FAPA, please explain...
10-10-2009 | 04:49 AM
#111
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
I apologize for not taking the time to read all the pages of this thread. Your post was pointed out to me by a friend. There have been MANY inaccuracies posted from both sides and I'd simply post the "offers" on the web for all to read, but that would only stir the pot and not allow the wounds to properly heal.
Both sides were completely constrained by TIME and no true negotiations could take place with such an egregious time line. The reason we held our ground was a simple matter of our membership would have been 100% agreeable to either outcome. Staple or "no-deal". Anything else would have involved membership education, BOD endorsement, and true-give-and-take negotiations. We had 5 hours to do all that. That couldn't happen so we with with the only winning proposal in our arsenal.
To specifically answer your 2 outstanding questions.
1. Had SWAPA agreed to be the "bargaining unit" for the furloughed pilots, SWAPA would have had a DFR responsibility to those pilots. Until the fence comes down, that would be unacceptable. Even more confusing, SWAPA's NC was driving back to SWAPA with an "offer" from the company with regard to our Section 6. In that agreement is a "no furough clause" during any fence agreement. It would be hard to have a DFR responsibility to furloughees that have a RIGHT to employment at SWAPA. FAPA would have still remained their bargaining unit and that is the way it is normally done. No confusion. Keep the entities completely SPLIT until the fence come down.
2. Our president told me he called your president first thing in the morning to talk before the day's events got rolling. He told him to call any time with concerns and that our last offer was on the table to accept any time without condition through the day. But I understand if heresay isn't good enough.
I personally e-mailed John :
" From: xxxxxxx
Subject: talks
Date: August 13, 2009 12:32:31 PM CDT
To: [email protected]
Cc:
John,
I know nothing has transpired yet with regard to the SWA bid. I certainly don't think we need to have face time in the next few days if things are just status quo, but we were wondering what your thoughts were on our next talks.
Tom
M&A"
So, contact was attempted at least twice. What John and Carl talked about that morning was just what Carl briefed me as I wasn't party to those conversations.
Tom Winsor
SWAPA M&A Committee
10-10-2009 | 05:25 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
As with any integration, that would make some members happy. Unfortunately, it would be totally out of keeping with historical integrations.
Last edited by FAULTPUSH; 10-11-2009 at 07:51 AM.
10-11-2009 | 08:09 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
From: B737/Capt
Zoooropa,
I apologize for not taking the time to read all the pages of this thread. Your post was pointed out to me by a friend. There have been MANY inaccuracies posted from both sides and I'd simply post the "offers" on the web for all to read, but that would only stir the pot and not allow the wounds to properly heal.
Both sides were completely constrained by TIME and no true negotiations could take place with such an egregious time line. The reason we held our ground was a simple matter of our membership would have been 100% agreeable to either outcome. Staple or "no-deal". Anything else would have involved membership education, BOD endorsement, and true-give-and-take negotiations. We had 5 hours to do all that. That couldn't happen so we with with the only winning proposal in our arsenal.
To specifically answer your 2 outstanding questions.
1. Had SWAPA agreed to be the "bargaining unit" for the furloughed pilots, SWAPA would have had a DFR responsibility to those pilots. Until the fence comes down, that would be unacceptable. Even more confusing, SWAPA's NC was driving back to SWAPA with an "offer" from the company with regard to our Section 6. In that agreement is a "no furough clause" during any fence agreement. It would be hard to have a DFR responsibility to furloughees that have a RIGHT to employment at SWAPA. FAPA would have still remained their bargaining unit and that is the way it is normally done. No confusion. Keep the entities completely SPLIT until the fence come down.
2. Our president told me he called your president first thing in the morning to talk before the day's events got rolling. He told him to call any time with concerns and that our last offer was on the table to accept any time without condition through the day. But I understand if heresay isn't good enough.
I personally e-mailed John :
" From: xxxxxxx
Subject: talks
Date: August 13, 2009 12:32:31 PM CDT
To: [email protected]
Cc:
John,
I know nothing has transpired yet with regard to the SWA bid. I certainly don't think we need to have face time in the next few days if things are just status quo, but we were wondering what your thoughts were on our next talks.
Tom
M&A"
So, contact was attempted at least twice. What John and Carl talked about that morning was just what Carl briefed me as I wasn't party to those conversations.
Tom Winsor
SWAPA M&A Committee
I apologize for not taking the time to read all the pages of this thread. Your post was pointed out to me by a friend. There have been MANY inaccuracies posted from both sides and I'd simply post the "offers" on the web for all to read, but that would only stir the pot and not allow the wounds to properly heal.
