Airtran Pilots, Don't buy that new house yet..

[27 driver]

Which is why AirTran pilots will never agree to DOH.

Lear,
There may be some that would benefit from DOH. I am one of those. I would gain several hundred spots. Not sure it is better than a relative integration or what ever other model used. I have not even done the math as my opinion doesn't matter. For anyone to say they will not accept this or that is crazy as they will most likely not be asked what they think. It will be up to the 4 lucky or unlucky folks appointed to the MC. They will either be heroes or zeros in the end. Wouldn't want their job. Certain integration models work great for one demographic while sucking ass for others. In the end your guess is as good as mine because that is what it is right now. A guess.

 

[Ty Webb]

. . . and THAT, ladies and germs, basically sums it up. :beer:

 

[Lear70]

. . . and THAT, ladies and germs, basically sums it up. :beer:

Oh ayuh... that it does.

 

[Cometman]

Funnyman, where do you come up with these 4-1 numbers. Integration ratios were never shared with the pilot group, as the deal never happened. Quit pulling this sh!t out of your azz and speculating on what you know nothing about.

It might no be fact but it will probably be incorportated into any settlement. And 4 to 1 is about what it would be. Maybe 3.5-1 is closer but round it off to 4 to 1.

 

[FNG320]

First, SWA pilots do not have any advantage in this merger, unlike with the Frontier attempt. They have no additional bargaining position.

Since both CBAs have merger protection, you can expect that if the merger is not realistic and fair it will go to binding arbitration. This is where McCaskill-Bond will kick in and force a fair integration.

I expect that in such an arbitration, the arbitrator will listen to all sides and arguments, but the bottom line he will rule that a pure percentage integration will occur. EVERYONE will keep thier same relative seniority. If you were top 2% you are end up the same. If you were a bottom 10% you end up the same. Everyone that is a Captain before remains a Captain after. This type of intgegration is reflected in the DAL/NWA SLI and the USAir/AWA (active pilots). SLIs.

I know that some will argue that the AirTran pilost would get a windfall over such a merger. Yes, the AirTran pilots do get a pay raise in the Swa cba, but that is just a fact of live. Even the last FO at AirTran gets a pay raise and there is no SLI that will take this away from him. Just becuase AirTran is half the age of SWA does not matter, ref USAir merger. Hell, even the Delta/NWA had two pilot group that were different in ages (due to most senior DAL pilots taking the lump sum retirement and leaving prior to BK, thus effectively making DAL a younger company by up to 10years over NWA.

Yes, AirTran pilots get lots of improvements. But the are NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SWA PILOTS. The SWA pilots would be at least the same before as after. However, in the big picture, even the SWA pilots will see benefits by the growth of the company, and future profits. Both sides will see improvements, it is just that AirTran pilots will see more. But no one will see a loss. Thus I see a pure percentage integration based on the facts and precedent established over the last few years.

Just my opinion.......

FNG

 

[Dan Roman]

First, SWA pilots do not have any advantage in this merger, unlike with the Frontier attempt. They have no additional bargaining position.

Since both CBAs have merger protection, you can expect that if the merger is not realistic and fair it will go to binding arbitration. This is where McCaskill-Bond will kick in and force a fair integration.

I expect that in such an arbitration, the arbitrator will listen to all sides and arguments, but the bottom line he will rule that a pure percentage integration will occur. EVERYONE will keep thier same relative seniority. If you were top 2% you are end up the same. If you were a bottom 10% you end up the same. Everyone that is a Captain before remains a Captain after. This type of intgegration is reflected in the DAL/NWA SLI and the USAir/AWA (active pilots). SLIs.

I know that some will argue that the AirTran pilost would get a windfall over such a merger. Yes, the AirTran pilots do get a pay raise in the Swa cba, but that is just a fact of live. Even the last FO at AirTran gets a pay raise and there is no SLI that will take this away from him. Just becuase AirTran is half the age of SWA does not matter, ref USAir merger. Hell, even the Delta/NWA had two pilot group that were different in ages (due to most senior DAL pilots taking the lump sum retirement and leaving prior to BK, thus effectively making DAL a younger company by up to 10years over NWA.

Yes, AirTran pilots get lots of improvements. But the are NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SWA PILOTS. The SWA pilots would be at least the same before as after. However, in the big picture, even the SWA pilots will see benefits by the growth of the company, and future profits. Both sides will see improvements, it is just that AirTran pilots will see more. But no one will see a loss. Thus I see a pure percentage integration based on the facts and precedent established over the last few years.

Just my opinion.......

FNG

Tthis seems like a pretty spot on analysis to me.

 

[texman]

I just wish Airtran brought retirements to the table. The delta thing is a whole different animal. Look at how many retirements they have over the next 10 years.

 

[GuppyWN]

Why does it hurt so bad when I bite my tongue?

Gup

 

[texman]

Why does it hurt so bad when I bite my tongue?

Gup

Come on Gup you can do it man! You can doooooo it!

 

[F9 Driver]

Since both CBAs have merger protection, you can expect that if the merger is not realistic and fair it will go to binding arbitration. This is where McCaskill-Bond will kick in and force a fair integration.

