What the 717 leaving means

[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.

 

[Lear70]

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

Not really.

There's some proposals being floated whereby people would go to Delta, and the discussions aren't over, but I wouldn't expect to hear anything anytime soon and if it yields anything at all, the thought that it would be with any kind of seniority, much less seat protection, is so slim as to be laughable.

Delta isn't a party to our CBA and thus, can't be forced to do anything. The question is what can we INCENTIVIZE SWA and Delta management teams to do regarding this issue. That question is still unanswered, but the grievance route is still available and being discussed.

 

[madjack]

When do the MC/NC teams meet?

 

[Cruncher]

I read through this entire thread, maybe it's somewhere else, guess I'll have to search other threads.

But what are the claimants looking to achieve? Are they looking to capture 737 Captain seats through displacement on the SWA side (I think I inferred that correctly). Captain pay?

The SL10 has this as the only mention to 717s (aside from the furlough section):

"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."

I understand the notes and intent part of an argument, but in the end, what do you think an arbitrator will do? Do you really think he'll completely change an agreed SLI?

Say the arbitrator did grant X number of ATN captains to keep seats (though now in a 737), this would be more than against an "intent" but what is actually written in the agreement, namely: "AirTran pilots will be prohibited from holding a Captain or Lance Captain position on the Southwest B737 until the January 2015 bid period."

I think the bigger fish to fry is the conversion of all ATN pilots over to the SWA side. Time is running out.

 

[Lear70]

I read through this entire thread, maybe it's somewhere else, guess I'll have to search other threads.

But what are the claimants looking to achieve? Are they looking to capture 737 Captain seats through displacement on the SWA side (I think I inferred that correctly). Captain pay?

I wouldn't begin to try to answer that for the NC or MEC.

The SL10 has this as the only mention to 717s (aside from the furlough section):

And aside from the No-Furlough protections on both sides that it would take a force-majeur act to override?

"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."

I understand the notes and intent part of an argument, but in the end, what do you think an arbitrator will do? Do you really think he'll completely change an agreed SLI?

Say the arbitrator did grant X number of ATN captains to keep seats (though now in a 737), this would be more than against an "intent" but what is actually written in the agreement, namely: "AirTran pilots will be prohibited from holding a Captain or Lance Captain position on the Southwest B737 until the January 2015 bid period."

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

"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."

So what happens BEFORE Dec 31, 2014? We're going to have pilots transitioning off the 737 and 717 that were awarded 717 CA TBD. They only bid system seniority for their new assignment AFTER 12/31/2014. On that date there should only be 216 CA's and 216 F/O's with our staffing ratios left on our side of the partition. That means the other 300+/- CA's and 300 +/- F/O's who were awarded 717 TBD will have to come SOMEWHERE... where do they go?

The answer is simple... the Agreement doesn't say, and it doesn't say because it wasn't intended for the 717 to go away, by any of the parties.

This is why we have the DR process. SWA wants to do it one way. SWAPA wants to do it one way. We don't agree. The Agreement doesn't say what to do. So we let an arbitrator figure it out.

I think the bigger fish to fry is the conversion of all ATN pilots over to the SWA side. Time is running out.

It'll just go past the timeline, either by agreement or because there's no choice with the schedule of 717 sub-leases to Delta. There's a no-furlough clause on both sides. Southwest is profitable and won't get around a no-furlough clause while making a good profit. So there's nothing to do but keep moving on down the road and see where we end up in a couple years. It's all above our pay grade anyway.

 

[scoreboardII]

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.

I'm not seeing what your trying to resolve if the arbitration process specifically restricts the arbitor from changing the seniority list. I also don't see an arbitor saying to SWA "gee, you need to pay AT guys on the 717 because they are going away just like you said they would or could".

And as for the "what happens before the After December 31, 2014 date", I say simple, look to the agreement, what does it say about all AT pilots pre-31 Dec 2014? I think you know.... Your argument falls aprt based on the simple words of the agreement.

Sorry, not seeing it.

 

[Lear70]

I'm not seeing what your trying to resolve if the arbitration process specifically restricts the arbitor from changing the seniority list. I also don't see an arbitor saying to SWA "gee, you need to pay AT guys on the 717 because they are going away just like you said they would or could".

Sorry, not seeing it.

We'll see... not worried about it. What will be, will be. :beer:

 

[Lear70]

And as for the "what happens before the After December 31, 2014 date", I say simple, look to the agreement, what does it say about all AT pilots pre-31 Dec 2014? I think you know.... Your argument falls aprt based on the simple words of the agreement.

It says they go to CA slots. What's your point?

 

[scoreboardII]

No, it says ALL come over as FO's.

 

[roughneck]

Lear,

"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."

That isn't the only reference to this subject in the agreement. This is the "after 1/1/15" reference. There is an identical clause that applies to "prior to 1/1/15."

Sorry man, your argument is bunk.

 

[Lear70]

No, it says ALL come over as FO's.

No, it doesn't.

The rest, guys, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Not worth continuing to hash out. We'll see what the arbitrator says.