Will The AirTran Pilots' Windfall Be A Consideration?

[ivauir]

The flaming is really disappointing.

I've really enjoyed my time at SWA, but if the posts here are any indication that is over.

 

[Kharma Police]

The flaming is really disappointing.

I've really enjoyed my time at SWA, but if the posts here are any indication that is over.

Relax, we're not talking about the fall of the Roman Empire, everything will be just fine, trust me! Just remember the reason for the holiday season!

 

[j41driver]

... and as evidenced on here, most AirTran pilots ...

"Most" AirTran pilots don't even read FI. What you read here from the same 3-5 AirTran guys does not necessarily reflect the feelings/mentality of the majority of us.

I'd bet that the same applies to the SWA group as well. None of us will solve this integration on here or any other web forum.

 

[Splert]

Here is a good primer on the McCaskill-Bond amendment, which pretty much makes all of your ridiculous arguments moot. It was written by the AFA for flight attendants, but it will serve you all well since all of your petty b1tching and sniping is acting like a bunch of flight attendants with PMS.

In summary, the merger must be "fair and equitable" and the Chautauqua/SA , AA/Reno, AA/TWA, and other decisions prior to it are made moot by it. Fire up google, read the actual law, and stop acting like a bunch of nancys.

http://www.afaairtran.com/documents/mccaskill.pdf

What you don't get is that Reno/AMR was fair and equitable.

 

[ivauir]

To quote The Dude from, The Big Lebowski, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Really?

Your CEO's comments (removed by a moderator who HAPPENS to work at AAI) are the same as some random pilot's opinion? Wow.

You Lebowski quote is more appropriate after the pontifications of Ty ("My version of Fair and Equitable" is a 50% pay raise and a 20 year bump in DOH) Webb.

This thread was started with a factual example of an arbitrated decision. The squirming of some who interpreted AGM as a one way street to look after their interests alone is palpable.

Stick to facts and maybe this could be a constructive conversation. Keep posturing for arbitration (like what you say on FI matters!) and you are just pissing off your potential future coworkers.

 

[PapaWoody]

Here is a good primer on the McCaskill-Bond amendment, which pretty much makes all of your ridiculous arguments moot. It was written by the AFA for flight attendants, but it will serve you all well since all of your petty b1tching and sniping is acting like a bunch of flight attendants with PMS.

In summary, the merger must be "fair and equitable" and the Chautauqua/SA , AA/Reno, AA/TWA, and other decisions prior to it are made moot by it. Fire up google, read the actual law, and stop acting like a bunch of nancys.

http://www.afaairtran.com/documents/mccaskill.pdf

So are you saying all pre-Bond-McCaskill integrations are inherently not "fair and equitable", even the ones that were the result of an arbitrators decision under the guidelines of Allegheny-Mohawk like Chautaqua/SA and AA/Reno? Hmm, interesting tack. Maybe you should actually "fire up google, read the actual law..." and realize that no matter how you try to convince yourself it says something different, it specifically does not define "fair and equitable" as relative seniority. In fact, it intentionally refrains from defining "F&E" because each integration will have it's own individual situational components. Oh, and btw, I read your F/A primer and it in no way makes any of these arguments moot.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

PS As for the AA/TWA integration that caused a couple of liberal Senators from MO to run crying to mommy, let's all just imagine what would have been the fate of the ill-treated TWA pilots had AA not bought them before 9/11. That's right, TWA would have folded and they would have all been out of a job. Not bashing them - their but for the grace of God go we all - but just pointing out an unpleasant fact that McCaskill and Bond didn't want to acknowledge when they changed the rules of the game.

 

[Kharma Police]

Really?

Your CEO's comments (removed by a moderator who HAPPENS to work at AAI) are the same as some random pilot's opinion? Wow.

You Lebowski quote is more appropriate after the pontifications of Ty ("My version of Fair and Equitable" is a 50% pay raise and a 20 year bump in DOH) Webb.

This thread was started with a factual example of an arbitrated decision. The squirming of some who interpreted AGM as a one way street to look after their interests alone is palpable.

Stick to facts and maybe this could be a constructive conversation. Keep posturing for arbitration (like what you say on FI matters!) and you are just pissing off your potential future coworkers.

