

All CP seats/slots (700ish) protected for 10 years

snap up pay at signing

 

[Lear70]

All CP seats/slots (700ish) protected for 10 years

That's not the entire story. Those seat protections went away every time there was a seasonal reduction in the total number of CA seats.

In other words, every time you flexed down in CA seats, which SWA historically does regularly, our junior CA's were displaced and your FO's senior to them got the seats when the staffing went back up. That would have continued until only our CA's who could hold them by straight seniority were left.

There was no first right of return out of seniority for those lost seats to protect them.

As for the CA seats and the DR, we're just going to have to agree to disagree and let the arbitrator figure it out.

 

[madjack]

There was no first right of return out of seniority for those lost seats to protect them.



There is still no right of return in our CBA...maybe when you get over to our side Lear you can use some of your energy to get that piece added...

Only seen a reduction in CA seats (total) once since I have been here, after the great recession...11 years

 

[humveedriver]

There was no first right of return out of seniority for those lost seats to protect them.



There is still no right of return in our CBA...maybe when you get over to our side Lear you can use some of your energy to get that piece added...

Only seen a reduction in CA seats (total) once since I have been here, after the great recession...11 years

But we don't have SL9. It like the 717s are history. Perhaps one reason why it is effecting you is because you went from years of good schedule and efficient trips as a senior FO to a junior Capt on reserve? I can see how allowing 250 AT pilots to upgrade would slow things for you. And keeping the 717s would have helped you in that department too.

 

[Ty Webb]

This thread demonstrates very clearly why the dispute resolution process exists, and why it is necessary for a neutral party to look at the facts and make a determination.... best just to let the process work as designed.

 

[madjack]

And keeping the 717s would have helped you in that department too.

It would have helped everybody...

Ty, I agree, we will never agree...but it is enlightening to see how far apart the sides are on this issue...

 

[climbhappy]

one Q: is selling the 717s a breach of SL10? and if so does SW mgt have to go back to the table or do they just honor the senority as promised?

do you AT guys get a chance to throw the pay from SL9 back into a new agreement since you have suffered damages as a result?

can you even call what you have lost "damages" or is that too adverserial? in legal language, what do you call what you have suffered a loss of due to the sale of the 717s?

.....would getting the pay back retroactive "fix " this?

thanks..it's just a thread so i'm curious...no offense meant ..

 

[fam62c]

It doesn't matter what anybody said or didn't say. There is either something in writing that says the 717's would stay or there isn't. There is either something that says 717 CA's who get their planes sold out from underneath them get SW 737 slots that their system seniority can't hold or there isn't. There is either something in writing that guarantees the AT pilots X number of SW 737 CA slots or there isn't.

I predict a very short arbitration hearing assuming this thing even gets heard before there is an actual violation of the transition agreement which there hasn't been yet as far as I can tell. This dispute is a waste of everybody's time, this train left the station when SL9 got rejected at the MEC level.

 

[Lear70]

It doesn't matter what anybody said or didn't say. There is either something in writing that says the 717's would stay or there isn't. There is either something that says 717 CA's who get their planes sold out from underneath them get SW 737 slots that their system seniority can't hold or there isn't. There is either something in writing that guarantees the AT pilots X number of SW 737 CA slots or there isn't.

I predict a very short arbitration hearing assuming this thing even gets heard before there is an actual violation of the transition agreement which there hasn't been yet as far as I can tell. This dispute is a waste of everybody's time, this train left the station when SL9 got rejected at the MEC level.

That's one opinion...

Fortunately, it's not that black and white, and I'm not shocked that SWA pilots don't understand the subtlety, you haven't had to fight grievances like we have over almost every little thing, as your management either doesn't violate your contract outright or, when they do, there often is a Ronald McDonald truck involved.

For other carriers who DO have to fight these battles, there's a "negotiated intent" component that is highly involved. When you negotiate language into an agreement, you can't foresee EVERY possible scenario that's going to exist, so you retain your negotiating notes and, if there's a grievance over the intent of language, everyone who was present gets called to testify in arbitration as to what the intent was, and those negotiating notes become part of the testimony.

So the arbitrator doesn't just look at contract language like a civil court would and make a decision based solely on the language alone; the arbitrator can decide on their own interpretation of the language and rule accordingly. In fact, they HAVE here at AirTran on a regular basis over the years. Our industry-leading reserve pay system prior to our newest CBA was the result of just such an interpretation. Changed the entire CBA for reserves based on an arbitrator's interpretation and opinion.

