So let me get this straight. It's not about fair and equitable, it's about the fact you don't like SWA and so you want to see SWA pilot get hosed and the AT pilots get what you think is coming to them. Is that right? How is it fair and equitable for their junior Captains who were hired in 2005 and who are 5 to 6 years junior to guys like me to come in and get the seat, and triple their pay, triple their retirement. What's fair about that? If what you think about the pay for SWA guys is true, then a AT Captain coming in and going to the right seat is still getting a large pay raise should not mind seating in the right seat for as long as I have. You must have been turned down by SWA. LOL!!
AirTran/SWA Seniority Integration Deal
- Thread starter SlumTodd_Millionaire
- Start date
So let me get this straight. It's not about fair and equitable, it's about the fact you don't like SWA and so you want to see SWA pilot get hosed and the AT pilots get what you think is coming to them. Is that right? How is it fair and equitable for their junior Captains who were hired in 2005 and who are 5 to 6 years junior to guys like me to come in and get the seat, and triple their pay, triple their retirement. What's fair about that? If what you think about the pay for SWA guys is true, then a AT Captain coming in and going to the right seat is still getting a large pay raise should not mind seating in the right seat for as long as I have. You must have been turned down by SWA. LOL!!
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Are you ok?
First of all - in any fair integration - no one should LOSE a seat, or unfairly gain/lose access to a seat (upgrade times increase or decrease exponentially)...
Second of all, while the contract, in an arbitration, will be a consideration, it will not be the end all be all of who ends up where on the list.
Lastly, why is it fair to ding the career expectation of your coworkers (CA 737), because the rate of pay is different?
Who says? There have been many abritrations over the years of mergers where Capt lost their seats. Also, their not my co workers yet. Also ALPA may find that Mr. Kelly and does not bluff. He usually means what he says. It's been indicated to us from management that if this does goes to abritration and that Mr. Kelly/Herb thinks it will adversely effect the moral, then arbitration only determines the list and not the pay. So AT guys may find themselves at the same pay rate at AT and their same benefits or worse yet, being run as seperate company and told to go buy a type a rating and come and interview.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
In any *fair* integration... so, if you want to usurp the seats owed to the pilots who bring the planes with them to this *merger*, just say so...
It would really just be easier for you guys to try to take the assets, so why not do that, the fireworks could be interesting...
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
If you send me your email address, I'll be happy to send you copies of our old and current contract.
That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. To a company and its management team, scope is the most valuable thing, even though it doesn't have a strict dollar value assigned to it. Why? Because to a business, flexibility is money. It may not matter today, but a year from now, or five years from now, that flexibility could be exactly what the company needs to stay in the black, or even to avoid bankruptcy. Therefore, giving up that flexibility is seen by company managements (and their boards of directors) as having an immense cost. This is why scope negotiations are so difficult, because what is most valuable to managements is also what is most valuable to labor.
Why is a successorship clause a flexibility issue? The SWA/ATN merger is the perfect example. As part of the merger agreement between Southwest and AirTran (the companies, not the unions), Southwest management had to agree to be bound by the labor contracts that AirTran had with its labor groups. In this situation, that's not really a problem, but imagine a situation where an airline was in financial trouble. Let's say an airline is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, and it's become clear that the company can no longer survive as a stand-alone entity. So, the company goes out to find buyers. The company is able to find interested parties, but all of those companies aren't willing to assume the obligations of the labor contracts as part of the purchase. The company's management is now in a bind. They need scope relief, or they'll have a liquidated company. They may not have time to negotiate the changes to the labor contracts before running out of operating cash, or the unions may refuse to bargain the concessions, and the company would have to go through the courts to get an 1113(c) ruling to void the contract. All of that takes time, and sometimes management doesn't have time.
That's why companies fight tooth and nail before giving up any scope to unions. Scope concessions on the part of the company represent flexibility concessions to them. They know that they are reducing their options at some point down the road, and they don't like it. On the other hand, we need those scope protections, because just as scope represents a lack of flexibility to the company, it represents security and bargaining strength to us.
In bargaining, sometimes the things that don't have a direct cost written next to them are seen as the most expensive items on the term sheet to your bargaining opponent.
Even your terminology isn't correct. Pilots never "scope out" flying. Pilots scope "in" flying, and what isn't "scoped in" in the contract is flexibility for management. No pilot group has ever negotiated to not fly certain types of aircraft, or certain numbers of aircraft. They have only agreed to give management the flexibility to do certain things if management so chooses. The Delta contract doesn't state that Delta pilots won't fly 50-seat CRJs, it just says that management can outsource that flying.