You don't seem to understand that you and I really don't have control over the inevitable outcome. Both Merger Committees will fight for their respective group and you and I will have one vote on whatever list our unions come up with. More than likely one side will vote it down and then it will go to arbitration.

This is just an exercise in mental masturbation, like convincing Liberals to love Limbaugh or Conservatives to love Olbermann neither side is going to change their basic point of view. However, feel free to cover the same ground over and over and over again. It is just getting laughable to most on both sides.

 

[PapaWoody]

You don't seem to understand that you and I really don't have control over the inevitable outcome. Both Merger Committees will fight for their respective group and you and I will have one vote on whatever list our unions come up with and after it is voted down it will go to arbitration.

This is just an exercise in mental masturbation, like convincing Liberals to love Limbaugh or Conservatives to love Olbermann neither side is going to change their basic point of view. However, feel free to cover the same ground over and over and over again. It is just getting laughable to most on both sides.

While I agree with you that a lot of this is just pissing in the wind, it does have merit, imo, because if we as SWA pilots don't rebut some of your AAI guys assertions about "the law says this and that", you might actually convince your group to take a hard line and vote a fair compromise down and take this to arbitration, based on ridiculous interpretations of the law such as "relative seniority". Which, imho, will not be a good way to start our collective future together, no matter how the integration turns out.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

PS For the record, I realize the rebutting of ridiculous assertions cuts both ways, and has merit to both groups with respect to managing expectations. So carry on.

 

[Kharma Police]

While I agree with you that a lot of this is just pissing in the wind, it does have merit, imo, because if we as SWA pilots don't rebut some of your AAI guys assertions about "the law says this and that", you might actually convince your group to take a hard line and vote a fair compromise down and take this to arbitration, based on ridiculous interpretations of the law such as "relative seniority". Which, imho, will not be a good way to start our collective future together, no matter how the integration turns out.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

Again, what you think is fair, equitable and reasonable might be completely different from our perspective and vice versa. You aren't going to change perceptions on an anonymous message board visited by a small fraction of our pilot groups. The only thing that will come out of this circle jerk is gossip and negative innuendo that will transfer to the crew rooms and cockpits which will ironically, impact the airline after the lists are combined not before.

 

[DonVerita]

First off, you have to use your original payscale that was used as a snapshot in Sept. I really like how you guys want to hold up the new one and say 'it isn't that much different now'.

But I'll do the public math anyway..

9yr AAI FO - 75/hr x 70 = 5250/month (original payscale)
9yr AAI FO - 97/hr x 70 = 6790/month (new payscale)

9yr SW FO - 124 trips for pay, mulitpied by a conservative rate of 1.15 (1.18 is closer to reality), equals 142.

142/hr x 70 = 9940/month that's a 90 percent increase off your original pay, or 46 percent increase off your new payrates. (which won't be used)

So instead of 50-80 percent, I should have use 46-90 percent. My bad.

I used your NEW payscale when making the comparison, so why wouldn't you use ours?

I also noticed that you only did an F/O comparison (and used the OLD payscale). Where are your CA comparisons? Yeah, that wouldn't help your case.

Knock off the "Windfall" crap. You are trying to make it sound like SWA pilots are better than everyone else. You're not. You are what you are because you have a logical, empathetic, and employee-friendly management team. Walk a day in our shoes or that of any other major airline here that deals with Lorenzo style management every day.

Look...I never applied to nor have ever had the desire to work for SWA. Paying for a type rating just to get a job just isn't my cup of tea. But I am very hopeful with this merger because I know that both companies on their own would have a difficult time going up against the combined behemoths of DAL/NWA and CAL/UAL. However...together, given the projection of where G.K. wants to take the newly combined airline, we could be the 3rd behemoth in the not too distant future. We can do it as a team and with unity. It starts by eliminating this Us vs. Them talk.

If there is any "windfall", I guess it would be the permanant riddance of AAI management. I wonder what company they will slither over to, infest and screwup? Probably Frito-Lay.

