tsquare

Your avatar says that you are a furloughed UAL pilot. Would YOU sign on as the most junior FO to be stapled as in the original SLI proposal? Honestly?

newKnow

Andy,

What are the ways around merging the seniority lists when all the parties have agreed to binding arbitration?

Before you answer, maybe I can explain why I don't think it will go that way.

First, if all parties have agreed to eventually integrate the lists by arbitration, they can throw and arbitrator in a room who will eventually put a list together. He or she can listen to whoever wants to argue for the list to come together one way or the other, and whoever shows up will be heard, right?

Second, if a combined seniority list is produced by an agreed to arbitration process, what happens when an attempt is made to dismantle one of the separate operations and furlough a lot of pilots off one side -- effectively out of seniority?

Probably a suit against SWA and SWAPA -- injunctive relief against SWA, and depending on how their constitution is written in regards to membership, a hefty DFR suit against SWAPA. If it went down like that, I'm sure there would also be an assertion that SWA was trying to get around Bond/Mc Caskill as well.

How would a federal judge rule? Of course, this is the wild card. An assertion that Mc Caskill/Bond has been violated has never occurred, as far as I know. But, I will say that federal judges aren't really pre-disposed to go against the wishes of Congress. My guess is that it would probably wind up in a long legal battle. Just what the parties want (not really).

Finally, in my opinion, Garry Kelly knows all of this and is leaning on the AT pilots as had as he can, so as to get a negotiated settlement. Otherwise. when it gets to arbitration, it's all over. He will have to abide by the decision or face a long legal battle. Southwest didn't but Air Tran to dismantle it anyway.

I estimate that the chances of combining AT and SWA operations are pretty high.

sailingfun

Andy, You may want to reread the transition agreement and Airtrans section 1. Keep in mind they have very competent legal help going over those sections with a fine tooth comb before they voted.

RCD73

AirTran does not have a Transition agreement. SWA and SWAPA have one.

AirTran has a Process Agreement. There are four signatories; two unions and two companies.

Why would anybody listen to you if you don't understand the mechanics of the situation ?

Andy

Not to be a spelling nazi, but how many times have you been corrected on the spelling of icahn's name? (Intentionally not capitalized). I have held my tongue on this until you addressed me directly.

Thanks for the comparison. Now, tell me, what negative impact did icahn and lorenzo have on Delta pilots? United pilots? American pilots?

I think it's also been pointed by others that icahn is not a valid comparison. There are more similarities to lorenzo, except that the pilots are being offered pay raises.

Seriously though - icahn? Do you know nothing about the pillaging of the company coffers he did at TWA? Have you never read the Caribou Agreement? Even after getting rid of him, icahn was skimming money off of every TWA ticket sold. If Dante were alive today, he would add a tenth level of Hell reserved exclusively for icahn.

Maybe you haven't heard. UAL/CAL merger occurred a while back. We're still waiting for a SLI. Although there were CAL pilots on furlough at merger announcement date, hired much later than me, I do not expect a single CAL pilot to be on the SLI below me.

As far as your use of the word, 'staple'. It's incorrect. To 'staple' a seniority list is to put an entire list below the other list. Like it or not, someone goes to the bottom of a SLI. I suppose the junior man on the NWA/DAL list was also 'stapled'????

But by YOUR definition of 'staple', I expect to be 'stapled' to the bottom of the CAL/UAL seniority list. So yes, I will sign on as (close to) the most junior FO.

Do you have a copy of this agreement? I've tried to get a copy. I've even called Southwest investor relations. No luck. PM me; I'll give you an e-mail address that you can send it to. I'd like to read the agreement.

Again, you're assuming that there are no loopholes in the agreement. I read SL8. It's brutally one sided and screws over AirTran pilots. It does not guarantee SLI. SWAPALuv

OK, I can see you're expecting arbitration to happen. I would expect someone like The Vampire Squid (Goldman Sachs) to buy all assets prior to any arbitration occurring. The Vampire Squid doesn't do this stuff on the cheap so there's a little bit of leverage for AirTran pilots. But it's not much.

