AT MX working on SWA equipment?
- Thread starter SWA.TECH
- Start date
AT will continue to work on AT aircraft, AMFA will have to grieve this action and go through the process. Understand the grievance will have to go to arbitration for resolution. It could be an expedited process in which the arbitrator sits the system board and renders a decision quickly per article 3. I predict that AT will be told to work on SWA aircraft as well and we will be filing a lot of grievances.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Without having seen the entire document, the above seems key. Even though a SOC has been issued, nothing prevents WN from operating the two pre-merger carriers as though they were still separate. The SOC is something of a technicality - the FAA is saying that the two carriers operate identically with regard to policies/procedures required by the FAR's. Actually combining the two operations, once a SOC is obtained, is more a business decision.
It also illustrates why having some kind of transition agreement protects both side's employees. Without it there is nothing to prevent a company from transferring flying, maintenance, whatever to the lower cost side if it's so inclined. WN management, to it's credit, seems to have set up a process of transitioning work in an orderly fashion. What you're going through is nothing that all merging carriers go through - a transition from two separate carriers to one fully integrated carrier.
Jim
Without having seen the entire document, the above seems key. Even though a SOC has been issued, nothing prevents WN from operating the two pre-merger carriers as though they were still separate. The SOC is something of a technicality - the FAA is saying that the two carriers operate identically with regard to policies/procedures required by the FAR's. Actually combining the two operations, once a SOC is obtained, is more a business decision.
It also illustrates why having some kind of transition agreement protects both side's employees. Without it there is nothing to prevent a company from transferring flying, maintenance, whatever to the lower cost side if it's so inclined. WN management, to it's credit, seems to have set up a process of transitioning work in an orderly fashion. What you're going through is nothing that all merging carriers go through - a transition from two separate carriers to one fully integrated carrier.
Jim
AMFA's position is that at SOC all aircraft under SWA's operating certificate fall under our CBA. The Company has acknowledged and agreed that to be the intent of the language. They then asked for relief from that language in our transition agreement, which is written acknowledgement of the intent. Now that SOC has come and there is no SLI or transition agreement I am sure the company will deny this acknowledgement. It will be a fight. My hope is that it will be of no consequence if we can reach a ratified agreement before it gets real ugly.
It also illustrates why having some kind of transition agreement protects both side's employees. Without it there is nothing to prevent a company from transferring flying, maintenance, whatever to the lower cost side if it's so inclined. WN management, to it's credit, seems to have set up a process of transitioning work in an orderly fashion. What you're going through is nothing that all merging carriers go through - a transition from two separate carriers to one fully integrated carrier.
Jim
AMFA's position is that at SOC all aircraft under SWA's operating certificate fall under our CBA. The Company has acknowledged and agreed that to be the intent of the language. They then asked for relief from that language in our transition agreement, which is written acknowledgement of the intent. Now that SOC has come and there is no SLI or transition agreement I am sure the company will deny this acknowledgement. It will be a fight. My hope is that it will be of no consequence if we can reach a ratified agreement before it gets real ugly.
MadMan wrote:
AMFA's position is that at SOC all aircraft under SWA's operating certificate fall under our CBA. The Company has acknowledged and agreed that to be the intent of the language. They then asked for relief from that language in our transition agreement, which is written acknowledgement of the intent. Now that SOC has come and there is no SLI or transition agreement I am sure the company will deny this acknowledgement. It will be a fight. My hope is that it will be of no consequence if we can reach a ratified agreement before it gets real ugly.
MadMan; Is this something that could possibly cause some "no" votes to surface again? I hope were not going to see any surprises in the transitioning agreement, are we? As far as we have been told (so far) and not reviewed anything as of yet, as long as the 4 items are in the integration agreement, and the items concerning the 401K match increase to 9.3% and retro, the "me too" clause, Den maint and other language, as well as addressing the 4th line, I am hearing alot of possitive feedback for an acceptence of the integration/transition agreements. As long as everything is there that we have been told, I haven't heard of a single no voter so far. It's like an exact opisite of feedback from the previous offer, only this time not hearing any no votes. My post is refering to shop talk on the floor. We all know from postings here, there are still a couple of people still willing to vote no if the yearly thing remains and not %, But we will all see when this comes out for a vote.
AMFA's position is that at SOC all aircraft under SWA's operating certificate fall under our CBA. The Company has acknowledged and agreed that to be the intent of the language. They then asked for relief from that language in our transition agreement, which is written acknowledgement of the intent. Now that SOC has come and there is no SLI or transition agreement I am sure the company will deny this acknowledgement. It will be a fight. My hope is that it will be of no consequence if we can reach a ratified agreement before it gets real ugly.
MadMan; Is this something that could possibly cause some "no" votes to surface again? I hope were not going to see any surprises in the transitioning agreement, are we? As far as we have been told (so far) and not reviewed anything as of yet, as long as the 4 items are in the integration agreement, and the items concerning the 401K match increase to 9.3% and retro, the "me too" clause, Den maint and other language, as well as addressing the 4th line, I am hearing alot of possitive feedback for an acceptence of the integration/transition agreements. As long as everything is there that we have been told, I haven't heard of a single no voter so far. It's like an exact opisite of feedback from the previous offer, only this time not hearing any no votes. My post is refering to shop talk on the floor. We all know from postings here, there are still a couple of people still willing to vote no if the yearly thing remains and not %, But we will all see when this comes out for a vote.
Not sure all the details have been worked out in the transition agreement. The few details I have heard have been pretty straight forward. 401k and Denver were proposed along with a proposal for the company to make a commitment on not reducing head count in BWI and MCO by a forced displacement. This would not prevent someone from bidding into or bumping into either of these stations if their seniority allows it. The company would also be able to abolish positions if they go unsuccessfully bid per CBA.
AMFA will have to go through the grievance process on the 4th line if we don't find a resolution or agree to a delayed start date for the 4th. One thing to look at is that the timeline for the 4th line arbitration decision and the company's proposed date to start the line are very close. AMFA should file the grievance and start the process but look at the possibility of withdrawing if the company follows through as they planned. Just an opinion.
AMFA will have to go through the grievance process on the 4th line if we don't find a resolution or agree to a delayed start date for the 4th. One thing to look at is that the timeline for the 4th line arbitration decision and the company's proposed date to start the line are very close. AMFA should file the grievance and start the process but look at the possibility of withdrawing if the company follows through as they planned. Just an opinion.
K. Thx. I misread your post. My fault.
