An outsiders view of the ALPA/SWAPA story

[CLCAP]

First, I have no dog in this fight. I have never been part of ALPA or SWAPA or any other airline union for that matter. I guess I could be considered one of those corporate pilots with too much time on his hands.

What I do not understand is the following:

It seems that there is a disagreement between the pilot groups about the fairness of the presented intergration proposal. Both groups have some valid points and I can see where both are coming from. However - in a normal world, where there is a disagreement - the best solution is to allow a nonpartisan person, or group of people to make a fair and balanced resolution. This is why most intergrations go to arbitrations.

The SWA posters that whine about arbitration remind me of my ex wife whining that our counselor does not take her side. If you have a valid argument - why not test it by having an independent person weigh it against the other sides argument? Especially since you seem to have signed a letter saying that you would. Then these people go on to say that they would NOT want to follow an independent persons assesment of the situation because they know better. That to me is like saying:

SWA: I am right, you are wrong.
Airtran: No I am right, you are wrong.
SWA/Airtran: Let's discuss and if we cannot get to a resolution, let's have an independent person decide.

Discussion yields no result - and goes to third person.

SWA: But if he does not decide in our favor - we are going to screw you over.

Is that about right?

 

[Kharma Police]

First, I have no dog in this fight. I have never been part of ALPA or SWAPA or any other airline union for that matter. I guess I could be considered one of those corporate pilots with too much time on his hands.

What I do not understand is the following:

It seems that there is a disagreement between the pilot groups about the fairness of the presented intergration proposal. Both groups have some valid points and I can see where both are coming from. However - in a normal world, where there is a disagreement - the best solution is to allow a nonpartisan person, or group of people to make a fair and balanced resolution. This is why most intergrations go to arbitrations.

The SWA posters that whine about arbitration remind me of my ex wife whining that our counselor does not take her side. If you have a valid argument - why not test it by having an independent person weigh it against the other sides argument? Especially since you seem to have signed a letter saying that you would. Then these people go on to say that they would NOT want to follow an independent persons assesment of the situation because they know better. That to me is like saying:

SWA: I am right, you are wrong.
Airtran: No I am right, you are wrong.
SWA/Airtran: Let's discuss and if we cannot get to a resolution, let's have an independent person decide.

Discussion yields no result - and goes to third person.

SWA: But if he does not decide in our favor - we are going to screw you over.

Is that about right?

Yeah, I'd say you nailed it.

 

[Rough67]

.... Yep.

 

[canyonblue]

The SWA posters that whine about arbitration remind me of my ex wife whining that our counselor does not take her side.

So your ex-wife left you for a Southwest pilot? Yeah, I understand her reasoning, and it appears you were the whiner.

 

[Kharma Police]

So your ex-wife left you for a Southwest pilot? Yeah, I understand her reasoning, and it appears you were the whiner.

That didn't take very long. The guy just stated his outside point a view, why you gotta be a d-bag?

 

[canyonblue]

That didn't take very long. The guy just stated his outside point a view, why you gotta be a d-bag?

His line about: I have never been part of ALPA or SWAPA or any other airline union for that matter.

Kind of like: I've never been to Spain, But I kinda like the music.

 

[CLCAP]

So your ex-wife left you for a Southwest pilot? Yeah, I understand her reasoning, and it appears you were the whiner.

So what exactly in my post do you disagree with? And why the ad hominem?

 

[400ADude]

This is more like it:

SWA: I am right, you are wrong.
Airtran: No I am right, you are wrong.
SWA/Airtran: Let's discuss and if we cannot get to a resolution, let's have an independent person decide.
SWA: Tell you what, your MC agreed to it so let's let our membership decide.

Two weeks later and wasted time.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
Airtran: Uh. No. We won't let our members decide.

 

[On Your Six]

I think Canyonblue should be the first witness if this thing goes to arbitration. That guy is a genius, and he will keep everyone entertained for sure. Please people, DO NOT be drinking milk when hearing or reading his testimony, it may come out of your nose! Friggin Genius!


OYS

 

[Kharma Police]

This is more like it:

SWA: I am right, you are wrong.
Airtran: No I am right, you are wrong.
SWA/Airtran: Let's discuss and if we cannot get to a resolution, let's have an independent person decide.
SWA: Tell you what, your MC agreed to it so let's let our membership decide.

Two weeks later and wasted time.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
Airtran: Uh. No. We won't let our members decide.

LOL!, so true!