AirTran MEC Rejects SLI proposal
08-22-2011, 08:24 AM
#251
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
John, there's a lot more than one former AT guy who quit to come to SWA.
08-22-2011, 08:41 AM
#252
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If AT pilots come in at DOH or relative, in 10 years the top of the seniority list is dominated by AT pilots.
Some of the seniority boosts at SWA were overstated in the AIP. In no case did anyone have a real increase in seniority of over 9%. I know some of the stuff sent out said 12% when you checked the math, it included SWA new hires who would have increased our seniority regardless.
Additionally you couldn't "use" that seniority since all AT Capts (including those upgraded AFTER the announcement) were protected. In my case there were AT capts who would have been junior to me.
Add in equipment locks for the 717 and a 10 year fence for ATL and that seniority means even less.
In 10 years, when the fences came down, half of the seniority increases would have been eroded by the age differences between groups.
I know it's considered unprofessional to bring up the pay scales, but at some point, money has value. How much money vs how much seniority? On average the SWA contract would bring 2million more than the AT contract. Who knows what the future holds and what could happen tomorrow, but at some point, money has value.
It's also not necessarily true that AT will get the SWA pay rates regardless. That was the company's money that promised 737 rates for 717's. That offer is now officially terminated by the company (as of yesterday). Now it seems probable that the company will offer less pay and require an equipment lock for the 717. Just commenting on what I see SWA doing.
Some of the seniority boosts at SWA were overstated in the AIP. In no case did anyone have a real increase in seniority of over 9%. I know some of the stuff sent out said 12% when you checked the math, it included SWA new hires who would have increased our seniority regardless.
Additionally you couldn't "use" that seniority since all AT Capts (including those upgraded AFTER the announcement) were protected. In my case there were AT capts who would have been junior to me.
Add in equipment locks for the 717 and a 10 year fence for ATL and that seniority means even less.
In 10 years, when the fences came down, half of the seniority increases would have been eroded by the age differences between groups.
I know it's considered unprofessional to bring up the pay scales, but at some point, money has value. How much money vs how much seniority? On average the SWA contract would bring 2million more than the AT contract. Who knows what the future holds and what could happen tomorrow, but at some point, money has value.
It's also not necessarily true that AT will get the SWA pay rates regardless. That was the company's money that promised 737 rates for 717's. That offer is now officially terminated by the company (as of yesterday). Now it seems probable that the company will offer less pay and require an equipment lock for the 717. Just commenting on what I see SWA doing.
Here's the thing I think is tricky:
Would you have upgraded sooner at FL and made the same pay as you would have as a SWA FO? Say 10 years at SWA and 5 at FL (for example), for years 5 to 10 the FL FO would've made the same as the SWA pilot, just with greater responsibilities.
I ask because the crux, at least on line, revolves around FO expectations on both sides. Nobody seems as concerned about Captain pay disparity. Now if SWA has a fast moving % at some point, faster than say FL, the question is when and how should that be equaled out? Expected movement was an argument in the DAL/NWA SLI as many senior DAL pilots bailed for an early out retirement lump sum leaving DAL pilots without a pension but at least more senior. A subsequent SLI with DOH would've pushed the senior DAL pilots back down and thus they argued for a resolution in ratio's instead of DOH. Then you had to put together differing fleet types as one had a multitude of 767 jobs and one had really big heavies in the 744/330. Another words, arbitration. Geeish, sorry. But really it seems to be the opposite with SWA/FL where the concentration is not on the top but middle and bottom.
As to the 717, if it's a % of the 73N it will still be considerably higher than where it is now. Unless SWAPA low ball the 717 into a very low pay scale but that could backfire later.
Another words, if a AT 737 pilot was going to get a $65K raise (someone mentioned that) but a AT 717 instead is limited to 80% of that, or $52,000, that's still a $52,000 pay raise. I think they'll go for that and not be concerned about pay parity having been lost in this voted down offer. If I was SWAPA or SWA, I'd need to find another incentive. I think a watered down version of what was offered may have gone to the group for a vote, imho. Or maybe even a DOH - but SWA pilots need a $$$ incentive for that and I think SWA/SWAPA should step up to the plate to offer it. If one group gets a $50-$60K raise then the other will get a one time bump as well and get rid of the staples.
But that's my guessing. And even if I was a AT pilot, I'd still be guessing on behalf of the group. So I guess that's how I see it.
