Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Why are the 1700+ trannies pilots not recalling their status reps?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Status
Not open for further replies.
if Mr. Kelly cannot operate the 717 profitably in our system, he will do something...if I were @ aai I woud bid the 737
 
Let's be REALLY honest...if YOU were taking a 30% loss of seniority, would you vote for it?

No way, Jose.

The AAI MEC did what's best for their pilots. That's their job. And arbitration is much preferable to the porking you clowns wanted to give them.

And for those who were not taking a 30% loss??
 
Originally Posted by Fubijaakr
Let's be REALLY honest...if YOU were taking a 30% loss of seniority, would you vote for it?

No way, Jose.

The AAI MEC did what's best for their pilots. That's their job. And arbitration is much preferable to the porking you clowns wanted to give them.
No way Jose, lets be really honest, that 30% loss is a FALLACY presented by ALPA to ramp up the emotion train. Those pilots claim a 30% drop are actually being placed at damn near if not at DOH position. You think they should be placed anywhere near a 40 year SWA captain?

Another fallacy, 15% gain for SWAPA, BS, on average it was (SL9 no longer exists) no more than 8%, the best end game bump is 1% at retirement, most ending even next to their counterpart at AT, now how is that unfair? Should it be fair for SWA pilots to take a seniority loss through retirement? Answer that.
 
No way Jose, lets be really honest, that 30% loss is a FALLACY presented by ALPA to ramp up the emotion train. Those pilots claim a 30% drop are actually being placed at damn near if not at DOH position. You think they should be placed anywhere near a 40 year SWA captain?
.
Have you even looked at the actual list? Sure doesn't sound like it.

I'm pretty typical . . . . . 29% on our list, would be at 61%, placed next to guys hired almost 4 years later than me.
 
Have you even looked at the actual list? Sure doesn't sound like it.

I'm pretty typical . . . . . 29% on our list, would be at 61%, placed next to guys hired almost 4 years later than me.

I guess the point that many of us are making is that even though you are at 29% on the AirTran list, you need to exempt the percentage of pilots at SWA that are pre 1993. And those 2005 that you got funneled in with on the AIP, they would fall in the 40% range at AirTran. The AIP put them at 61%, are they losing out on almost 20%? DOH would put you at 49% on the SWA list, you would lose 12% with the AIP, and that is where the reality of the 12% SWA gain falls.
 
I guess the point that many of us are making is that even though you are at 29% on the AirTran list, you need to exempt the percentage of pilots at SWA that are pre 1993. And those 2005 that you got funneled in with on the AIP, they would fall in the 40% range at AirTran. The AIP put them at 61%, are they losing out on almost 20%? DOH would put you at 49% on the SWA list, you would lose 12% with the AIP, and that is where the reality of the 12% SWA gain falls.

There goes the funny SWAPA math again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJS8GszWJuQ
 
Last edited:
There really isn't anything fuzzy about the math. Let's take it to an extreme example to help you understand.

Airline A with 30 yrs of longevity on the pilot list buys Airline B which is running its first new hire class.

In this scenario DOH would cause airline B's #1 pilot ( a new hire) to lose almost 100% seniority. Of course this argument completely dismisses longevity which I am sure you are aware of.

The fuzziness comes from the spin AT folks are putting on their vested time with the company. A 24 year old new hire has no place next to a 60 yr old 30 year veteran. Keep drawing down the extreme example till you get to our situation. Hope that helps.
 
No way Jose, lets be really honest, that 30% loss is a FALLACY presented by ALPA to ramp up the emotion train. Those pilots claim a 30% drop are actually being placed at damn near if not at DOH position. You think they should be placed anywhere near a 40 year SWA captain?

Another fallacy, 15% gain for SWAPA, BS, on average it was (SL9 no longer exists) no more than 8%, the best end game bump is 1% at retirement, most ending even next to their counterpart at AT, now how is that unfair? Should it be fair for SWA pilots to take a seniority loss through retirement? Answer that.


Not really a fallacy. I would have gone from 60% to 89%. Sure looks like a 29% seniority loss to me.
 
I understand what you saying, but with your offer, you pushed way too far to the other side. Making everyone loose 4 years from DOH and 650 guys stapled. That offer was your only chance to keep it out of arbitrators hands, and you gambled on fears of AirTran pilots to take it. You bent the stick too far, and it snapped. Would have been a nice bow if you were realistic.
Out of our hands now.


P.S. you can blame SWAPA and the greed of pilots who guided it for the arbitration ruling.
 
Last edited:
There really isn't anything fuzzy about the math. Let's take it to an extreme example to help you understand.

And we still can't explain it to the few here without the ability for abstract thought. The Alaska moron I get, he can't help being stupid. But you would think that the ones who were involved in this acquisition, at least did a little homework to understand the numbers. Unfrickenbelievable.


There goes the funny SWAPA math again

You should have taken higher math in school, you would be able to keep up here. Hillbilly. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom