What the 717 leaving means

[scoreboardII]

Good luck. But there needs to be a point you cut your losses and move on.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

 

[scoreboardII]

Didn't say over, under

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Roger.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

A huge fly in the ointment here is that at the end of the day there will be at least 13-29 fewer airframes needing Captains if there is no ASM growth. The real number of lost airframes will probably be much higher because there 717s are not currently at full utilization which means they are producing even less ASMs and will require less lift to replace. That being the case someone is going to have to lose expected captain seats for the other side to come out even.

 

[scoreboardII]

Agreed, my feeling is someone pre-gonculated those uneeded airframes would be absorbed by retirements (300 pilots, about 30 jets) so no fuss. Unless you delete the jets early before retirements happen and very near 2015.

 

[Lear70]

Good luck. But there needs to be a point you cut your losses and move on.

I'm sure that point will come after all the DR and Grievance routes have been exhausted, unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable.

People don't want to be like this, it sucks to be constantly stressed out not knowing what tomorrow is going to bring that changes signed agreements of yesterday. It does, however, seem that we're hosed either way. Don't cooperate and you get hosed (GK letter after SIA 1 was turned down). Cooperate and you get hosed (717 deal after all the promises both verbally and in writing in SIA 2).

Based on that, there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to file these disputes to try to get back some of what we negotiated and which was agreed to that has been taken away.

As I said before, I don't think you guys would be reacting any differently if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact, Steve Chase's actions only go to prove that you WOULD. Hence the firm enforcement of the 1/1/15 date when management makes hints that they might not make the date, so you can be sure to capture all the CA seats. SC's email was very clear that you would use every avenue to enforce the 1/1/15 date for that very reason, regardless of what the company wanted.

We're simply doing the same thing. Using every avenue to enforce the deal we negotiated. At this point there's no compelling reason NOT to. As long as the planes get flown and the company makes money, the no-furlough clause remains in place, people keep transitioning, and we all keep moving down the road to becoming one, big, happy family.

The Great Pumpkin is coming! GOOOO Cowboys! (in other words, enjoy your life, it goes by awfully fast, and stressing about this won't make it all be done any easier or faster).

 

[madjack]

"unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable."

Good luck!

 

[K-Mart]

Sounds like you guys are the ones stressed and should take some of you own advice. I haven't flown with anybody here at SWA who has even talked about AirTran or this lawsuit or anything else about this AirTran acquisition. No one seems to care on our side.

 

[madjack]

"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."

So where is the language protecting those seats? It was in SL9, which your MEC rejected in a bid for more seniority, which they got in SL10. The seniority gains of SL10 cost the 717 CPs their protections...you have to ask yourself was it worth it?

 

[madjack]

" I haven't flown with anybody here at SWA who has even talked about AirTran or this lawsuit or anything else about this AirTran acquisition. No one seems to care on our side. "


I agree, the transitioned AAI folks I have met for the most part seem excited to be here...not one has said, boy I wish I was back at AAI, or that SWA had not purchased AAI...

 

[fam62c]

I'm sure that point will come after all the DR and Grievance routes have been exhausted, unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable.

People don't want to be like this, it sucks to be constantly stressed out not knowing what tomorrow is going to bring that changes signed agreements of yesterday. It does, however, seem that we're hosed either way. Don't cooperate and you get hosed (GK letter after SIA 1 was turned down). Cooperate and you get hosed (717 deal after all the promises both verbally and in writing in SIA 2).

Based on that, there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to file these disputes to try to get back some of what we negotiated and which was agreed to that has been taken away.

As I said before, I don't think you guys would be reacting any differently if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact, Steve Chase's actions only go to prove that you WOULD. Hence the firm enforcement of the 1/1/15 date when management makes hints that they might not make the date, so you can be sure to capture all the CA seats. SC's email was very clear that you would use every avenue to enforce the 1/1/15 date for that very reason, regardless of what the company wanted.

We're simply doing the same thing. Using every avenue to enforce the deal we negotiated. At this point there's no compelling reason NOT to. As long as the planes get flown and the company makes money, the no-furlough clause remains in place, people keep transitioning, and we all keep moving down the road to becoming one, big, happy family.

