SWA to speed up Airtran integration.....article

[canyonblue]

the point is the same: the company has a whole hell of a lot of reason to care about our pay jumping up, but not much reason to care that the mechanics' pay has jumped up.

Remind me again, how did their SLI go down?

 

[Kenney G]

Exactly was is the lawsuit about? Fraud? Negligence? I thought ALPA was set up as a representative body like congress. Was it not their proragative to vote anyway the wanted? I am referring to the Mec.

 

[maxblast72]

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2012cv00544/181455/1/

Here is a link to the original complaint. It was amended in June to add 115 plaintiffs and clean up some of the main body but most of the key arguments are in there.

 

[Kenney G]

Is there a readers digest version ?

 

[canyonblue]

Is there a readers digest version ?

Among the economic gains recognized by the Merger Committee members were enormous pay increases, averaging about $72,000 per year for captains and about $48,000 per year for first officers, with such pay increases to begin by April 2012. For some pilots, their pay would be nearly doubled.

Other advantageous features of the seniority integration agreement and transition agreement were:

Substantial furlough protection, such that one Southwest pilot would be furloughed for each AirTran pilot furloughed, despite the fact that there were a large number of AirTran first officers at the bottom of the proposed merged seniority list;

The Atlanta base would be protected for another nine years, permitting AirTran pilots the stability of remaining at their base and, thus, not disrupting their families' lives;

AirTran captains would be afforded priority as to all captain vacancies at the Atlanta base until September 2020;

The Atlanta base would be staffed in larger numbers than more typical Southwest domiciles;

A large number (851) of AirTran capatain seats would be protected;

AirTran pilots would be protected against being displaced for positions by more senior Southwest pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

Is there a readers digest version ?

Yes, the reader's digest version is that a small group of pilots (including one member of the Merger Committee) apparently don't have the mental capacity to understand how representative government works.

 

[Kenney G]

I get all of Canyonblues points but that is Not here nor there. I have been an Alpa member for a decade. The pilots vote for their reps and give them the authority to make desisions for them. Just like congress. My congressman rarely votes the way I would, but that's the way it works. I agree with PCL 128 on this one. The case does not seem to have Merit.

Disclaimer: I did Not stay at a holiday inn last night.

 

[canyonblue]

I get all of Canyonblues points ........

They're not MY points, just lifted from the manifesto.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I get all of Canyonblues points but that is Not here nor there. I have been an Alpa member for a decade. The pilots vote for their reps and give them the authority to make desisions for them. Just like congress. My congressman rarely votes the way I would, but that's the way it works. I agree with PCL 128 on this one. The case does not seem to have Merit.

Disclaimer: I did Not stay at a holiday inn last night.

It's obviously up to a court to determine merit, if it gets that far. And you're right about representational systems of governance: you vote for representatives, and they vote what they believe will best serve the group rather than how individuals might vote.

However, in this DFR case, the plaintiffs are alleging that the Airtran MEC did not do that. They are alleging that the MEC intentionally deceived the constituency for their own apparent ends. They listed in their suit alleged lies, half-truths, and intentional omissions to sway the constituency's favor. The plaintiffs also allege that the MEC disregarded appropriate legal advice (and then "hid" the advice from their constituency), again in favor of their own ends. Here's where this differs from representational governance. Elected bodies cannot just do anything they want; in this case, the union has an affirmative duty to represent all constituents "fairly" to the best of their ability. The suit alleges that they did not. Is this subjective? Of course. Hence the lawsuit to determine culpability.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a party to any of this, and I was not present at any of the meetings where the alleged offenses took place. I don't know if any of the actions rise to DFR failure or not. I'm only telling you what the suit alleges. It could have merit, or it could be all crap, for all I know.

Bubba

 

[maxblast72]

Yes, the reader's digest version is that a small group of pilots (including one member of the Merger Committee) apparently don't have the mental capacity to understand how representative government works.

I heard you say many times the TWA pilots were going to lose their DFR lawsuit. Have you predicted the outcome of any other DFR lawsuits?

It appears you are 0 for 1 in predicting outcomes so why should we put much weight on your opinion of the validity of this lawsuit.