Just my opinion.......

FNG

Just a couple of points from someone who, thank god, has no dog in this particular fight:

1) McCaskill - Bond assures that the parties have access to arbitration. It mandates the Allegheny Mohawk LPPs Sections 3 and 13 so that neither party can waive their right to a neutral arbitrator's decision or in case one of the parties didn't have 3&13 in their contract. It does not force a "fair and equitable" resolution, rather it ensures a "fair and equitable" resolution process - the arbitration. A staple may be the decision of the arbitrator (TWA/AAL ground handlers) and Mc/Bond says nothing to prohibit that.

2) Has anyone heard SWA or SWAPA publicly say that they've reversed their heartfelt opposition to SLI arbitration? The one lesson that SWA took from their failed attempt to buy F9 is not to prematurely announce your plans. SWA announced their intention to bid for F9 and almost simultaneously announced the reduction of 20% of F9 flying and the need for mechanics and unrepresented FAs to reinterview for their jobs. If they are planning to do something that may PO the work force, I think they have learned not to telegraph it.

3) In keeping with the title of this thread take a look at what The Good Captain Kuwitzky has to say about this acquisition: "First thing, this is an acquisition and that means we actually merge operations but there is a legal distinction that this is an acquisition. We have two separate tracks we’re going to be working on for th next 6 to 8 months. One is an agreement to blend operations together and that is called a transition agreement. We’re already at work on that. That will be between SWAPA and Southwest Airlines. You have the AirTran operations governed by the AirTran pilots contract and the Southwest operations governed by the SWAPA contract....You have to put those two together. Our contract will be the governing document and we need to codify that contractually...[The transition agreement] needs to be completed by the transaction date between Southwest and AirTran. We’re looking at April 1, June 1 as the transaction date. After that, we’ll start working on a seniority list integration agreement that will be between us and the ALPA unit. The company will not be involved in that."

Read more: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_...esident-capt-carl-kuwitzky.html#ixzz12LwwbDYD

Read the whole Q&A. Not real warm and fuzzy.

The only thing I know for sure about this is that I'm glad not to be involved. We FAPA folks have been on this ride for some time now and I can offer only one piece of advice - behave in your daily lives as if none of this were happening, but know that your respective jobs/companies/careers are changing. If I were an AAI guy I'd put some extra money in the bank just in case the unthinkable happens - good idea for any of us crazy enough to pin our futures on aviation.

Good luck - flame on.
​

 

[FlyinGuy]

DOH and Keep your seats!!!! Someone is smoking crack when they use this and "fair and equitable" in the same sentence. How is it fair and equitable when an AT guy will keep his seat, get a huge raise, and get about a 4-5 year bump in seniority. That is not reality. So when we make these long and hart felt appealing post, let's make sure they include a dose of reality next time!

 

[GuppyWN]

Take a breath brother. In through the nose.......... out through the mouth!

Gup

 

[Kharma Police]

Why does it hurt so bad when I bite my tongue?

Gup

Deleted

 

[FlyinGuy]

Thanks for the tip Gup.

 

[Mongolikecandy]

I find it funny how guys on both sides are getting wrapped around the axle over something (SLI) that hasn't even happened yet. Let the process work itself out and then we can all biitch about how our MECs screwed us. Then, like everyone else has been saying, first round is on me. Cheers.

 

[Kharma Police]

DOH and Keep your seats!!!! Someone is smoking crack when they use this and "fair and equitable" in the same sentence. How is it fair and equitable when an AT guy will keep his seat, get a huge raise, and get about a 4-5 year bump in seniority. That is not reality. So when we make these long and hart felt appealing post, let's make sure they include a dose of reality next time!

If you kept the same relative senority as you had before, then out of curiosity, how would it hurt you?

 

[Cometman]

If you kept the same relative senority as you had before, then out of curiosity, how would it hurt you?

Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?

 

[Kharma Police]

Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?

I understand how your point can breed some resentment however I still don't see how it would impact your career progression or bidding with a ratio integration. An arbitrator will not only look at pay but also career progression to which an argument can be made for a six year AirTran FO that will no longer be upgrading but will have to wait an additional six years to get to the left seat. I understand he will be making more money but pay is only one variable out of many that an arbitrator will factor in.

BTW, not that it matters, unless a lot of your senior pilots want to move to Georgia but the number one guy at AirTran as well as many senior pilots live in Atlanta.

 

[Splert]

I understand he will be making more money but pay is only one variable out of many that an arbitrator will factor in.

In this business the future has a Net Present Value of zero.

Projected grade times are pure fiction.

 

[DougCorp-9]

Correct me if I am wrong. If an AT guy is number one on his list with relative senority he would be close to number one with SWA? If that is the case then you would have a guy that was hired in about 1993 next to guy that was hired in 1975. Would that be a fair system?

You do realize that DOH has nothing to do with seniority don't you? You don't bid a line, base , vacation or anything else based on your DOH. DOH only affects your longevity for pay, pass privileges, ect. Longevity and seniority are not interrelated.