AIP2 approved by SWAPA BOD and ATN MEC
09-25-2011, 11:24 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,353
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm on the sidelines, so my opinion has zero weight, let's get that part out of the way.
Is there or is there not a process agreement?
Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
Where is ALPA?
Is it every man for himself?
I dont understand your confusion.
I'm on the sidelines, so my opinion has zero weight, let's get that part out of the way.
Is there or is there not a process agreement?
Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
Where is ALPA?
Is it every man for himself?
I dont understand your confusion.
Anyways, my point is this:
ATN ALPA voted down the first integration method without showing the pilots. People complained.
ATN ALPA voted to send it to the pilots. People complain...
"What'll ya have?" - Varsity server guy
09-25-2011, 12:10 PM
#52
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I thought "AIP" = Agreement in Principle, and there was a "Process Agreement" which was the method ATN-ALPA/SWAPA/SWA would go through the process. Are they really to the 9th and 10th "Seniority Lists"? SL9/10?
Anyways, my point is this:
ATN ALPA voted down the first integration method without showing the pilots. People complained.
ATN ALPA voted to send it to the pilots. People complain...
"What'll ya have?" - Varsity server guy
Anyways, my point is this:
ATN ALPA voted down the first integration method without showing the pilots. People complained.
ATN ALPA voted to send it to the pilots. People complain...
"What'll ya have?" - Varsity server guy
09-25-2011, 04:17 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 754
I thought "AIP" = Agreement in Principle, and there was a "Process Agreement" which was the method ATN-ALPA/SWAPA/SWA would go through the process. Are they really to the 9th and 10th "Seniority Lists"? SL9/10?
Anyways, my point is this:
ATN ALPA voted down the first integration method without showing the pilots. People complained.
ATN ALPA voted to send it to the pilots. People complain...
"What'll ya have?" - Varsity server guy
Anyways, my point is this:
ATN ALPA voted down the first integration method without showing the pilots. People complained.
ATN ALPA voted to send it to the pilots. People complain...
"What'll ya have?" - Varsity server guy
That's cause there have been 8 previous 'Side Letters' to the SWAPA CBA.
09-25-2011, 09:09 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
Exactly my point! Not trying to Hijack the thread, but if SWA management can dictate the terms of the SLI, then what is the point of having ALPA? Everyone says how a CBA with ALPA protects the pilot group during a merger/acquisition, but the particular case clearly demonstrates how worthless ALPA is. I am not taking an opinion on the SWA/AirTran specifics, but it seems to me arbitration would benefit the AirTran pilot group, which quite clearly SWA management will not allow. So again, what does ALPA do for a pilot group again for their dues??
09-26-2011, 09:20 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 224
I have said this all along, ALPA will do just enough to not get sued. ALPA knows they will lose this pilot groups dues revenue. Did you ever think ALPA was going to spend serious cash to protect this group when they know every dime they spend will never be seen again. If you really want to be a conspiracy theorist, the most recent deal will bring ALPA the most revenue possible because it keeps AT dues on the ALPA books for more than three years.
I agree with the first element of your post. You may be incorrect with regard to APLA keeping AirTran pilots "on the books" for three years.
SWAPA can petition to become the bargaining agent for AirTran pilots shortly after a 'Yay' vote . That may give them an opportunity to void certain parts of this agreement. Such as 717 snap back to 737 rates and the time-line for a complete integration of 717 pilots.
The bag fees make a lot of money and can be retained if AirTran 717's are flying the bags. SWA might enjoy that extra revenue. I don't see SWAPA caring about how quickly AirTran 717 pilots are paid 737 rates.
We'll see I guess.
09-26-2011, 10:20 AM
#56
veut gagner ΰ la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I have said this all along, ALPA will do just enough to not get sued. ALPA knows they will lose this pilot groups dues revenue. Did you ever think ALPA was going to spend serious cash to protect this group when they know every dime they spend will never be seen again. If you really want to be a conspiracy theorist, the most recent deal will bring ALPA the most revenue possible because it keeps AT dues on the ALPA books for more than three years.
I agree with the first element of your post. You may be incorrect with regard to APLA keeping AirTran pilots "on the books" for three years.
SWAPA can petition to become the bargaining agent for AirTran pilots shortly after a 'Yay' vote . That may give them an opportunity to void certain parts of this agreement. Such as 717 snap back to 737 rates and the time-line for a complete integration of 717 pilots.
The bag fees make a lot of money and can be retained if AirTran 717's are flying the bags. SWA might enjoy that extra revenue. I don't see SWAPA caring about how quickly AirTran 717 pilots are paid 737 rates.