Both sides were completely constrained by TIME and no true negotiations could take place with such an egregious time line. The reason we held our ground was a simple matter of our membership would have been 100% agreeable to either outcome. Staple or "no-deal". Anything else would have involved membership education, BOD endorsement, and true-give-and-take negotiations. We had 5 hours to do all that. That couldn't happen so we with with the only winning proposal in our arsenal.
To specifically answer your 2 outstanding questions.
1. Had SWAPA agreed to be the "bargaining unit" for the furloughed pilots, SWAPA would have had a DFR responsibility to those pilots. Until the fence comes down, that would be unacceptable. Even more confusing, SWAPA's NC was driving back to SWAPA with an "offer" from the company with regard to our Section 6. In that agreement is a "no furough clause" during any fence agreement. It would be hard to have a DFR responsibility to furloughees that have a RIGHT to employment at SWAPA. FAPA would have still remained their bargaining unit and that is the way it is normally done. No confusion. Keep the entities completely SPLIT until the fence come down.
2. Our president told me he called your president first thing in the morning to talk before the day's events got rolling. He told him to call any time with concerns and that our last offer was on the table to accept any time without condition through the day. But I understand if heresay isn't good enough.
I personally e-mailed John :
" From: xxxxxxx
Subject: talks
Date: August 13, 2009 12:32:31 PM CDT
To: [email protected]
Cc:
John,
I know nothing has transpired yet with regard to the SWA bid. I certainly don't think we need to have face time in the next few days if things are just status quo, but we were wondering what your thoughts were on our next talks.
Tom
M&A"
So, contact was attempted at least twice. What John and Carl talked about that morning was just what Carl briefed me as I wasn't party to those conversations.
Tom Winsor
SWAPA M&A Committee
Well here it is folks! A member of the SWA M&A committee engaging us on APC and maybe willing to answer some direct questions if you have any left. I for one have seen enough he said/she said from those whose credibility (on both sides) based on emotion alone would lead me to dismiss most of what they have to say. The time available to come to an integration agreement seems to be the real limiting factor and any other theories are apparently conjecture. I have heard it said by SWA posters that anything but a staple would be unacceptable and I have heard from FAPA posters that I don't want to be on reserve again or that some don't want to lose their cushy Orlando turns. Does anybody really believe that either extreme position by the unions would be attainable if time constraints had not been imposed? I for one am asking this question so that all sides can learn from what transpired and maybe come to the table the next time with something reasonable.
Even the RAH/F9 folks preparing to do "battle" have dug into postions that are unreasonable. Engaging in career "expectations" and "I fly for a Major vs. a Regional who saved you" thinking somehow an arbitrator will see their side over the other. I say go to an arbitrator now and save yourself the trouble of sitting down and doing the "right" thing. I don't think that pilot groups are capable of working it out unless pain is spread evenly.
Good luck we are all counting on you.The Oscar
10-11-2009 | 09:12 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
...Engaging in career "expectations" and "I fly for a Major vs. a Regional who saved you" thinking somehow an arbitrator will see their side over the other....I say go to an arbitrator now and save yourself the trouble of sitting down and doing the "right" thing. I don't think that pilot groups are capable of working it out unless pain is spread evenly. Good luck we are all counting on you.
The Oscar
Good luck we are all counting on you.The Oscar
I don't know what you're getting at with the apparent ridiculing of "career expectations". That's what it's all about in an integration. I hope we can work something out outside of an arbitration, but I doubt we'll be the first airline to not need arbitration.
10-11-2009 | 09:49 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
When, exactly, is one's "career expectation" measured?
I'm sure even the Skybus guys had wonderful "expectations" the first day on the job--they would revolutionize the industry and grow to eventually takeover as the dominate carrier in the US. However, things change.
Once your company is in bankruptcy and in serious danger of closing, I would imagine one's "expectations" would necessarily change.
I'm sure even the Skybus guys had wonderful "expectations" the first day on the job--they would revolutionize the industry and grow to eventually takeover as the dominate carrier in the US. However, things change.
Once your company is in bankruptcy and in serious danger of closing, I would imagine one's "expectations" would necessarily change.
10-12-2009 | 02:49 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
The RAH integration guys are being pretty tight lipped, mostly because what they might say will quickly end up here or on FI and devolve into 8 pages of SOS from the same people, as has every other RAH-based thread.
The groups (all 5) are scheduled for their first meeting on the 13th. When the paper is signed (by whatever route the paper is arrived at) people will be able to fling fact-based poo. Until then, you should not purport to know what others do and do not give a crap about.