That's why it's called "arbitration". It's "arbitrary". It's not civil court where the only important thing is the language. The intent of the language and why it's written like it is, more often than not, is just as, if not MORE important as the actual language itself in RLA disputes.

Again, not to say that it's a slam dunk, although the negotiating notes are pretty clear that the intent was to protect a certain number of AAI CA seats, you just never know what an arbitrator is going to do.

 

[Lear70]

one Q: is selling the 717s a breach of SL10? and if so does SW mgt have to go back to the table or do they just honor the senority as promised?

do you AT guys get a chance to throw the pay from SL9 back into a new agreement since you have suffered damages as a result?

can you even call what you have lost "damages" or is that too adverserial? in legal language, what do you call what you have suffered a loss of due to the sale of the 717s?

.....would getting the pay back retroactive "fix " this?

thanks..it's just a thread so i'm curious...no offense meant ..

No offense taken, but that's up to the arbitrator. We will present our case, SWAPA will present theirs, and an impartial 3rd party will rule on what they find most compelling.

Individual opinion either way would be pure speculation based on incomplete information. Too many moving parts (what SWAPA will present, what AAI will present, what SWA management will present, both in testimony and written evidence for all 3 parties, and how an arbitrator will see that information).

The DR process in our case IS fairly limited in what can be done, and although arbitrators often "bend" rules to do what they think they need to do to make things fair in the intent of the language, they can't just outright break the agreement or it would be appealable and likely overturned by the full NMB appelate panel. The arbitrator knows that and they usually rule with that in mind.

To try to be more specific would be breaking out my (admittedly broken) crystal ball.

 

[fam62c]

That's one opinion...

Fortunately, it's not that black and white, and I'm not shocked that SWA pilots don't understand the subtlety, you haven't had to fight grievances like we have over almost every little thing, as your management either doesn't violate your contract outright or, when they do, there often is a Ronald McDonald truck involved.

For other carriers who DO have to fight these battles, there's a "negotiated intent" component that is highly involved. When you negotiate language into an agreement, you can't foresee EVERY possible scenario that's going to exist, so you retain your negotiating notes and, if there's a grievance over the intent of language, everyone who was present gets called to testify in arbitration as to what the intent was, and those negotiating notes become part of the testimony.

So the arbitrator doesn't just look at contract language like a civil court would and make a decision based solely on the language alone; the arbitrator can decide on their own interpretation of the language and rule accordingly. In fact, they HAVE here at AirTran on a regular basis over the years. Our industry-leading reserve pay system prior to our newest CBA was the result of just such an interpretation. Changed the entire CBA for reserves based on an arbitrator's interpretation and opinion.

That's why it's called "arbitration". It's "arbitrary". It's not civil court where the only important thing is the language. The intent of the language and why it's written like it is, more often than not, is just as, if not MORE important as the actual language itself in RLA disputes.

Again, not to say that it's a slam dunk, although the negotiating notes are pretty clear that the intent was to protect a certain number of AAI CA seats, you just never know what an arbitrator is going to do.

You are correct, it's just my opinion but I think this is a loser in an arbitration. SL9 is what kills the case because it contained specific CA seat protection language that disappeared (just like the SW pay rates) in SL10. If SL9 didn't exist it would be a better case but since it does exist there is a problem, it appears the language was conceded in the next TA. An arbitrator may see this is an attempt at "a second bite of the apple" ie an attempt to get something through a grievance (dispute) that was bargained for but not achieved (or in this case achieved but not accepted) through negotiation.

You are correct though, you never know what an arbitrator will rule, I've seen some strange decisions over the years. For starters let's see if the committee even hears this because there doesn't appear to be a legitimate dispute trigger yet, then let's see if it makes it to arbitration. If it gets to arbitration I'll give you 5 to 1 that it's a loser if you'll put up cash and take the bet

 

[Lear70]

You are correct, it's just my opinion but I think this is a loser in an arbitration. SL9 is what kills the case because it contained specific CA seat protection language that disappeared (just like the SW pay rates) in SL10. If SL9 didn't exist it would be a better case but since it does exist there is a problem, it appears the language was conceded in the next TA. An arbitrator may see this is an attempt at "a second bite of the apple" ie an attempt to get something through a grievance (dispute) that was bargained for but not achieved (or in this case achieved but not accepted) through negotiation.

You are correct though, you never know what an arbitrator will rule, I've seen some strange decisions over the years. For starters let's see if the committee even hears this because there doesn't appear to be a legitimate dispute trigger yet, then let's see if it makes it to arbitration. If it gets to arbitration I'll give you 5 to 1 that it's a loser if you'll put up cash and take the bet

Well, not that I agree with your argument, but it's certainly a case you can make... 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.

