That is totally wrong. I've watched my SWA buds fight through a scope threat at least twice that I remember. Maybe other SWA guys can chime in for a complete history.

Since AirTran pilots are now on a path to become SWA pilots with SWA pay, I wouldn't consider an extension past 2015 to be outsourcing SWA jobs. Would you?

Carl

 

And if that was a viable outcome here, DPA wouldn't exist.

After all of the bending over, I mean, "constructive engagement" from ALPA, it should pay off at some point, shouldn't it?

But it won't. Especially not on that large of a scale. Even after all ALPA's "constructive engagement," there is no way RA or the board would ever pony up that kind of juice on behalf of the pilot group.

At Delta, "constructive engagement" is strictly a one-way street when it counts the most.

 

That doesn't actually make sense to me, so I'll try to pull up facts to support my disagreement...

The policy was changed in 2009, the only time I remember this happening as a Delta pilot. It's now based on three factors (from a thread on the DAL forum):

Administration Manual Section 45 Merger and Fragmentation changed 04/30/2009 Section 45.C. 4.e. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:
§ Career expectations.

§ Longevity.

§ Status and category.

If I look up Bond-McCaskill (Airline Legal Alert: Allegheny-Mohawk LPP Amendment Added to FAA Reauthorization Bill - Ford Harrison - Labor and Employment Attorneys), this is the standard:

A requirement that provisions be made for the integration of seniority lists "in a fair and equitable manner," including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the airlines and the representatives of the employees affected. The LPPs did not define "fair and equitable."

So, one standard has three factors just validated through a recent arbitration (UCAL), to define "fair and equitable". The other has, as best I can tell, no actual standard beyond "fair and equitable". Both require arbitration in the absence of a settlement (as if).

As discussed in the other posts, above, SWA didn't get the upper hand on AirTran because because they're independent, they gained the upper hand because a) their management was playing on their side, and b) when AirTran was independent, they didn't negotiate a suitable fragmentation clause, therefore they could not force an integration under Bond-McCaskill. They brought in ALPA late in the game, which didn't change their contract in time.

The companies we're talking about (PD thought Alaska) have fragmentation language. In fact, I believe Alaska just bought themselves more fragmentation language in their latest TA. I think they can force an integration with an acquiring company. Under that scenario, the question becomes whether we want to be arbitrated under the merger policy, or Bond-McCaskill.

Clearly, the better choice is to have the equities defined as career expectations, longevity, and status + category. Think about how the Delta pilot compares to the Alaska pilot under those standards, vs. just "fair and equitable".

If we were to make our choice on representation purely on the hypothesis that we're going to merge with Alaska, we would not pick DPA. If anything, the Alaska guys, if they were sure a merger might come, and this was their only factor in picking representation, they would try to get out from the ALPA merger policy.

 

That's not why I've admired SWAPA as a union. I admire them because of their steadfast refusal to allow the outsourcing of any pilot jobs.

Carl

 

Of course, as 80 pointed out, it's easy to refuse what's never been asked.

 

So it's your assertion that SWAPA has never had to defend against outsourcing?

 

And if DPA weren't talking now (cheap talk according to you snarks), you'd be screaming that DPA isn't even talking...proof that they have no plans!!!

As you may recall, I told you I never bet on anything. Especially since I have no idea how the vote will go. But I'll buy you Gyoza anyway. I hear it can reduce snarkiness.

Carl

 

The way I read it, SWA put them into some subsidiary call "Guadalupe". Kellner (sp?) told them he'd keep them there, and pull the plug on Guadalupe, if they didn't take his last/best offer. Their language was weak: no fragmentation clause = no legal recourse. No one would have been left to make a claim. They could have made a claim, they just wouldn't have had anyone left on the property to pursue it.

2009, according to the quote in the post above. It may have changed once before in the last two decades. I think they removed "DOH", but haven't researched it.

 

Nobody I know has ever referred to ALPA as a scourge. Your boy Kingsley did. Sounds pretty hateful from the head DALPA guy.

Just sayin.

Carl

 

I'm not aware that's ever been asked of them, but I'm no expert. Prove me wrong.

I'm not being sarcastic: I just don't know of any example.