The Great Pumpkin is coming! GOOOO Cowboys! (in other words, enjoy your life, it goes by awfully fast, and stressing about this won't make it all be done any easier or faster).

Is there actually a no-furlough clause on the AT side or does it say that if any AT pilots are furloughed SW can't add any pilots to the master seniority list? I'm asking because I'm not sure how that would work in practice. If they pulled some capacity back on the SW side and got rid of some older airplanes quicker could they "park" some excess AT pilots on the street for awhile if they had enough pilots on the SW side already to cover the AT planes that would cross the fence? What if they accelerated the 717 deliveries to DAL or just idled a bunch of them early?

 

[scoreboardII]

There are no furlough clauses on both sides of the agreement, both useless for all intensive purposes.

I'm sure that point will come after all the DR and Grievance routes have been exhausted, unless a deal is found before that which is acceptable.

People don't want to be like this, it sucks to be constantly stressed out not knowing what tomorrow is going to bring that changes signed agreements of yesterday. It does, however, seem that we're hosed either way. Don't cooperate and you get hosed (GK letter after SIA 1 was turned down). Cooperate and you get hosed (717 deal after all the promises both verbally and in writing in SIA 2).

Based on that, there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to file these disputes to try to get back some of what we negotiated and which was agreed to that has been taken away.

As I said before, I don't think you guys would be reacting any differently if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact, Steve Chase's actions only go to prove that you WOULD. Hence the firm enforcement of the 1/1/15 date when management makes hints that they might not make the date, so you can be sure to capture all the CA seats. SC's email was very clear that you would use every avenue to enforce the 1/1/15 date for that very reason, regardless of what the company wanted.

We're simply doing the same thing. Using every avenue to enforce the deal we negotiated. At this point there's no compelling reason NOT to. As long as the planes get flown and the company makes money, the no-furlough clause remains in place, people keep transitioning, and we all keep moving down the road to becoming one, big, happy family.

The Great Pumpkin is coming! GOOOO Cowboys! (in other words, enjoy your life, it goes by awfully fast, and stressing about this won't make it all be done any easier or faster).

Yes there is a reason, move on, your employed in the worst economy since the 40's and have assurance your jobs won't go away.

SC was merely going after verbatim contractual adherence, a transition by a set date in the contract, your hoping to rewrite an agreement which doesn't exist in it's present form, never existed in a voted form, and goes counter to public statements made by the CEO. Back room dealings are just that, back room, look at the four corners of the document, thats contract law 101. Your trying to prove fraud, good luck.

As has been well documented, your bid to go after more seniority at the expense of captain seats cost you those seats, hard to justify to an arbitor how you are owed anything in the way of seat protection when you yourself voted to give that away.

If it makes you happy to be sad, go for it.

 

[Cruncher]

Lear,

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

Quote:
"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."

Wouldn't that then mean, BEFORE December 31, 2014, this applies?

"AirTran pilots will be prohibited from holding a Captain or Lance Captain position on the Southwest B737 until the January 2015 bid period."

The other gem in my post.

Actually, SL10 spells out B717 fleet reductions occur prior to 1/1/15:

"AirTran Pilots whose seat positions are eliminated by reduction of the B717 fleet will bid system seniority for their new assignment."

Now before you pull that above quote out, read it in the context of the entire agreement, namely two quotes up.

Also, you mentioned furlough protection. The only protection I read was in the B717 equipment lock section (which I will not post here). Can you direct me where (for some reason my search function doesn't work on the .pdf, literally).

-C

PS no one wants to see any furlough, and I think if the idea is floated you'll find guys on this side more sympathetic than just words. We are all labor and soon we'll be one happy group

 

[fam62c]

There are no furlough clauses on both sides of the agreement, both useless for all intensive purposes.
Yes there is a reason, move on, your employed in the worst economy since the 40's and have assurance your jobs won't go away.

SC was merely going after verbatim contractual adherence, a transition by a set date in the contract, your hoping to rewrite an agreement which doesn't exist in it's present form, never existed in a voted form, and goes counter to public statements made by the CEO. Back room dealings are just that, back room, look at the four corners of the document, thats contract law 101. Your trying to prove fraud, good luck.