08-22-2011, 08:44 AM
#254
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
I am in no way trying to flame here, I just want to understand the reasoning. So if all the AT folks were screaming say no to this deal, what was the harm in letting the group as a whole vote it down. It seems to me it would have shown solidarity and a common sense of purpose. A vote that came out 1450 against and 250 (roughly the same percentages as the MEC vote) for the proposal speaks much louder than 7-1. I may be misinterpreting this but it sounds as if the MEC did not trust the membership to make this decision. I felt that on both sides there were no strings attached to the vote. If either one or both sides voted no, the deal was off the table and the arbitration begins. What was the harm in sending it to a vote?
Its simple. No MEC should ever bring a deal to the pilots they can't support.
It would have been voted down by a huge margin regardless.
08-22-2011, 08:57 AM
#255
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 5
IMHO, I think the MEC "no" vote was a tactical mistake. The NC's both accepted it creating an AIP. SWAPA BoD voted unanimously "yes" to send it to the membership. This proposal was created by SWA and GK, the MEC basically just slapped the olive branch out of SWA's hand. Personally, I believe the MEC should have voted "yes" and sent it to their membership because I'm pretty confident both pilot groups would have voted it down. All the MEC has done is made SWAPA look good in the eyes of GK. GK, the most successful bean counter in the history of the airline industry who runs the most heavily unionized and profitable airline in the world. An individual who now sees that without SLI will be costing SWA $250 mil/quarter and who has also said that if he doesn't like the results of Federal arbitration, that he will not abide by it. His largest group of collective stock holders are.......drum roll.......Southwest pilots. Guadalupe holdings could liquidate AT assets. Of course, that is the worse case doomsday scenario and I doubt it will go that far. That just isn't the SWA way BUT they do not like losing money so this will be interesting. I'm just saying, regardless of what was in the proposal, I think the MEC should have looked not at the proposal but the tactical situation and the ramifications of turning down a SWA CEO authored proposal.
----Southwest just announced service to ATL starting in February.-------
----Southwest just announced service to ATL starting in February.-------
08-22-2011, 09:08 AM
#257
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: B737, Capt.
Posts: 384
08-22-2011, 09:17 AM
#258
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
When I used to be ALPA, I had several opportunities to vote on propositions that were sent to the membership with a vote no recommendation from the MEC. That is the point, why make the decision yourself and take the line pilot out of the equation. I am just trying to understand the reasoning. It just seems that a resounding no vote by the entire group would have sent a much louder message.
08-22-2011, 09:31 AM
#259
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: The Gup...
Posts: 68
GK, the most successful bean counter in the history of the airline industry who runs the most heavily unionized and profitable airline in the world. An individual who now sees that without SLI will be costing SWA $250 mil/quarter and who has also said that if he doesn't like the results of Federal arbitration, that he will not abide by it. His largest group of collective stock holders are.......drum roll.......Southwest pilots. Guadalupe holdings could liquidate AT assets. Of course, that is the worse case doomsday scenario and I doubt it will go that far.
08-22-2011, 09:34 AM
#260
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: B737, Capt.
Posts: 384
Top Holders
Shares Held % O/S Share Change Filing Date
Capital Research Global Investors 90,082,300 11.2 2,540,000 06/30/11
PRIMECAP Management Company 80,190,135 10.0 782,200 06/30/11
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. 48,498,635 6.0 7,090,988 06/30/11
Vanguard Group, Inc. 29,897,776 3.7 1,702,501 06/30/11
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. 27,569,902 3.4 1,781,171 06/30/11
State Street Global Advisors (US) 26,512,064 3.3 1,135,009 06/30/11
Manning & Napier Advisors, Inc. 26,046,106 3.2 1,277,958 06/30/11
Fidelity Management & Research Company 17,714,864 2.2 636,254 06/30/11
UBS Global Asset Management (Americas), Inc.14,005,524 1.7 2,822,299 06/30/11
Sound Shore Management, Inc. 13,993,670 1.7 -557,884 06/30/11
Guadalupe holdings ceased to exist on May 2nd. They merged with Texas company LLC SUB, who now owns FL.
• The merging companies are AirTran and Guadalupe Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines. Guadalupe will be merged into AirTran, which will then become a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines.
• After the merger closes, AirTran will be merged into a new limited liability company set up as a Texas company, LLC Sub, which will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest.
If you are going to start flaming on your first post, at least get your facts straight. Or better yet, perhaps take the high road. Oh, and welcome to APC.
Last edited by SWAcapt; 08-22-2011 at 09:44 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Breton
Hangar Talk
0
06-24-2005 02:57 PM
