SWAPA Info packet FEDEXed to all AirTran Pilots

[Lear70]

@ First year Pay? You know, Seniority, ie. years of service at Southwest has yet to be negotiated. This, along with pay rates on the 717. Everything is on the table and has to be negotiated.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but you can't take our longevity. Period. Not unless we VOLUNTARILY give it up. That's a FACT of the RLA. NO airline merger/acquisition/arbitration has EVER given up longevity unless the pilots of one group voluntarily gave it up. The reason for that?

IT'S ILLEGAL TO FORCIBLY REMOVE SOMEONE'S RIGHTS UNDER A CBA. That includes their contractually-guaranteed longevity.

In addition, the MV letter recognizes Southwest as a "successor". Section 1 of our CBA requires any "successor" to honor our CBA in its entirety. That puts Southwest on the hook not to abrogate our longevity as well.

Sorry, Charlie. Don't know where you're getting your information, but it's dead wrong on the longevity issue. That question has been asked and answered by our legal staff, and I trust them over some kind of internal SWAPA rumor mill.

Pay rates on the 717 are a different matter.

Perhaps you should check with your legal staff and Negotiating Committee DIRECTLY before you go off on the longevity tangent again. I have.

 

[redflyer65]

So where would the DFR lawsuit draw the line in the sand?

If Southwest is paying a 737 CA the equivelant of 210/hr and SWAPA negotiates a 717 rate of 170/hr, or 150/hr, or 140/hr. Where is the line on filing a lawsuit? I'd say at best, that's a very grey area that would be hard to defend in a court of law.

 

[Cometman]

I don't know who you've been talking to, but you can't take our longevity. Period. Not unless we VOLUNTARILY give it up. That's a FACT of the RLA. NO airline merger/acquisition/arbitration has EVER given up longevity unless the pilots of one group voluntarily gave it up. The reason for that?

IT'S ILLEGAL TO FORCIBLY REMOVE SOMEONE'S RIGHTS UNDER A CBA. That includes their contractually-guaranteed longevity.

In addition, the MV letter recognizes Southwest as a "successor". Section 1 of our CBA requires any "successor" to honor our CBA in its entirety. That puts Southwest on the hook not to abrogate our longevity as well.

Sorry, Charlie. Don't know where you're getting your information, but it's dead wrong on the longevity issue. That question has been asked and answered by our legal staff, and I trust them over some kind of internal SWAPA rumor mill.

Pay rates on the 717 are a different matter.

Perhaps you should check with your legal staff and Negotiating Committee DIRECTLY before you go off on the longevity tangent again. I have.

After reading what you, PCl and TY has to say I would recommend SWAPA take what you are offering. It seems like you guys do have all the leverage and it would be in SWAPA's best interest not to fight you. You seem to be one intelligent pilot and I think you will do good with SWAPA. Maybe even run for President. Good luck and congratulation on you win. I thought SWAPA was holding all the cards but I was wrong. Your $60,000 year raise will come in handy. The good thing arbitration will not consider that. However, unless there are fences and lower pay rates for the 717 and seat locks for many many years. I assume that is a possibility? Am I correct in that assumption?

 

[dicko]

So where would the DFR lawsuit draw the line in the sand?

If Southwest is paying a 737 CA the equivelant of 210/hr and SWAPA negotiates a 717 rate of 170/hr, or 150/hr, or 140/hr. Where is the line on filing a lawsuit? I'd say at best, that's a very grey area that would be hard to defend in a court of law.

I don't think this will become a reality and I definitely don't want it to.

However, off the top of my head: The 717 will have 122 seats and your 737-300 will be equivilant. You could argue range maybe, but the 717 is a more capable aircraft in most other area (RNP, etc ....)

No I don't want to argue over 737-300 vs 717 all day.

 

[SWA/FO]

Sounds like a great DFR lawsuit. I'm sure SWAPA is smarter than that.

Please explain. You are not SWAPA Pilots there is no duty to your group.

 

[Lear70]

After reading what you, PCl and TY has to say I would recommend SWAPA take what you are offering. It seems like you guys do have all the leverage and it would be in SWAPA's best interest not to fight you. You seem to be one intelligent pilot and I think you will do good with SWAPA. Maybe even run for President. Good luck and congratulation on you win. I thought SWAPA was holding all the cards but I was wrong. Your $60,000 year raise will come in handy. The good thing arbitration will not consider that. However, unless there are fences and lower pay rates for the 717 and seat locks for many many years. I assume that is a possibility? Am I correct in that assumption?

*chuckle* Not interested in union work. Been there. Done that. Have that t-shirt (and a few other things from that fiasco).

However, tongue-in-cheek aside, no, I don't expect SWAPA to roll over, but I have no interest in listening to people who like to make threats, especially ones that have no basis in fact. They do NOTHING towards making this process work smoothly and getting down to the real business of building an even bigger and better SWA. I simply correct their inaccuracies, acknowledge the truths (even the ones that weaken our position), and try to keep things civil.

I'm not sure what you meant by the last part of your post, it's a little choppy. What are you assuming? That seat locks and fences and lower pay rates are a possibility of arbitration? Yes, that's a realistic possibility. I personally don't think SWAPA would chop off its nose to spite its face by negotiating lower 717 rates. Doing that would affect negotiations later down the road should SWA purchase a SNB 737-300 / 717 replacement and ask for the same, lower rates for decades to come. Not a smart tactical move, but I could be wrong.

Seat locks and fences could certainly be put in place by the arbitrator panel, and quite possibly Seat locks could be created after arbitration by SWAPA and Southwest. Nothing preventing that whatsoever. Fences? No, that's the arbitrator's decision. Seat/equipment locks by SWAPA/SWA? Yes, very possible.

 

[PCL_128]

Please explain. You are not SWAPA Pilots there is no duty to your group.

You were talking about longevity. SWAPA can't negotiate longevity for a craft and class of employees that they don't represent. Therefore, if they're reducing our longevity as you have suggested, then it's after they represent us, when they do have a DFR obligation. Like I said, they're smarter than that, even if you aren't.

 

[Lear70]

You were talking about longevity. SWAPA can't negotiate longevity for a craft and class of employees that they don't represent. Therefore, if they're reducing our longevity as you have suggested, then it's after they represent us, when they do have a DFR obligation. Like I said, they're smarter than that, even if you aren't.

Bingo!

 

[luv2fly]

You were talking about longevity. SWAPA can't negotiate longevity for a craft and class of employees that they don't represent. Therefore, if they're reducing our longevity as you have suggested, then it's after they represent us, when they do have a DFR obligation. Like I said, they're smarter than that, even if you aren't.

Just to educate you a little. Generally category and class has to do with type of airplane and seat position. It has nothing to do with longevity. ALPA will have an opportunity to negotiate your longevity with a negotiated deal. Absent a deal SWA and SWAPA will negotiate all items for you. For example; pay rates, fence agreements, longevity, probation and so on!

 

[ivauir]

Sorry to the guys who were offended by the factual information package my dues money paid for and my Company supported. I hope you find the next one more useful.

Is everyone having a great weekend?

Sat on my patio last night eating this amazing Mediterranean salmon recipe my wife whipped up. Watched the storms in the distance ...