The groups (all 5) are scheduled for their first meeting on the 13th. When the paper is signed (by whatever route the paper is arrived at) people will be able to fling fact-based poo. Until then, you should not purport to know what others do and do not give a crap about.
10-12-2009 | 06:24 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
As a Frontier pilot I take exception to the above paragraph.
The FAPA LOA with RAH began prior to RAH's acquisition of YX and ended after the actual official YX purchase.
Bedford purchased YX as a backup plan in case he did not prevail in the F9 auction. Bedford had already announced the 170/175 MKE flying months before F9 even had an exit sponsor.
My point is that the YX death spiral had already begun, months if not years before FAPA had any dealing with RAH.
It is impossible to convince the gentlemen at YX that their fate was decided long before skywest showed up, let alone RAH.
It is a very simple math exercise. FAPA was preparing the membership for a CH.11 filing prior to the actual announcement last year, the airline was running low on liquidity and numerous covenants were about to be triggered. One of FAPA's consultants had some fancy graphs that included a historical representation of GDP vs airline profitability. When GDP was above +2.7%, the airline industry as a whole was profitable, when GDP was lower, the industry began to hemorrhage cash.
If you take a look at YX's cost/revenue structure, you will see immediately that it would require a level of positive economic activity never before achieved in this country for that airline to break even.
How could YX continue to be a viable operation, regardless of the existence of RAH?
Why did Boeing take the 717's back? No one talks about this very much, but TH played this card back in 2001 when he refused to make a lease payment on any of the midwest and skyway fleet. He basically said, renegotiate my leases or take the planes back. At that time YX had a bastard fleet of dc9's, md80's, d328's and 1900s. There were no other takers, and the lessors were forced to renegotiate. Timmy tried that tactic again, and it blew up in his face. Boeing obtained market rates for the 717's from another airline, end of story.
I hopped on a YX tangent there because it is a soft spot. FAPA had nothing to do with the demise of YX. We also have had nothing to do with the choice of MKE as a new focus city, but that doesn't make it any easier to go in there and fly when hundreds of professionals are losing their jobs.
The FAPA LOA with RAH began prior to RAH's acquisition of YX and ended after the actual official YX purchase.
Bedford purchased YX as a backup plan in case he did not prevail in the F9 auction. Bedford had already announced the 170/175 MKE flying months before F9 even had an exit sponsor.
My point is that the YX death spiral had already begun, months if not years before FAPA had any dealing with RAH.
It is impossible to convince the gentlemen at YX that their fate was decided long before skywest showed up, let alone RAH.
It is a very simple math exercise. FAPA was preparing the membership for a CH.11 filing prior to the actual announcement last year, the airline was running low on liquidity and numerous covenants were about to be triggered. One of FAPA's consultants had some fancy graphs that included a historical representation of GDP vs airline profitability. When GDP was above +2.7%, the airline industry as a whole was profitable, when GDP was lower, the industry began to hemorrhage cash.
If you take a look at YX's cost/revenue structure, you will see immediately that it would require a level of positive economic activity never before achieved in this country for that airline to break even.
How could YX continue to be a viable operation, regardless of the existence of RAH?
Why did Boeing take the 717's back? No one talks about this very much, but TH played this card back in 2001 when he refused to make a lease payment on any of the midwest and skyway fleet. He basically said, renegotiate my leases or take the planes back. At that time YX had a bastard fleet of dc9's, md80's, d328's and 1900s. There were no other takers, and the lessors were forced to renegotiate. Timmy tried that tactic again, and it blew up in his face. Boeing obtained market rates for the 717's from another airline, end of story.
I hopped on a YX tangent there because it is a soft spot. FAPA had nothing to do with the demise of YX. We also have had nothing to do with the choice of MKE as a new focus city, but that doesn't make it any easier to go in there and fly when hundreds of professionals are losing their jobs.
THANK YOU! YX was setting their employees up for the inevitable years ago.....they're just pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
WRONG.... It is impossible to convince of us what you are saying because you don't know what you are talking about. Midwest had more cash on hand comparatively than any airline in the country as late as June of 2008. We only had 36 airplanes yet we had 185 million in cash. That is until our friends and co-owners NWA came in and took their share to fund their merger with Delta. After Delta and TPG looted it, there was nothing left except for BB and his sleazy outfit to come in and take it over for his benefit. We lost the 717's due to Timmy low balling Boeing and Boeing walking away. This airline made money for 25 years. It always made money. The way the money was handled is a different story. If we were a losing proposition like you say, MKE would not be such a coveted hub now and we would not have lasted 25 years which is more than I can say for F9.
