What the 717 leaving means

[Phlintstone]

Look, I don't doubt that you guys are feeling some sting over on your side.

A lot more than just "some."

You say that we are trying to gain more and more, but you are filing a grievance to gain more on your side.

No! The grievance was filed to MAINTAIN what we agreed to in SL10 or some compensation for the loss. The fact is that x number of AT guys will not be CAs on 1/1/2015 as was promised. It is that simple, even an air force guy could get it.

Phred

 

[scoreboardII]

Here are some facts for you..............

Sept 27, 2010
Southwest executives have confirmed that it plans to operate AirTran's 86 Boeing 717s once its acquisition of AirTran closes and the Atlanta-hubbed carrier is folded into the Southwest brand. Southwest today unveiled plans to acquire AirTran through a combination of cash and common stock.
During a call with media to discuss the acquisition Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said the carrier has decided it wants to keep and operate the 717, and will operate the smaller aircraft in a single 117-seat configuration. Currently AirTran operates its 117-seat 717s in a dual class offering.

Kelly acknowledges the addition of the 717 requires a different type crew rating and establishing how the aircraft is scheduled into operations. But he believes the 86 aircraft offer enough scale and says Southwest has the ability to incorporate the aircraft into its fleet cost effectively.
"Our pilots have looked at it [the 717] and like it," Kelly states. The aircraft will also allow Southwest to operate in markets too small to support its 737 fleet. Southwest's chief says the carrier is not prepared to make a decision on adding the larger -800 to its fleet. "We hope to make a decision soon," he says. Previously Southwest indicated it would decide on adding -800s in December and has negotiated a tentative deal with its flight attendants to operate the aircraft.

May 2011
Another milestone of the AirTran acquisition is the abandonment of one of Southwest's cardinal rules replicated the world over by successful and unsuccessful copycat carriers - keep it simple by operating a single fleet type. Almost immediately after Southwest revealed its intent to acquire AirTran, Kelly and the Southwest team fielded a barrage of questions over the fate of AirTran's 88 117-seat Boeing 717s.

Yes, Kelly declared, Southwest would keep the smaller aircraft and remains excited over the small-city prospects those aircraft open up to Southwest, which has for the past five years concentrated much effort on legacy-dominated markets of Denver, Minneapolis, San Francisco, New York LaGuardia and, most recently, Newark. Kelly admits Southwest needs an aircraft the size of the 717 to grow into markets that cannot support the current mainstay of the Southwest fleet, the 137-seat Boeing 737-700.

"As we stand today, it's difficult to muster up the effort to make one small city work, because it is so small and it just requires a lot of attention," he explains. "In this particular case AirTran will bring us several dozen cities that are up and running, generating revenue and profits. So it is now worth the management effort to make that fit into the Southwest brand and Southwest culture." Kelly believes there are several dozen additional small cities a combined Southwest-AirTran could grow into, and while the company now has the equipment to penetrate those cities, he admits Southwest will need to focus its attention at some point on a 717 replacement. Citing the size of the 717 fleet Southwest gains from acquiring AirTran, Kelly says clearly that is too large a number "for that not to be a question. So we're going to have to figure out what the successor aircraft will be". Ideally, it is a conversation Southwest would like to have with its lone aircraft supplier Boeing, but Kelly says the airframer has not expressed any real interest in pursing the market for that sized aircraft.

Aug 2011
Southwest Airlines is "happy to fly" the fleet of Boeing 717s that are operated by its AirTran subsidiary, but is planning its future fleet needs around the Boeing 737. Chief executive officer Gary Kelly said yesterday that "we don't see a reason to keep the 717s longer than we have to, or find a unique replacement for the 717 that is anything other than the 737". Kelly noted that Southwest has 717 lease commitments through 2024. According to a Southwest filing made with US regulators today, 88 717s are in the carrier's fleet, 80 of which are leased. "We have broad discussions underway with Boeing on a number of issues, and at this point we don't see a reason why we would want to have a different aircraft other than the 737," he added. Boeing Capital Corporation is a major lessor of 717s to AirTran, according to Flightglobal's ACAS database. According to a Boeing Capital filing with US regulators, AirTran represented 21% of its revenue for the first half of 2011.
When Southwest's acquisition of AirTran was originally announced last September, Kelly said Southwest was "pleased to have the 717" and that the aircraft could be utilised to serve smaller markets. Kelly also mentioned that the aircraft was "very cost effective".

Justthinking, you missed the most critical word in that whole piece, PLAN. sWA has many plans, but nothing was guaranteed in writing.

SWA sold the pilots a side letter saying if you agree to fly the 800 for the same rate swa would grow, guess what happened, no growth. So get used to the fluff surrounding swa statements of plans in the future.

 

[Ty Webb]

I don't know why you guys are bothering to argue about this anymore. . . . What's the point? Let the elected/appointed folks work it out, there's nothing that is going to be decided here.

Ty

 

[scoreboardII]

Agreed, but you guys keep bringing it up..... The OP is AT right?

 

[scoreboardII]

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=127169

just found this while reading another thread, looks like even AT was trying to get rid of 717's back in 2009.

 

[ATLplt]

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=127169

just found this while reading another thread, looks like even AT was trying to get rid of 717's back in 2009.

Scorn-board, AirTran was always planning to get rid of the 71's.......as their leases expire. Sound familiar?