As has been well documented, your bid to go after more seniority at the expense of captain seats cost you those seats, hard to justify to an arbitor how you are owed anything in the way of seat protection when you yourself voted to give that away.

If it makes you happy to be sad, go for it.

For all INTENTS AND PURPOSES, not intensive purposes. Not trying to be a vocabulary Nazi but I thought I would mention it for future reference You can also use "for all practical purposes" as a substitute.....carry on, sorry. My posts contain plenty of mistakes as well, none of us are pefrect

 

[Speeeedbump]

Sounds like you guys are the ones stressed and should take some of you own advice. I haven't flown with anybody here at SWA who has even talked about AirTran or this lawsuit or anything else about this AirTran acquisition. No one seems to care on our side.

Well, perhaps that serves to demonstrate which pilot group is under more duress. Why might that be? One group lives in uncertainty over whether their current domicile will ever become a base and gets fed very little information (or outright lies) from management. On the AirTran side of the fence there are very few people who have not by now become utterly disappointed or downright disgusted by the way things have turned out. The blame can be assigned in multiple directions, I know, but I think most outside observers would agree the AirTran pilots took it in the teeth the most. Over and out.

 

[B73av8r]

"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."

So where is the language protecting those seats? It was in SL9, which your MEC rejected in a bid for more seniority, which they got in SL10. The seniority gains of SL10 cost the 717 CPs their protections...you have to ask yourself was it worth it?

No matter how many times one keeps repeating it, this is not true or correct. If one were to simply read the bullet points of the agreement, they may come to that conclusion. On the other hand, if one were to read the entire document, t[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]he language in SLI9/AIP 1 simply did not support keeping Captain seats or provide protections.


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[madjack]

B73,

BS and you know it...CP seats (slots) were protected for 10 Years, ATL domicile fenced for 10 years...snap up pay...all that was given up for seniority...hey I get it that it sucks to be you now right now... But your side dropped the ball and now you want a redo at the SWA pilots expense...what a bunch of KRAP...

 

[redflyer65]

There absolutely was a fence in the first agreement.

The Airtran MEC pushed for more and didn't allow their members to vote the agreement up or down. They wanted more. We said numerous times that if SW was pushed, you'd most likely get less. It all came to fruition.

It was like watching a slow speed crash, all the while knowing it would turn out horribly. I wish it didn't turn out that way. All the blame rest with the MEC in the end.

 

[B73av8r]

B73,

BS and you know it...CP seats (slots) were protected for 10 Years, ATL domicile fenced for 10 years...snap up pay...all that was given up for seniority...hey I get it that it sucks to be you now right now... But your side dropped the ball and now you want a redo at the SWA pilots expense...what a bunch of KRAP...

As was mentioned previously, one can keep repeating that mantra and try to convince through continued repetition of something that is false, it's called the repetition and persistence principle. Even if it is not true, the facts don't support it, if one repeats it enough, it becomes real to the deliverer as well as the receiver.

The fact is, there were no realistic Captain seat protections nor an ATL fence, the manner in which the language was written, they did not exist.

Your opinion of the agreement is not supported by the facts and actual language of the document, irregardless how many times you repeat that it does.

 

[texman]

As was mentioned previously, one can keep repeating that mantra and try to convince through continued repetition of something that is false, it's called the repetition and persistence principle. Even if it is not true, the facts don't support it, if one repeats it enough, it becomes real to the deliverer as well as the receiver.

The fact is, there were no realistic Captain seat protections nor an ATL fence, the manner in which the language was written, they did not exist.

Your opinion of the agreement is not supported by the facts and actual language of the document, irregardless how many times you repeat that it does.

Sorry our SL 9 had everything that is stated from the poster. Unless your MEC said different. You guys had a fence, snap up pay, and locked in captain seats.

How was the language written? Our was pretty black and white.

 

[Just thinking]

Our MEC chairman will be forever known as a failure of biblical proportions. He embarrassed this pilot group with the way he communicated with GK. He embarrassed this pilot group in how we were represented throughout the "process."