While you never know what Bedford is going to do next, one thing is certain.
Replacing expensive 100 seat jets with less expensive 100 seat jets, logical.
Replacing efficient 130-160 seat jets with more expensive 100 seat jets, illogical.
While our 320 rates are not the highest in the industry, they are slightly above average. Yet our block hour cost is the lowest thanks to a well written contract and the number of hours that we fly.
Bedford doesn't want to fly only EMB 190/175/170 because he realizes that some routes can make money with 100 seats while others can accommodate a larger gauge aircraft.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will be utilized in denver while the buses will be moved to other cities, then you are correct.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will replace buses and the number of buses flying around will decrease, then you are incorrect. There are actually more buses being delivered, as well as more 190's.
Pilot rates are not the "end all be all" numbers that determine operating cost. It is actually more expensive, at RAH rates, to fly a 190 than it is to fly a F9 318. Again, don't take my word for it, the data is all publicly available.
You also mentioned "a year or so". I believe in one year all FAPA pilots will be recalled and we will be mired in a SLI quagmire, or the dust will be settling from an arbiter's decision on SLI.
Replacing expensive 100 seat jets with less expensive 100 seat jets, logical.
Replacing efficient 130-160 seat jets with more expensive 100 seat jets, illogical.
While our 320 rates are not the highest in the industry, they are slightly above average. Yet our block hour cost is the lowest thanks to a well written contract and the number of hours that we fly.
Bedford doesn't want to fly only EMB 190/175/170 because he realizes that some routes can make money with 100 seats while others can accommodate a larger gauge aircraft.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will be utilized in denver while the buses will be moved to other cities, then you are correct.
If you are trying to say that the EMB's will replace buses and the number of buses flying around will decrease, then you are incorrect. There are actually more buses being delivered, as well as more 190's.
Pilot rates are not the "end all be all" numbers that determine operating cost. It is actually more expensive, at RAH rates, to fly a 190 than it is to fly a F9 318. Again, don't take my word for it, the data is all publicly available.
You also mentioned "a year or so". I believe in one year all FAPA pilots will be recalled and we will be mired in a SLI quagmire, or the dust will be settling from an arbiter's decision on SLI.
You also have to understand, that Bedford has wanted his own big airline with his own big jets too. Anyone who thinks the Airbus will be parked and replaced with EMB's is crazy. Its not going to happen. They have released tibits of information about their market strategy, and contrary to popular belief, the Airbus fleet has growth planned for it.
Bedford is not an idiot. Fully expect him to utilize the right type of aircraft on the right routes. The Airbus and Embraer fleets will compliment each other, maximizing revenue where each aircraft is fit to do so.
I think F9 is going to have a very successful future with RAH. The only issue standing in our way, will be intergration and a new CBA. Which I would love to see F9 guys like zoooropa at the bargaining table. RAH needs the F9 pilots to help raise the bar for everyone here. We've been trying to renegotiate a CBA for a couple of years. Once the dust settles, we all need to stand together and get a respectable contract.
Sorry but $30/hr in the right seat of any 170/175/190 is absurd....
You can badmouth the whole deal all you want, trash talk Bedford and his tactics, trash talk the YX management...but talking trash about the RAH pilots? I'm sorry, but you won't get any sympathy from any of us.
10-12-2009 | 11:37 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
From: B737/Capt
I think that most F9 pilots would be happy to go straight to arbitration, but unfortunately, my understanding is that any effort to go directly to arbitration counts as not negotiating in good faith.
I don't know what you're getting at with the apparent ridiculing of "career expectations". That's what it's all about in an integration. I hope we can work something out outside of an arbitration, but I doubt we'll be the first airline to not need arbitration.
I don't know what you're getting at with the apparent ridiculing of "career expectations". That's what it's all about in an integration. I hope we can work something out outside of an arbitration, but I doubt we'll be the first airline to not need arbitration.
I don't think I was ridiculing the concept of career expectations. Just that as Clipper Jet pointed out it will vary from one pilot to another. So discuss the concept all you want but realize that the career expectations of the RAH pilot group has now changed in a drastic way. I am sure the arbitrator will do the "right" thing.
Also, just for fun what do you think the integration of the F9/SWA lists should have looked like if it had become a reality? Take a few scenarios like a senior Frontier captain vs. a senior SWA capt or junior FO vs. junior FO. Should a senior F9 captain be right next to a 35 year SWA captain on the seniority list?
The Oscar
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nicale
Career Questions
8
09-14-2008 06:46 AM
DANCRJ
Compass Airlines
19
08-13-2008 04:30 PM
