Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1032025)

I don't think if the AAI guys vote this down that they can be "parted out."

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1032040)

OK, then explain to me how they aren't equals? SWA is a domestic only carrier that flies 737s, and pays more. ATI flies 2 different aircraft types and actually flies what even DAL considers to be international, but pays less.

Oh please don't tell me that you are falling onto the side of "because our W2s are bigger... " crowd. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1032041)

Really?????:rolleyes: I assume that you have some sort of legitimate comparison between ATI and DAL.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032030)

As I've said all along, ALPA is not the fairy godmother; they can't control/prevent everything that could happen to every one of their members. The job of ALPA National is to present the real world options to the AirTran pilots so that they can make an informed decision as to the best course of action. And then to defend whatever decision that pilot group makes to the utmost of their legal capabilities. But make no mistake, this will be the AirTran pilots making the decision, NOT anyone from ALPA National.

ALPA can't make a relative seniority integration (or whatever anyone on this board deems is fair) happen. If the best legal minds say taking the current proposal to arbitration is the best approach, I would fully expect ALPA national to recommend that; if on the other hand, those same minds say that the risks outweigh the potential benefits, I would expect them to say that too. Then the AirTran pilots get to decide.

The fundamental difference between those involved in ALPA (at all levels, from pilots to lawyers, to other professionals) and those who post on this forum, is that ALPA has a responsibility to make judgements in the world we all live in; not the one we want to live in. Meaning, often times, a partial win is better than a swing for the fences and quite likely strike out. Whereas on this board, it is always easy to say you should swing for the fences, because that path is seldom taken, and so the strike outs never materialize. But when they do, the pain far exceeds that of a partial win. One need look no further than APA and USAPA to see that.

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1032046)

No. Was TIC. So are you saying it would be too fair? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032045)

Look at their respective balance sheets, pilot contracts, and corporate history.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1032048)

This is a very interesting post. Everything in red highlights what ALPA national does or does not do.. what they can or cannot do. Basically, you then indemnify the national group with the 2 items highlighted in blue "The ATI pilots are the ones that have to decide" So what you say is confusing here. ALPA does nothing other than to recommend. The individual pilots have to make the decision. So tell me again what real purpose the national association has? It is not a flamebait question, but rather a serious one.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1032048)

And then there is the last thing I highlighted in green. You say that ALPA has a responsibility... what are the ramifications of that "responsibility" if they fail to deliver? I'll answer it for you.. nothing because they are simply recommendations based on their judgements.. and they have no real fallout if they bugger it up. Nice gig if you can get it, and get paid to boot.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1032050)

Corporate history is irrelevant. Balance sheets are irrelevant. Pilot contracts.. maybe, but fact is that both fly the same equipment, and it sounds like you believe that since SWA has been profitable for tha last umpteen years and they get paid more that that legitimizes a stapling of the ATI guys... really?

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1032035)

Scambo,

Once again, nice rant but wrong on the facts. Airtran's merger/fragmentation language was from their days as an independent union where they left themselves quite open. ALPA only negotiated a contract after the merger was announced and Airtran would have been barred from changing merger protections. I have said this many times and I will say it again, Section 1 covers more than RJ's and code shares. For instance, our Section 1 forces an acquiring carrier to continue to fly the same amount of block hours per year after the acquisition.

Because Airtran's independent union had poor merger language, it is possible for SWA to operate them as an independent unit forever. They can also whittle away at their assets until there is nothing left of the carrier.

SWA management threw Airtran pilots under the bus. They bought off their angry first officer club that is upset that they haven't upgraded in 5 years and that SWA's growth is stalled due to their higher cost structure. So SWA management treated the SWA pilots as real SWA pilots and the Airtran pilots as scum.

Airtran approved this list in much the same way as if a mugger had a gun to my head I would approve of him taking my wallet. ALPA did everything they were asked to do. Please talk to the Airtran MEC and the Airtran Merger Committee, they will tell you first hand what ALPA did for them.

Unfortunately, they were dealt a weak hand because they had a weak independent union that left them with weak merger protections. SWAPA and SWA management decided that there aren't enough Airtran pilots to ruin the culture at SWA so they put a gun to their head and said take this or else. The arrogance of SWA management and their pilots is once again on full display.

Why would ALPA throw them under the bus? Give me the motive. No one even considers that SWAPA would join ALPA so you can't even come up with that weak excuse.

Airtran had a TA with Airtran management about 5 or 6 years ago and the pilots voted it down. It will always get better if you vote no, right? Guess what, sometimes you dig your own grave.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032054)

The answer to that doesn't lend itself to sound bites, but I'll try.

1) On issues that affect all pilots, ALPA has the ability to influence legislation so as to cause the greatest benefit (or in some cases the least harm) to the piloting profession.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032054)

2) On issues that only affect a single pilot group, ALPA has a team of professionals, second to none in my opinion, to recommend the best course of action.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032054)

3) Unlike certain law firms that tell their pilots what they want to hear, ALPA will tell the pilot group the unbiased straight answer, then the pilots decide. But IF the pilots decide opposite the recommendation, they (ALPA National) will then support that decision and defend it to the best of their abilities.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1032054)

Actually, the last couple of lawsuit losses say otherwise...