Seriously, let the thread die. Do the AirTran guys really piss you off that much? You need a hobby or something.

 

[scoreboardII]

yet you keep right on dog piling...

 

[Lear70]

Again? Really?

*sigh*

 

[Max Powers]

ATL base in first quarter of 2013. This will help.

Only AAI most senior captains will be able to hold it as SWA FOs......Golden rule you say huh?

 

[scoreboardII]

OK, don't want to start a new thread, but couldn't find the Dispute thread. Seems SWAPA just denied the AT pilots claim citing it should be handled outside the DR process, as in the DRP has no jurisdiction. Lawyers should meet to discuss, of course...

 

[27 driver]

OK, don't want to start a new thread, but couldn't find the Dispute thread. Seems SWAPA just denied the AT pilots claim citing it should be handled outside the DR process, as in the DRP has no jurisdiction. Lawyers should meet to discuss, of course...

Did you expect a different ruling? Wouldn't matter what the dispute was SWAPA would deny it.

 

[redflyer65]

Southwest implemented Plan B on the 717. It won't change the SLI any. It's a Hail Mary with 1 second on the clock. Not going to matter in the end.

 

[Lear70]

OK, don't want to start a new thread, but couldn't find the Dispute thread. Seems SWAPA just denied the AT pilots claim citing it should be handled outside the DR process, as in the DRP has no jurisdiction. Lawyers should meet to discuss, of course...

Not really news, our ALPA reps stated that the DRC does, indeed, have jurisdiction, just as your reps said that it doesn't.

As such, that question itself now goes on to arbitration, as I previously mentioned in another, related thread, whichever arbitrator of the 3 is available first.

If the arbitrator agrees that the DRC does indeed have jurisdiction over the issue, it'll go back to the DRC again on the question itself, which will deadlock like this issue, then it will go to arbitration again over the issue itself.

Like I said before, it's going to be almost a year from when we filed it (September) before we have a decision on the issue itself.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear, why was there no specific claim or harm cited? I can't see any arbitrator siding with the claim that "we are pretty sure we are harmed, just have no real idea what that harm is...".

 

[scoreboardII]

Did you expect a different ruling? Wouldn't matter what the dispute was SWAPA would deny it.

Not neccesarily. But a blanket claim of harm, without details, really? Check the dispute claim here:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102365104649-407/AirTrain_DisputeForm.pdf

What rights were abridged or denied, specificially and how?

 

[humveedriver]

Not neccesarily. But a blanket claim of harm, without details, really? Check the dispute claim here:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102365104649-407/AirTrain_DisputeForm.pdf

What rights were abridged or denied, specificially and how?

Not sure about the format of that claim. But towards the bottom it stated domicile ATL and position Captain. To me, that is specifically being violated. I understand the SWA pilots point of view. But I find it more than a little fishy that a company buys a competitor, drafts a transition plan and then yells "hocus pocus!", and drastically changes the deal after it has been voted on by both sides. If you believe that SWA suddenly lost interest in the 717 and then by chance Delta swooped in to lease them...

 

[scoreboardII]

Yet thats exactly how the CEO will testify.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, why was there no specific claim or harm cited? I can't see any arbitrator siding with the claim that "we are pretty sure we are harmed, just have no real idea what that harm is...".

Because you don't telegraph your arguments to your opponent before you go into arbitration.

The broad claim is enough to get it to arbitration, then you get specific with arguments in front of the arbitrator. Every arbitration works like that for the most part, but this format is especially important to do that since there aren't going to be post-arbitration arguments accepted by summary form, which is what is normally done - it gives you one last chance to defend claims made by the other side that you may not have had the data to refute in the hearing itself.

Since they're not going to do that and will have a "one day and done" finite amount of time to present arguments AND closing statements, it makes even more sense to keep the specifics of your arguments to yourself until you present them to the arbitrator.

It doesn't mean there aren't compelling arguments, it just means they're keeping them to themselves as part of the overall strategy.

 

[scoreboardII]

So you see no possibility an arbitrator will say "so there is a dispute resolution process, but you denied that avenue a chance because you kept the claim details from that process and you wanted to go directly to arbitration in violation of the DR process, and now you want ME to hear your case?"

Sounds like your side wants to get to arbitration, throw out a strategy of claims in arbitration without letting SWAPA hear those claims prior to arbitration, prevent the SWAPA side from having any chance to rebut those because of the nature of arbitration.

Arbitrators see right through that tactic as a failure of due process.

Good luck with that.

 

[humveedriver]

So you see no possibility an arbitrator will say "so there is a dispute resolution process, but you denied that avenue a chance because you kept the claim details from that process and you wanted to go directly to arbitration in violation of the DR process, and now you want ME to hear your case?"

Sounds like your side wants to get to arbitration, throw out a strategy of claims in arbitration without letting SWAPA hear those claims prior to arbitration, prevent the SWAPA side from having any chance to rebut those because of the nature of arbitration.

Arbitrators see right through that tactic as a failure of due process.

Good luck with that.

SWAPA controls the Dispute Resolution Process. The agreement was written that way. Anything that AT presents will be dismissed by SWAPA. I think it is fair to say that the language of the agreement is not specific enough to answer the questions surrounding the transition of pilots with the 717 leaving so rapidly.