We have an extremely professional pilot group that deserved to be represented in a much better manner. He is an embarrassment to this pilot group that has worked so hard to make AirTran a success in spite of management's efforts to screw it up. Look how long the AT management team that came with the deal have been with SWA and how quickly they have departed the pattern.

With that being said............

"CP seats (slots) were protected for 10 Years"...............

It was weak language at best and poorly written with supposed protections that were fraught with holes.

At best, as a junior Captain you would be commuting around the system to be on reserve until a pilot that was on the last page of the SWA seniority roster had upgraded. Does being on reserve for the next ten+ years sound like fun? How long would it have taken for a SWA pilot hired in the spring of 2008 to be in the top half of the seniority list at SWA?


"We said numerous times that if SW was pushed, you'd most likely get less."'.............

Why do you even negotiate with the company then? If their first offer is the best that you are going to get, why do you bother to negotiate? Just asking since we were just supposed to take what was given and shut up about it. Trying to understand your rationale.

 

[Lear70]

I still have all the SIA 1 documentation and could quote exactly how and why the ATL fence and CA protections would have eventually been wound-down over 3-4 years until only straight-line seniority held both of those things.

The Negotiating Committee at the time agreed with me, both in private conversation and open-session MEC meeting with about 20% of our pilot group in attendance (largest turnout ever).

However, all of that would not convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. It's easier to lay it all on the feet of our MEC. That's fine. I get that it's easier to do that. But you will never convince the people who actually read the documents, did the research, attended the MEC meeting, and heard the truth for ourselves from the people that negotiated it.

That said, I've said since then that the benefits may or may not outweigh the cons of voting down the 1st agreement, even though I know we did it thinking we could go to Arbitration. For me, it's likely a wash, as I was bidding lines that were close to what we're making now anyway (I'm in the minority) and the 300 numbers I gained in seniority (upgrading to CA faster) wash with the loss of snap-up pay for 3 years. Others aren't so lucky (junior F/O's still stapled and no snap-up pay), and our CA's are now getting even MORE severely hosed and ethically, it's not right. We expected better.

As for what our pilots over there are telling you... of COURSE they're saying that. If they didn't they'd get crucified. They're not stupid. They're going to smile and come to work, do their job, then go home. What they truly believe about what went down isn't going to change, but they're not going to sit there and get into a debate about it with you on a trip. That would be unprofessional and rather pointless.

They're over there and most have moved on, although they'll never forget it. We're here and stil living it. Someday it'll be all over, but for us it still goes on, every day. Not much more can be said other than that.

 

[madjack]

Lear,

Believe what u want...You had pay/seats/ATL fence... You traded it away...big mistake and your 717 CPs are paying for it...

 

[redflyer65]

I still have all the SIA 1 documentation and could quote exactly how and why the ATL fence and CA protections would have eventually been wound-down over 3-4 years until only straight-line seniority held both of those things.

The Negotiating Committee at the time agreed with me, both in private conversation and open-session MEC meeting with about 20% of our pilot group in attendance (largest turnout ever).

However, all of that would not convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. It's easier to lay it all on the feet of our MEC. That's fine. I get that it's easier to do that. But you will never convince the people who actually read the documents, did the research, attended the MEC meeting, and heard the truth for ourselves from the people that negotiated it.

That said, I've said since then that the benefits may or may not outweigh the cons of voting down the 1st agreement, even though I know we did it thinking we could go to Arbitration. For me, it's likely a wash, as I was bidding lines that were close to what we're making now anyway (I'm in the minority) and the 300 numbers I gained in seniority (upgrading to CA faster) wash with the loss of snap-up pay for 3 years. Others aren't so lucky (junior F/O's still stapled and no snap-up pay), and our CA's are now getting even MORE severely hosed and ethically, it's not right. We expected better.

As for what our pilots over there are telling you... of COURSE they're saying that. If they didn't they'd get crucified. They're not stupid. They're going to smile and come to work, do their job, then go home. What they truly believe about what went down isn't going to change, but they're not going to sit there and get into a debate about it with you on a trip. That would be unprofessional and rather pointless.