High percentage is still less than 100%. But you're not going to get hurt if things go wrong so I can see your point of view. No need to discuss the downsides to AirTran pilots.

I'd love to read them for the FIRST time. My opinion may change quite a bit after reading them. PM me and I'll send an e-mail address where you can send them.
If your competent legal help is ALPO and Dan Katz going against Freund, I'd be concerned if I were you. But that's just my assessment based on past performance.

shoelu

I can agree that "...the chances of combining AT and SWA operations are pretty high..." But the reasons are financial, not because the airline is compelled to do so by M/B-A/M or the process agreement. No legal entity can force SWA to combine the operations. AT is a wholly owned subsidiary and SWA can and will operate them the way they see fit.

The process agreement lays out the steps to be taken toward an ISL. First, direct negotiations between the two unions, then mediated sessions and then an arbitrated list if it goes that far. There is no language that compels SWA to implement an arbitrated list. M/B only applies IF the groups are integrated. The process agreement only lays out the path to an arbitrated list, but has absolutely no teeth to compel that list to be enforceable UNTIL SWA decides to combine the operations.

These are the legal realities of the situation. If you want to argue that SWA will not fully realize the financial benefits of this acquisition unless the operations are merged, that might be a discussion worth having. But to argue there is no legal option for SWA to choose not to integrate the two is simply not accurate.

In the end SWAPA or ALPA will not play a part in the decision SWA makes as to it's options concerning IF AND WHEN they combine the operations. If you seriously believe that SWA does not understand what its options are in all scenarios concerning this matter, then you truly understand absolutely nothing about how Southwest conducts itself as a business entity.

newKnow

I have not seen a copy of the agreement. I can only go by what I was told --that if by a certain date (Sept. 30th) an agreement wasn't reached it would go to binding arbitration. I've asked around for a copy as well.

I've always expected arbitration. Mainly, because no one wants to put their name on a seniority agreement so as to be chastised and harassed for the rest of their career.

Personally, I think there has been plenty of discussion of the possible downside for Air Tran pilots. In fact, it seems to be to the point where the only things that are being considered as options for them are two different downsides. Downside #1. - Accept a horrible seniority integration, or Downside #2 - Lose you job.

Part of the discussion should be focused on other options for the Air Tran pilots. Take note that just because one doesn't have skin in the game doesn't mean one can't give good advice.

gloopy

So SW is in the position to avoid integrating the pilot groups, yet if DL ends up with 717's they will be forced to furlough 1000 DL pilots because ALPA policy requires an immediate home for 1000 AT pilots, even if aircraft are a 1 for 1 swap and even if they go through a third party first? And while SW can get around the entire merger if they want to with third parties and holding company tricks, DL is iron clad bound to take 1000 AT pilots no matter what if DL ends up with their 717's over a several year period? Right.

shoelu

Absolutely not in my opinion, but that is a completely different matter now isn't it. I would assume that Delta would in no way be responsible for AT pilots if a deal is in fact in the works for SWA to divest the 717's.

I will say this, SL9 or the LOA or the AIP, whatever you want to call it, definitely had furlough protection written into it. All furloughs would have been on a one for one basis from SWA and AT. Now that that deal is off the table we revert back to SL8 which is now a portion of our CBA and includes robust protections for SWA pilots. It states:

Section 6: Transition Job Security Protections
6-A. Furlough.
(i) In accordance with Section 1.C.1. of the SWAPA CBA, no pilot on the SWAPA Master Seniority list will be
furloughed prior to Complete Operational Merger.
(ii) Unless prohibitive conditions beyond the control of Southwest occur, to include extreme economic conditions, no Southwest Pilot will be placed on furlough during the first year following Complete Operational Merger.

newKnow

I think your response to me is based on something I did not say.

I do not believe that SWA will be legally compelled to combine its operations with Air Tran.

I do believe that if an arbitrated list is produced and SWA subsequentally decides to furlough pilots from either side, out of seniority from that list, there will be:

1.) Lawsuits against SWA and SWAPA
2.) A legal attempt to keep SWA from furloughing, &
3.) A legal play for the court to evaluate if Mc Caskill/Bond has been violated.

None of which SWA wants, so they will abide by the arbitrators decision......