Wow, big difference between aircraft in that ruling.

How did the Airtran career expectations change on Sept 27th?

Although this may in fact be an apples to oranges comparison, the only real and substantial difference I can see is that ATA and SWA fleet types are nearly identical. These are his words, not mine.

Arbitrator- Richard R. Kasher, Esquire
October 19, 2005

"It is clear, when one considers routes flown, cities serviced, the two carriers' relative financial condition, fleet size and fleet type, that the equities weigh so heavily on the side of the Chautauqua Pilots as to virtually obliterate any alleged equities that the Shuttle America Pilots claim they bring to the merger."

"Simply stated, the rates of pay, rules and working conditions in the Chautauqua Pilots' collective bargaining agreement, are far superior to those found in the Shuttle America Pilots' collective bargaining agreement. As a result of the acquisition Shuttle America Pilots will be the beneficiaries of the superior rates of pay, rules and working conditions found in the Chautauqua Pilots collective bargaining agreement."

Seemed they had great career progression and excellent growth. Tripled operation in last 10 years! Awesome slots in NY, DCA, ATL and International destinations. Very quick upgrades with rapid growth. This merger will slow down their upgrades. AirTran will likely push for relative + additional concessions to offset the stagnated upgrades as the result of this merger. With their routes/slots/upgrades, AirTran pilots had excellent expectations!

How long for a SWA newhire to upgrade?

And they were going through bankruptcy and their ability to operate going forward was seriously in question.

Not much similarity there, but hope springs eternal.

I read that to be a pre-emptive response to the possible argument that the Shuttle America pilots were getting totally hosed in the deal.

Can anyone point to a merger of similar aircraft types where one side had substantially more longevity and it actually counted for something in the integration?

shoelu,

I understand what you are saying. I've been a part of the career expectations debate, too. I also, know what you think that arbitrator was saying. But, I think if you apply it to what SWA and and Tran is about to go through, you have to look forward to the end game. The end game is when everything is presented and both sides "rest their case," the arbitrator is going to probably apply both sides "career expectations" to seat, category and class of airplane -- where you are, where you expect to be, and when you expect to get there. Air Trans increased pay will be part of the equation, but I think it will be a very small part. (The variety of flying they bring to the table may even offset that.)

If the arbitrator called a pilot from each airline, asked him or her where they would expect to be at the end of their career, I believe they both would tell him "a B-737 captain."

If he then asked them how relative seniority hurt that, what would they say? What would you say?


Respectfully,

New K

Unfortunately, the CHQ/SA ruling will have ZERO impact on this decision. Why?

That's why. You SWA dudes who are hanging your hat on money as a "career expectation" are going to be sorely disappointed with your SLI.

Of course we all know its just a red herring to staple the AAI guys anyway. I guess you couldn't find a better hatrack. For every CHQ/SA ruling (one) you can find, AAI guys can cite every other one that defines "career expectations" as seat/base position issue.

Oh well, good luck. However, spitting in the wind gets you wet sometimes.

Maybe you smart guys can tell me what career expectations mean? I understand both pilots at AAI/SWA will become a captain on a 737. But a SWA pilot in their career is going to make ALOT more than a airtran captain would, right? So if I started a one airplane airline that flew a 737 making 40k as a captain, and SWA bought me, my career expectation would be a 737 captain. Do I get relative seniority, now instead of being on the top of a 4 person airline, I am on top of SWA seniority list making at least 250k? I mean I was going to be a 737 captain at my old airline, I deserve to be a captain at SWA now right?

This is why I think that there will be some credit given due to the wide contract disparity between the two airlines. It won't be straight relative, but it certainly want to a staple job or whatever the heck WN guys think would be "fair."

Relative seniority would hurt every pilot at SWA who went to SWA after leaving AAI as well as pilots who took the extra time to get hired at SWA instead of getting on at AAI earlier. Also, SWA senior pilots had a much larger percentage of retirements to look forward to in the near future. Relative seniority would shift that benefit to AAI pilots.

Very odd statement coming from a poster who's avatar notes that they're flying the same position making $16 less per hour than they were 10 years ago. Guys get hung up on seat/position. However, I'd fly as a FO on a E-170 making $150/hour anyday before flying as a CA on a 767 making $134.

I'd guess that the comeback would be "Like that would ever happen!" My response would be "It has." SWA has FOs making more than CAs at numerous airlines--including AAI. I'd ask you, whose job would you rather have and which has higher expectations? I hold that valuing pilot positions via the label of 777 CA, 737 FO, E-170 CA does not accurately portray the value of each job. Heaven help us that relative seniority becomes the new model for seniority integtration. Unions would have to fight tooth and nail for merger protections in addition to scope clauses. That would take away significant bargaining power for economic gains. At the same time, pilots at poorly paid airlines would not focus on improving their contracts and instead work to make their airline "pretty" for merger with a larger airline.