In our new contract, in exchange for an incredible number of scope protections that were far more important (especially in light of the merger), we agreed to give management the flexibility to outsource a tiny number of large RJs. Now, has management actually done that? Absolutely not. And we didn't think that they would, either, which is part of the analysis that went into the decision of whether to accept that in bargaining. But management wanted that flexibility "just in case we ever need it." It was important flexibility for them, and in exchange, they were willing to trade away some of their flexibility in other areas that were more important to us. That's called smart bargaining. What you propose isn't bargaining, it's demands, and it doesn't get you anywhere. If we had taken the strategy that you advocate, refusing to even consider any seat limit increases, in spite of the other improvements, then we would be sitting here today with no merger protections, no holding company scope, no limitations on asset transfers, etc. In short, we would be completely screwed. Sorry, but your strategy represents a lack of experience and a lack of critical thinking.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
This THREAD lacks experience and critical thinking. It's amazing to see what folks think about this stuff on both sides of this issue, and just how wrong it is. Like not kind of wrong, but extra wrong, with a side of wrong sauce. Management must read this stuff and think that they're shooting fish in a barrel.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm not going to argue the seniority integration with you here, but what you state above is simply not factually accurate.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
A line written by the most experienced critical thinker of the thread. lol
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Ok in your case, the bargaining chip worked. But - do you support outsourcing "flexibility" of any kind at companies like United/Continental, Delta, American, or US Airways?
I really hope the answer to that is no.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Of course, it depends on what that flexibility is, and what the pilots achieve in exchange for it. You seem to think of scope as nothing more than RJ outsourcing, and in reality, that is usually only a few short paragraphs in a 30-page section of a contract. Pilots have agreed to many different kinds of flexibility in scope language that have been ultimately beneficial to both the company and the pilots. For example, Delta has an incredibly lucrative code-share arrangement with Alaska Airlines. We all know that there isn't a chance in hell that Delta would have started flying 737s with gravel runway conversion packages to tiny airports in Alaska, so the only way for Delta (and its pilots) to get the benefits of any revenue from that flying would be a code share with the only airline doing that flying. That is flexibility and it's a scope concession. It's also something that has brought Delta tons of revenue, and that's beneficial to the pilots. Would you argue against that sort of scope concession? I say again, scope is a lot more than just RJ outsourcing restrictions.
I might be able to answer your question if you're a bit more specific about it. Are you only talking about RJ outsourcing, or are you opposed to absolutely any sort of flexibility whatsoever for companies?
Oh, so now you're saying that since AT guys are bringing their airplanes, they should get to keep their seats? LOL!! Well SWA bought those aircraft in the purchase of AT for 3.2 Billion, so their not AT's airplane anymore. So how about this? AT Capt can fly their airplanes they brought with them, then they can fly in the right seat on the remaining 500 airplanes SWA has. That's your arguement is it not? As for taking the assets, don't think for minute that is not being thought out. We just started service in ATL and are starting to downsize AT there as we speak. Don't think SWA management is not positioning themselves for any possible scernio. And there would be no fireworks because it's perfectly legal for them to do just that. "G" holding company could just go out of business one day. Poof it's all gone.
From the overall posting history, that's an alarming number of "LOLs" and "their/they're" confusion for a professional pilot.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Reading what you are writing, I'm guessing you haven't been part of, nor studied, any airline integrations in the past 15-20 years.
This website IS NOT APC or FI. If you desire to have a cage match, go there. We all get together from time to time. I've met guys from working on their Private to a former Naval Aviator with the Top Gun deal who is now a major airline Captain. It's cool that you work for WN and all, but not all of us are impressed. We're far more impressed by knowledge and insight and if you have a dissenting opinion, use some facts and/or experience.
So while you have a good job at the golden company, if you think you know all about the career and business, this is the wrong website. Go back to the cage match at APC or FI or go look at porn or whatever. Now, if you have any humility or sense of humbleness about you, feel free to ask questions of those of us that have been through the integration process one or more times.
Have a nice day.
That's usually what you get, when you have nothing of any value to add to the conversation. Sorry Grammar teacher.
[modhat]That's a lot of attitude from a new user... take a minute, take a deep breath, and come on back when you can play nice.[/modhat]
Interesting I don't see you saying that to any of the AT guys posting on here.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
The only AT pilot I know on this site is very well versed in union matters, integrations and otherwise.
I'll save you from yourself, he and I have had and do have some opposing views on subjects and have debated at length. However, I respect his opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I guarantee if he suggested a staple, I'd laugh at him with equal vigor.
I DO disagree with the out-of-touch opinions displayed by yourself, and some of your brethren on other sites. The attitude of contempt and disgust from the "LUV" culture is kind of ironic to me.
Before you post more, go select any seniority arbitrations you want. AA/TWA would be a good start with someone of your self-righteousness. Make sure you follow that up with the recent lawsuit ruling for the TWA pilots. Tack on the Bond-McCaskill to that. Follow that with a side of the USAirways/AmWest Nicolau ruling.
pullup
Homewrecker
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I'm guessing he's wondering about situation where scope concesions were given in exchange for monetary returns as opposed to situations where Section 1 was strengthened in exchange for giving up a percentage of flying to RJs.
And honestly... what is with the inflated opinion that some Southwest guys have of themselves? It's a freaking airline. Wahoo. Sure, they make more then most other pilots in the US, but United's 2000 contract kicked their butts as did Airway's 1998 (or 99?) contract. It's great to sit at the top of the mountain, but good luck staying there.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, I would agree that giving up scope for things that are temporary like pay rates is a big mistake.