They're over there and most have moved on, although they'll never forget it. We're here and stil living it. Someday it'll be all over, but for us it still goes on, every day. Not much more can be said other than that.

You mean this part....


F. Base Protections
1. AirTran Pilots will be assigned to Atlanta for their initial vacancy bid at Southwest provided Atlanta vacancies are available.
2. If no Atlanta vacancies are available, newly transitioned AirTran Pilots will be awarded vacancy openings based on their Southwest seniority and normal Southwest vacancy rules.
3. Until September 27, 2020:
a. For Atlanta vacancies, those former AirTran Pilots in other Southwest domiciles with Atlanta as the higher vacancy bid in their current seat will be assigned to the same seat in Atlanta in seniority order prior to a Southwest Pilot being assigned to Atlanta. This protection is limited to 737 and 717 or similar narrow body aircraft types.
b. Former AirTran Pilots will not be displaced out of the Atlanta domicile by a Southwest pilot unless there is an overall reduction in the number of respective equipment seats system-wide

There was no way (as a SW pilot) that I could have bidded into Atlanta at all. Could they have downsized ATL? Maybe. But it was spelled out to be a 10 year ATL AAI fence. I flew with very senior SW CAs that were pissed about that language because they felt they should be able to go to ATL when they wanted. It wasn't written that way, and they were looking at an additional 10yrs to get there if that's what they bid.

All water under the bridge at this point. The MEC pushed for arbitration because in their mind, the money would be there anyway...so why not go for the brass ring (more seniority). It cost the line pilots at Airtran literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably more like several million. There was a huge monetary lose Lear, regardless of what your personal numbers are.

-Didn't mean to double post on the other thread, so sorry about that.
__________________
"..E170s or CR9s, but I guess some service is better than none"- OYS on more RJ service at DL.

 

[Lear70]

All water under the bridge at this point. The MEC pushed for arbitration because in their mind, the money would be there anyway...so why not go for the brass ring (more seniority). It cost the line pilots at Airtran literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably more like several million. There was a huge monetary lose Lear, regardless of what your personal numbers are.

I don't disagree. That's why so many are so aggravated at it. That's why I'm aggravated about it. I'm watching our guys get hosed, and your guys don't give a rat's a$$, you just want more CA seats. We get it.

The whole process, from beginning to end, was smoke and mirrors. It was never designed to give us a fair shake at arbitration, and that is the mistake that the MEC made: to believe that the process was ever going to be allowed to play out the way it was negotiated in the Process Agreement.

Additionally, you can quote bits and pieces from SIA 1 all you want, but unless you take the whole thing in context and see what all the OTHER moving pieces were doing, how few people could hold ATL and therefore be protected, and what happened to everyone ELSE (the vast majority of the group), you're being disingenuous.

A few hundred people in ATL got protected. That's it. Everyone else got hosed. And, in the end, it simply should have gone to arbitration. It wasn't. And here we are. We will continue to do whatever we can for our people until every avenue is exhausted. I still believe it's pretty hypocritical to get upset at us for doing exactly the same thing that your union is but that's just one guy's opinion, and you know what they say about those.

 

[madjack]

Lear,

You want seats and pay... AAI had it but gave it away and now want another go...understand, I feel your pain but SWA pilots aren't interested in paying for it...

 

[scoreboardII]

Fade to black.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

AT pilots have nothing to lose now, so we're in it for the long haul, regardless of what SW pilots are "interested" in or who pays for it. It'll take years to work out and decades to "get over", we're OK with that, thanks in advance for your concern.

 

[Lear70]

AT pilots have nothing to lose now, so we're in it for the long haul, regardless of what SW pilots are "interested" in or who pays for it. It'll take years to work out and decades to "get over", we're OK with that, thanks in advance for your concern.

Well-said.

I'd offer something childish or petty like "fade to black" but the simple truth is people will continue to sling poo on here when facts are posted that conflict with the kool-aid group-think.

So instead I'll go enjoy my day, see if the Cowboys can pull a win out in BWI, and let you guys have the last (undoubtedly completely inaccurate) say.

COWBOYS!