And the point to this thread is what? Didn't see a bunch of people wondering what the AIP was all about.

 

Or xenophobia.

 

Taking your list of cons

CONS:

1. Reduced flying. Already started. Income opportunities shrinking each month.
--Nothing to do with the AIP. SWAPA doesn't schedule, the company does. No matter what we agree to or what an arbitrator says, this is going to remain true.
2. Agreement to base all pilots in ATL. Uh, oh. There will only be slots for about ½.
--Nothing to do with the AIP, the company decides staffing. No matter what we agree to or what an arbitrator says, this is going to remain true.
3. Therefore (see #2) the remaining ½ become nomads chasing their seats from coast to coast.
--True, but over 60 percent already commute to ATL. It's entirely possible for many that this will improve their QOL.
4. Extension of integration from 18 months to approximately 36 months.
5. No transfer to Sw CBA until integrated (a few crews at a time.)
--I thought this was something the company offered and the ALPA MEC voted no to?
6. Oh yeah, bye-bye seniority. “No Sw pilot will be harmed.” How true.
--This was the stated goal of our negotiating commitee. I'm not sure what's wrong with it. Evidently the ALPA negotiators could have used a mission statement.

Your cheese is getting moved a lot by this purchase. I get it.

SWAPA isn't the one moving all the cheese, SWA is.

SWAPA is just trying to protect our own cheese.

 

73sw:
I understand, you don't give a damn about 1700 families. I get that. Golden rule and all. You probably wouldn't fit into the Airtran culture where we take care of one another.

One Seat:
You're trying to be cute but the truth is none of you know/knew what our MEC was even voting on, did you? You probably only saw SL9. Did Steve even bother to publish the other pile of agreements that became "AIP"?

Look at #2 above. Yes, it was part of the agreement/financial package. I'd send you a copy but it no longer matters. I'll live with whatever seniority allows me to hold and keep my crappy $160 per hour. I'll survive.

#5 was in the agreement/financial package.

And why do you keep referring to the "ALPA negotiators"? There is no such group. The 4 line pilots we sent were duped into thinking they were dealing with honorable SW pilots. Couldn't have been more mistaken.

BTW, those MEC reps who voted 7-1 against this abortion? They've had their pay cut by management, as of last Thursday. Golden rule and all.

 

JohnDeere:

Its not that I don't give a crap, it is just the nature of the beast. This is a divorce in reverse. We try to extract the most possible out of each other but instead of seeing each other every other weekend when you pick up the kids we live with each other.

Had a guy on my jump 10 years after NWA/republic. I have a friend at red book and for an hour he told us how my friend screwed him. My friend was not in the union at all. Sorry if you thought this was going to be nice nice.

 

could Gary Kelly get ticked off enough to dismantle Guadalupe Holdings and take the airplanes or is that not allowed under the Mcaskull law?

 

As I undersand it, there is no Guadalupe Holdings. It was only in existence for the 5'minutes it took to sign the papers.

Nu

 

I'll bite. I don't have a clue about the stunt that was pulled to keep the AT merger committee at the table, please share it with me.

 

All the AT people (except MC) and all the ALPA support staff had left for home. The MC was more or less autonomous so they were on their own schedule.

No progress, no results.

The MC was packing up to leave when the SWAPA guys showed up with a six pack and said, in effect, let's talk.

So, now with no support network, 4 line pilots from AT agreed to sit down with the SWAPA MC for, I'm told, some VERY long days until an outline for the AIP was hammered out.

The AT reps (MEC) had little to no input since they weren't aware the talks were ongoing. The 7-1 vote could have been avoided, in my opinion, if the normal process had been followed.

The story is considerably longer but that is the readers digest version I was given by one of the Airtran MC delegates. And, yes, I fault our guys for not saying, "no, we'll be back next week."

That's how the AIP was derived. 4 guys acting on their own. All good people; I know them. But they were lured into the trap and fell for it.

The MC then told our MEC (all flying full schedules, mind you) that this was better than the deal Gary offered and probably wouldn't get any better. (Stockholm syndrome?) The team then returned to hammer out the complete language which, coincidentally, was well under way when our MC got back to Dallas (see twitter feeds for details.)

Now I don't blame your MC for anything they did. I blame our guys for staying without legal staff. They should have walked away and talked another day. But the result is the abortion of an AIP that has caused so much rancor.

Flame away. But at least talk to YOUR MC first.

 

A sixpack? Lies I tell ya, lies!