But we'll see if a SL9/SL10/2nd bite at the apple argument will override actual negotiating notes. I also like your odds, and I'll take 5:1.

For the record, the DR process doesn't include a "ripeness" test. That aside, the deal is already signed for the 717's to be sub-leased with a specific schedule, so I doubt the case is going to be dismissed on that merit. In fact, it only accentuates the need to have this figured out BEFORE the first 717 is assigned to Delta, since the issue directly revolves around those CA seat retentions. Arguing it after the fact would require an arbitrator to "undo" any bid award at SWA those wrongfully-displaced 717 CA's would be holding.

So I have a C-note against your $500 that says the case doesn't get dismissed, and some type of award offsetting those losses is handed down by the Arbitrator. Deal? I'm assuming after the bet you know how to find me, but how do I find you? Early already owes me $100 and Beisheim owes me a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue, but neither of them are anywhere to be found.

 

[fam62c]

Well, not that I agree with your argument, but it's certainly a case you can make... 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.

But we'll see if a SL9/SL10/2nd bite at the apple argument will override actual negotiating notes. I also like your odds, and I'll take 5:1.

For the record, the DR process doesn't include a "ripeness" test. That aside, the deal is already signed for the 717's to be sub-leased with a specific schedule, so I doubt the case is going to be dismissed on that merit. In fact, it only accentuates the need to have this figured out BEFORE the first 717 is assigned to Delta, since the issue directly revolves around those CA seat retentions. Arguing it after the fact would require an arbitrator to "undo" any bid award at SWA those wrongfully-displaced 717 CA's would be holding.

So I have a C-note against your $500 that says the case doesn't get dismissed, and some type of award offsetting those losses is handed down by the Arbitrator. Deal? I'm assuming after the bet you know how to find me, but how do I find you? Early already owes me $100 and Beisheim owes me a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue, but neither of them are anywhere to be found.

Let's see the results of the arbitration if it gets there and settle up via PM I think this will take a long time to get a result. I still say the language that disappeared between the TA's will unravel the case for you but we will have to see. As you have said, you were there and know what was said.

I'm sensing your argument is that the final TA didn't specifically and clearly deal with the possibility of an early 717 retirement because you were lead to believe that it was NOT a possibility. Otherwise, you obviously would have written language to allow for that outcome. That's the nuts of the case right there, if you can prove you were lied to you have a shot, if you can't you are dead in the water. Hopefully somebody with the authority to make a decision told you in no uncertain terms that the 717's would not leave before lease expiration and you can prove it. It's going to your notes and recollections against their notes and recollections. I still like my 5 to 1 based on what I heard and read in public regarding the 717 situation and what I can see in writing in SL10 and SL9. I'll give you the last word or this will go on forever

 

[Lear70]

Let's see the results of the arbitration if it gets there and settle up via PM I think this will take a long time to get a result. I still say the language that disappeared between the TA's will unravel the case for you but we will have to see. As you have said, you were there and know what was said.

I'm sensing your argument is that the final TA didn't specifically and clearly deal with the possibility of an early 717 retirement because you were lead to believe that it was NOT a possibility. Otherwise, you obviously would have written language to allow for that outcome. That's the nuts of the case right there, if you can prove you were lied to you have a shot, if you can't you are dead in the water. Hopefully somebody with the authority to make a decision told you in no uncertain terms that the 717's would not leave before lease expiration and you can prove it. It's going to your notes and recollections against their notes and recollections. I still like my 5 to 1 based on what I heard and read in public regarding the 717 situation and what I can see in writing in SL10 and SL9. I'll give you the last word or this will go on forever

It always goes on forever... it's FlightInfo.

You know when we'll stop debating it? When one of us dies, hopefully many decades after retirement with throngs of wailing women around us cursing the earth for the loss of us. Wait, I'm on the wrong forum for that...

One thing I will agree with you is that this is going to take some time. If one side debates jurisdiction, then we're talking about a year. If not and it's allowed to go forward without that frivolous claim, then 6 months from now we should be waiting on a decision.

Until then, Happy Festivus! (or is that allowed before Halloween? don't know, they're playing Feliz Navidad in Home Depot, so I guess I'm OK).

 

[SplitBar]

Any talk or rumors on your side regarding any pilots coming with the 717's. Still hearing different talk regarding that.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Nope.