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.