We'll see I guess.
SWAPA can petition to become the bargaining agent for AirTran pilots shortly after a 'Yay' vote . That may give them an opportunity to void certain parts of this agreement. Such as 717 snap back to 737 rates and the time-line for a complete integration of 717 pilots.
The bag fees make a lot of money and can be retained if AirTran 717's are flying the bags. SWA might enjoy that extra revenue. I don't see SWAPA caring about how quickly AirTran 717 pilots are paid 737 rates.
We'll see I guess.
-------
Why not get a joint contract first then arbitrate the SL?
09-26-2011, 10:32 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 224
"Hope" ? Perhaps you misunderstood me. Why would I hope that SWAPA voids parts of our contract that protect AirTran 717 pilots, and brings them to pay parity with there peers on the 737.
Hinted at it ? The only two groups that are required to adjust the intergration time-line are SWAPA and SWA.
There is no joint contract. There is only the SWAPA CBA and the soon to be amended AirTran CBA. When all AirTran pilots are integrated they will be on the SWAPA CBA.
'Cloudsurfer' answered the question on the other thread.
09-27-2011, 08:18 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
SWA's CASM continues to rise, & their PRASM continues to drop. The technique of flying to smaller airports and picking off traffic from major airports is no longer as successful as it once was. This is why SWA has started to enter places like LGA, LAX, BOS, ATL, etc. Now that SWA has reached a point of domestic saturation, the merger with AT is the fastest way(& maybe the only way in some areas) to grow. Instant access to more gates at LGA. Instant access to DCA, ATL & Mexico/Caribbean.
Fact is other airline merging results in their costs dropping. That will make them more competitive, & combined with capacity discipline it will allow ticket prices to remain up. Since SWA's CASM is rising & they aren't charging for bags they may start to fall behind a little. I have no doubt that SWA can survive on it's own, but NWA, DAL, UAL, & CAL would have too. My point is that while SWA doesn't need the merger to survive, not merging will hurt.
Fact is other airline merging results in their costs dropping. That will make them more competitive, & combined with capacity discipline it will allow ticket prices to remain up. Since SWA's CASM is rising & they aren't charging for bags they may start to fall behind a little. I have no doubt that SWA can survive on it's own, but NWA, DAL, UAL, & CAL would have too. My point is that while SWA doesn't need the merger to survive, not merging will hurt.
09-27-2011, 10:10 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm on the sidelines, so my opinion has zero weight, let's get that part out of the way.
Is there or is there not a process agreement?
Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
Where is ALPA?
Is it every man for himself?
I dont understand your confusion.
I'm on the sidelines, so my opinion has zero weight, let's get that part out of the way.
Is there or is there not a process agreement?
Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
Where is ALPA?
Is it every man for himself?
I dont understand your confusion.
A. Yes, and it has been followed. The agreement allowed for a negotiated settlement. The timeline stated September 30th before any arbitration proceedings.
Q.Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
A. I don't have their contract, but from what I understand the only language that had any teeth was added during section 6 negotiations which amended the original document in place before the date of constructive notice. I think the legal argument might be how enforceable is added section one language after the date of constructive notice. They could have added a clause that said Southwest Airlines must pay AirTran pilots $500 an hour, but I doubt that would be enforceable.
Q. Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
A. Yes, so far the agreement has been complied with. We are still in the time frame of negotiations for an agreement outside of arbitration.
Q. Where is ALPA?
A. Trying to figure out how they can replace the lost AirTran dues revenue.
Q. Is it every man for himself?
A. No, but it is most definitely every union and every management team for themselves.
09-27-2011, 02:43 PM
#60
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Q. Is there or is there not a process agreement?
A. Yes, and it has been followed. The agreement allowed for a negotiated settlement. The timeline stated September 30th before any arbitration proceedings.
Q. Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
A. Yes, so far the agreement has been complied with. We are still in the time frame of negotiations for an agreement outside of arbitration.
A. Yes, and it has been followed. The agreement allowed for a negotiated settlement. The timeline stated September 30th before any arbitration proceedings.
Q. Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
A. Yes, so far the agreement has been complied with. We are still in the time frame of negotiations for an agreement outside of arbitration.
IOW, you say that there is a process agreement that does include arbitration, agreed by you and the company, and then say that if it comes to it, the company will not follow their agreement and instead terminate everyone.
This is what is confusing to me. Is SWA and SWAPA going to follow the agreement to go to arbitration if it gets voted down and accept the results, or are they going to get medieval on the AAI pilots?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
