AirTran MEC Rejects SLI proposal
08-20-2011, 02:50 PM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 712
Yawn.
Been enlisted myself. Respect is earned. Not a SWA hater. Not a SWA lover either. You guys hung on the bar wwaaayyyyyy too long to be to big for your britches this soon. It's funny that all you guys have is veteran hating. Seniority lists have nothing to do with the military. I typed it as it was as relevant as picking on someone for a typo. Grow up SWA guys. This ain't the military any more.
I say again, YAWN.
Been enlisted myself. Respect is earned. Not a SWA hater. Not a SWA lover either. You guys hung on the bar wwaaayyyyyy too long to be to big for your britches this soon. It's funny that all you guys have is veteran hating. Seniority lists have nothing to do with the military. I typed it as it was as relevant as picking on someone for a typo. Grow up SWA guys. This ain't the military any more.
I say again, YAWN.
08-20-2011, 02:54 PM
#172
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
80kts not sure where you get your info on the retirements at SWA but I can tell you for a fact your 2028-2029 numbers are way off. I have no dawg in this fight but I do know about the swa senority list, don't know a damn thing about FL's list.
As far as GK privates we could just leave that up to you
cheers,
cargo
As far as GK privates we could just leave that up to you
cheers,
cargo
That doesn't jive with what was a WN guy posted on here on the retirements thread. Based on retirements alone, it is a LONG time to 50% on both of those lists.
The WN guys seem to be a just fine job on GK's privates... too good in that he isn't giving them anything in return in this process (at least in reality- it will go to arbitration and FL cannot be operated as a holding company all per the process agreement).
08-20-2011, 03:05 PM
#173
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
I keep seeing you guys refer to this as a merger well it is not a merger. SWA bought AT lock stock and barrel. SWA owns a subsidary called GHC ( from the room at the hotel where the first meetings were held). Air Tran had been put in that holding company, the 140 ac have already been signed over to SWA as a transfer of assets. Those 140 AC will be changed to SWA livery in early 2012. Wether there are FL pilots flying those birds at that time depends on what happens with the SLI.
AirTran has the federal law on their side here. Threats to replace the AirTran pilots are nothing but bluster and bluff.
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
HR 2764
HR 2764
S
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the
Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier;and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
(c) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the
Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier;and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
(c) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.—This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.
08-20-2011, 03:09 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
There was no offer of JCBA; only a pay raise. Nothing. Nada.
GHC is no more; I guess the merger is nearly complete!
Read the documents then get back to us. Maybe Oscar the Troll could chime in.
BTW, how long does one have to work at LUV before the superiority complex sets in? 2 weeks? 2 months? Maybe day 1!!!!
GHC is no more; I guess the merger is nearly complete!
Read the documents then get back to us. Maybe Oscar the Troll could chime in.
BTW, how long does one have to work at LUV before the superiority complex sets in? 2 weeks? 2 months? Maybe day 1!!!!
In the mean time let the SWA hate fest continue. The Oscar (alias the Troll)
08-20-2011, 03:18 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Is there anything in the law that requires the "new" SWA employees to get credit for their tenure at Air Tran? After the arbitrator establishes a list based on whatever criteria he deems appropriate (RS/DOH/ratio/etc.) is SWA the legally prohibited from having the ex-AirTran/new SWA employees start on first year pay (FO or Capt--I understand there is a pay rate published for a 1st year SWA captain...), probation, 1st year vacation, etc?
I thought it was interesting that longevity credit was specifically included in the now defunct agreement, which leads me to believe that, maybe, the AirTran folks might now be looking at 1st year employment rules/pay/vacation/etc when they transition to SWA.
I thought it was interesting that longevity credit was specifically included in the now defunct agreement, which leads me to believe that, maybe, the AirTran folks might now be looking at 1st year employment rules/pay/vacation/etc when they transition to SWA.
08-20-2011, 04:55 PM
#176
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: B737 Capt
Posts: 15
Clipper jet is correct. The list when arbitrated and IF implemented will be the list. Many of the financial incentives offered to Airtran in the defunct AIP are no longer on the table. Pay, benefits, timing of transition to SWA pay and many other items will be decided between SWA and SWAPA. Airtran guys could get first year pay, probation, first year vacation, blah, blah blah. Time will tell. Good luck to all. Hopefully there will be minimum drama and no economic harm for anyone.
08-20-2011, 05:16 PM
#177
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Is there anything in the law that requires the "new" SWA employees to get credit for their tenure at Air Tran? After the arbitrator establishes a list based on whatever criteria he deems appropriate (RS/DOH/ratio/etc.) is SWA the legally prohibited from having the ex-AirTran/new SWA employees start on first year pay (FO or Capt--I understand there is a pay rate published for a 1st year SWA captain...), probation, 1st year vacation, etc?
I thought it was interesting that longevity credit was specifically included in the now defunct agreement, which leads me to believe that, maybe, the AirTran folks might now be looking at 1st year employment rules/pay/vacation/etc when they transition to SWA.
I thought it was interesting that longevity credit was specifically included in the now defunct agreement, which leads me to believe that, maybe, the AirTran folks might now be looking at 1st year employment rules/pay/vacation/etc when they transition to SWA.
Clipper jet is correct. The list when arbitrated and IF implemented will be the list. Many of the financial incentives offered to Airtran in the defunct AIP are no longer on the table. Pay, benefits, timing of transition to SWA pay and many other items will be decided between SWA and SWAPA. Airtran guys could get first year pay, probation, first year vacation, blah, blah blah. Time will tell. Good luck to all. Hopefully there will be minimum drama and no economic harm for anyone.
Seems punitive.
08-20-2011, 05:43 PM
#178
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: B737 Capt
Posts: 15
For the Company at least it will be about the money. SWA was apparently willing to put big money on the table above the existing Airtran CBA in exchange for a negotiated agreement and rapid synergy. IOW pay Airtran pilots SWA rates in April, keep longevity, etc. ----those were huge $$ bets by the Company. With that scenario off the table and arbitration coming, they will look to recover the lost ROI. So not punitive, just business. No one liked the AIP, but the follow on scenarios may be worse for all hands.
08-20-2011, 05:51 PM
#179
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
For the Company at least it will be about the money. SWA was apparently willing to put big money on the table above the existing Airtran CBA in exchange for a negotiated agreement and rapid synergy. IOW pay Airtran pilots SWA rates in April, keep longevity, etc. ----those were huge $$ bets by the Company. With that scenario off the table and arbitration coming, they will look to recover the lost ROI. So not punitive, just business. No one liked the AIP, but the follow on scenarios may be worse for all hands.
I'm still wondering why you WN types aren't going for a mid contract JCBA for pay increases and work rules improvement instead of bickering over bringing the lesser FL types up to parity.
08-20-2011, 06:16 PM
#180
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: B737 Capt
Posts: 15
Who is bickering? You are the small-minded double breasted van admiral who referred to the FL group as lesser. That is offensive to all of us. I am saying that SWA is tough to negotiate with anytime, and while I certainly expect FL pilots to eventually get SWA pay, I also expect the Company will not give it up easily given that the failed AiP makes it more expensive and time consuming to integrate the two companies. SWAPA does not presently represent the FL pilots, when they do, SWAPA will represent them just as they do those already here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Breton
Hangar Talk
0
06-24-2005 02:57 PM