 

[27 driver]

While I agree with you that a lot of this is just pissing in the wind, it does have merit, imo, because if we as SWA pilots don't rebut some of your AAI guys assertions about "the law says this and that", you might actually convince your group to take a hard line and vote a fair compromise down and take this to arbitration, based on ridiculous interpretations of the law such as "relative seniority". Which, imho, will not be a good way to start our collective future together, no matter how the integration turns out.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

PappaWoody,

I wouldn't worry about us voting down a fair compromise. The problem is we just disagree on whats fair. I am sure most of the SWA guys are reasonable just as most AAI guys are. It would seem that from some of the SWA posters on here the only thing fair would be a staple. I don't see that as fair and don't think an arbitrator will either. Then you have the same with some of the AAI guys here. I think the weird thing about SLI is that one model would be good for the senior while screwing the junior and vice versa. If our unions put out a fair deal I am sure it will pass with big numbers. If not the arbitrator step in. All the mud slinging here although funny is pretty much useless.

:beer:

 

[Ty Webb]

I see a couple points to clear up.
Ty, we'll start with you(for the record, the chinese menu comment was very funny!).

1) You reference your airline's growth. Don't forget your furlough during one of your 'banner years'; that's something SWA has never done.

Lonestar-

Thanks for a sensible post. I am going to try to explain some of these things, but they are hard to explain to someone who hasn't had the pleasure of actually living out the brainstorms generated by the faulty thought processes of some of our Lorenzo-era "managers".

The "furlough" that we had was unnecessary. All of us on the Line saw it, knew it, and said as much. It actually cost them more than it saved- three months of newhire FO pay saved, versus paying more senior pilots time and a half to do the flying, paying unemployment and then re-training returnees . . . . dumb, dumb, dumb. This had more to do with Contract negotiations, but to explain the nuances of it would waste my Sunday and yours.

2) Speaking of banner years, look at the value of your new contract compared to those banner years. Your airline, on its own, can barely afford your new contract. Our SWAPA contract would put AAI in the red!

.

It is a complete misnomer that our new contract put ANY strain on our profitability, far from it. AAI had the lowest non-fuel CASM of any major, and the lowest Pilot CASM. I haven't run the numbers on SWA pay/scheduling rules for our block hours, but I have seen the numbers using the new Alaska rates. AirTran could have afforded far more than the pittance we got, and still paid out the "coin of the realm" to our self-anointed Best Management Team. :laugh:

3) You asked where SWA was 15 years ago. SWA and it's pilots were sharing amazing profits. While the wages were behind the industry, jthe profit sharing made more than a few millionaires. Nowhere in that history will you find a highly compensated mgmt dragging labor group through 5+ years of mediation!

Not what I was getting at. . . . . Look at where AAI is after only 15 years (70+ cities, international ops, second-largest operator at ATL, etc). Where would we be in year 40? What would have replaced the 717? Perhaps A330 or 787 aircraft going to South America and Europe? How about pay? I'm a 10th yr CA. The difference between my pay and SWA pay for is 30%, not the ridiculous 50-80% some of these serial-posters are claiming. I don't even waste the time responding to that nonsense. :laugh:

 

[Tanker Clown]

I have a question. If Air Tran pay is "good" now, can they just fence off ATL and let them keep their relative pay and relative seniority in ATL. After all, Ty here makes it sound like it isn't about the money.

 

[Ty Webb]

I have a question. If Air Tran pay is "good" now, can they just fence off ATL and let them keep their relative pay and relative seniority in ATL. After all, Ty here makes it sound like it isn't about the money.

Sorry, not negotiating in public, but anyone that knows me knows I don't give a rat's ass about another $50K a year, certainly not enough to give up my seat, easy commute, and ability to fly the trips I like and want. You can keep it.

 

[Cruncher]

Don,

SWA's new pay scale was contractual, it was already in ink (from the last CBA). All they had to wait for was the fiscal year to end and certain profit targets met. The only way SWA would have not gotten a raise, would have been if the accounts fudged some numbers to miss said target.

The AAI (TA4,5?) pay scale happened weeks after SWA announced their intention to buy AAI. I think we can all agree SWA buying AAI had a huge hand it this TA? Think Bob is not getting a nice severance check to make this thing pass?

If this goes to arbitration, the arbitrator is going to look at (among other things) career expectations on the early am on the 27th of September, not events that occur after.