What the 717 leaving means

[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.