Because you put a quote from the Process Agreement - that makes everything you say automatically have validity to be true?

You stated you listened to that phone call.

Did you listen carefully to the explanation about the very quote you just put on your post by your leader of the Negotiating Committee ?

Your leader of your Negotiating Committee answers what that means. For you (SWA pilot) and how it was spelled out for the AAI pilots.
Later in the call, He is asked directly again - in relation with did a few people have the ability to block the pilots of AirTran from voting on a Negotiated deal.
I guess you do not remember that answer either. ALPA agreed to this for a negotiated deal prior to signing the Process Agreement. In other words - it was (as stated on the call as talked about in great detail and agreed to) put in writing, then signed by all parties.

Shoelu, do you agree with this last paragraph?
By the way - thank you for not stooping to personal insults. Frustration is expected. I do not claim to be the smartest guy in the room by far. But, the personal insults by such an educated bunch is disappointing.

 

It was 4 years ago and is understandable if details like that are fuzzy. I would like to know if anyone who listened to that call remembers it stated the AirTran ALPA , MC agreed to allowing their pilots to vote if a deal was negotiated?

 

I am looking at it from a different way. If my airline has 10000 pilots. We buy an airline with 2000 pilots. Their 1 guy goes at 2. Did that effect the number 2 guy at my airline - yes. On the list. I barely understand your statement about age (my fault because of my age probably).
If you put up a graph and then put the information about them where they are with seniority percentage. Then put in the same info with another group - Relative seniority. Look at the gain or loss line - It is flat. If you did DOH it would move up and down with Relative Seniority gain/loss because of hiring burst at each airline being different per year.

 

Look at this way.

You are the youngest and most junior pilot at airline X. Airline X has 100 pilots and you are number 100 on the list. In 10 years everyone ahead of you on the list will reach mandatory retirement age and you will reach number one on the list due to mandatory retirements.

Now imagine airline X acquires airline Y which also has 100 pilots and each of those pilots are younger than than the pilots at airline X. Both lists are combined using relative seniority. Now you are number 200 on the combined list and at the exact same place in relative seniority.

10 years go by and every one of the pilots originally on airline X's seniority list has retired, without the addition of airline Y's pilots you would be number one on the list. But, since all of airline Y's pilots were younger, not all of them have retired and you are not number one on the list. You have lost seniority even though the pilots of airline Y were added at relative seniority.

 

SHOELU sir, I concede. You got me on this. It is hard for me to debate when I am not grasping fully your information in regards to the age of each pilot group.

I don't know how to explain it and so I probably should not attempt. As you can see at my age - I have a hard time typing without first, posting. Then read and find errors that I must go back and edit. Everytime. Frustrating for me.

 

I absolutely do not agree with the last paragraph, or any of the others either. Are you claiming that "a few people" didn't "have the ability to block the pilots of AirTran from voting on a Negotiated deal."????? Maybe you don't think that seven people is a few, but considering there were nearly 1700 on the seniority list at the time, I consider 7 to be a "few." Quoting from the process agreement doesn't give validity to my statement, history does. A few people were able to block a vote, and they did exactly that.

 

I believe my post was from your earlier statement and quote in regards to the Process Agreement. You referenced the paragraph on page 3 SEC II (c).

A question was asked by a DAL F/O specifically about that paragraph and what the paragraph actually meant. The Answer was it means a vote for us and we have spelled out it's a vote for them.


Later in the same phone call - A HOU F/O asked a direct question about the rumors on whether the AAI pilots get to vote on (KEY) "whatever is negotiated", he states he understands that SWA pilots do and ask if the AAI pilots "have the same clause in their, in their contract or their By-laws" and do they have to put it out to a "MEMBERSHIP" vote.

YOUR NC leader - stated they actually agreed to that in the Process Agreement and was interrupted by the same pilot with a follow up -

asking if you all had to "worry about a couple negotiators or real senior people making decisions necessarily, kinda like what happened to the Frontier guys, they didn't get to vote....."
YOUR NC leader answered with that if you come to a negotiated deal -" both sides get to vote and how everyone had in depth discussions about that issue."

I did not do the word for word on all the above. I left out the stutters and "um's".

Not sure if you still have access to that recording on your SWAPA web site - go back if you like. I have the exact quotes.

The PA also states in SEC II (c) (iii) that SWAPA and ALPA agree to submit a negotiated deal to their memberships for ratification.

Everyone signed that Process agreement. ALPA put out an Executive Summary hours later. It said the pilots will get to vote on a negotiated deal.

How much clearer must I be for you to admit that what I say is FACTUAL.

Now, as far as what a few individuals did ie; the ATN ALPA MEC and did to not follow what was agreed to - not what is being debated here.

That phone call was over 1 hour and 40 minutes. It was the day after the Process agreement was signed by everyone. I know exactly what was asked and exactly how it was answered.

Where you one of those CA's or F/O's that asked a question and did you listen to the entire event?

I am sure you are aware of the lawsuit about several things but the MEC preventing a vote being one of them.

 

So what your saying is If an AAI pilot who was bidding 12% on his list and was then placed at approx. 43 % instead of 12 or 13% on the merged SWA list is fair because of age?

Another way, take a say AAI Captain who is 45 years old. Been a CA for say 10-12 years. He always bid 2 weeks staggered vacations in the summer and always bid ( FOR YEARS ) the week before Thanksgiving (because he could hold the week of Thanksgiving line off thus 2 weeks off every year) and the same for Christmas. He could hold off that day and bid a line that held the following week including New Years off). 4 weeks vacation every year. That it is fair to put him in a position to bid for upgrade after how ever long, he will have a chance to be a Captain again, but now at what, 45 -49% ?

What are the lines of days off he can hold compared to what he had?
What vacations can he hold compared to what he had?
We all know, you can't just drop a trip at SWA like he used to be able to do. It must be picked up by someone.
This guy will get back to what he had by the time he is about what 60 years old. Kids grown and gone. Missed so many events in their lives because what he had was taken from him because his pilot group was a younger group than the other? Age?

Please refrain from saying - "the money".

 

Brakes Set, I haven't bothered reading your multiple threads on this subject. One thread would have been sufficient. Two threads was excessive. More than two is obsessive.

Give it a rest; let the wounds heal.

One question: Who do you fly for and what's your employment history?

 

You post to tell me you don't bother to read my post.

Your only contribution is to try and identify me? You just stated your not interested in my post - why the interest in something so personal about me?
Read my post and you can learn my back ground.