Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Will SWA and AT truly merge?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
PCL you are making the assumption that GK will actually combine the two carriers. Without the combining your assumption don't matter, you will be a single carrier, just like now. You will just have a different owner.

By the way, are you LEC? Your birthday on your profile matches one of the guys on the LEC.
 
roughneck said:
PCL,
Did you read the "material change" clause? I'm pretty sure Gary has options.
Click to expand...

Take a look at it again. Negotiations under the RLA are exempt, as carriers are required under the RLA to bargain in good faith. The merger agreement cannot cause the carrier to be in violation of the law, so the merger agreement excludes RLA bargaining from the material adverse change clause.

luv2fly said:
PCL you are making the assumption that GK will actually combine the two carriers.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an assumption, it's a contractual requirement. He has 18 months to either combine the carriers or divest AirTran. It's not a choice.

By the way, are you LEC? Your birthday on your profile matches one of the guys on the LEC.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.
 
PCL, please think before you type. You just agreed with what the option GH gives SWA, the ability to divest prior to any combination.
 
One thing that I wonder is the "all about culture" airline is taking on a different breed of pilots. In no way am I suggesting that AT is a bad bunch, I just find it hard to believe that Mr. Kelly hasn't considered the implications of disgruntled pilots sharing the same cockpit and how that could "materially change" his operation. From my outside looking in view, that's the real "material change" argument.

So.....you are a SWA guy and an AT shows up to the aircraft to sit in the left seat when he is a couple of years junior, or more, by date of hire. That's what I call a party! Dude gets a hefty increase in pay, far better QOL, a more secure future, benevolent management, and keeps his seat. Sign me up for some of that!

I honestly hope you guys can work this thing out as I know many from both groups and would hate to see the ole Republic/NWA/Southern thing raise its ugly head.

No offense to the AT guys, but if I were SWA, I would be looking for any possible "get out of jail free" card in case things go south in a hurry.

Godspeed.
 
you might want to read that merger agreement
Click to expand...

Well I have. And much more other than that.

A merger agreement document does not mean they will consolidate the two companies. If you read both Airtran and Southwest Chairs speak they say over and over acquisition/integration. I can't find where either of them have used the word "merger". There is nothing, absolutely nothing that requires SWA to consolidate the two companies. They can be operated separately....indefinitely. Just like American and American eagle.

Now there would be a violation of Swapa's scope agreement. But don't think for a minute that if the pilots believe there is a lack of fairness or good faith that they will easily negotiate exceptions that would pertain to these specific seniority issues with the pilots of AT.

Where is stated that an acquiring company is not allowed to slowly dismantle what they purchased. There is a very long history of many companies doing just that. And in the airline business, remember a company named Eastern Airlines?

This agreement is all about acquisition agreement and not about a merger agreement. No matter what the document is titled. In a merger agreement leadership is established. No such talk in this ACQUISITION. Southwest has all the power.

Much of this will unfold as time goes on. Based on the attitudes on this board, which probably accurately reflects a sample of both work groups, it sounds like 2012 could be an interesting year for both SWA and AT.
 
luv2fly said:
PCL, please think before you type. You just agreed with what the option GH gives SWA, the ability to divest prior to any combination.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not GH that allows him to do that, because GH ceases to exist. AirTran is the surviving company as a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest. But still, you're right that Southwest will always have the option of divesting itself of AirTran prior to the 18 months if they so choose. To do so requires either a buyer or an IPO, of course, and it also eliminates the synergies that Gary has been telling everyone are so wonderful. In other words, it's incredibly unlikely to happen.
 
PCL_128 said:
The more restrictive agreement would be binding in this case, which would be the 18 month limitation in our CBA, unless ALPA were to agree to extend that limit, which would require membership ratification.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. That would be terrible for those SWA guys. I bet they thought SWA had 24 months. So their contract is useless because the Airtran contract would be the binding one. I wonder if they know that?

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying. Since your contract is more restrictive the 18 months would be the limit rather than SWA's 24 months?

Would your pay rates also be applied because they are more restrictive than SWA? I guess it would be according to you.
 
The more restrictive agreement would be binding in this case, which would be the 18 month limitation in our CBA, unless ALPA were to agree to extend that limit, which would require membership ratification.
Click to expand...

This comment sums up my interest in this integration. The arrogance of this statement is astounding. To think that the company being acquired has the edge on the acquiring company is blind, blind, blind to to the facts.

What if you were to push this 18 month limit to SWA the acquiring airline? Do you really think this is the leverage you need? If you are union leadership as you try to appear, your pilots need to start praying. You are leading them done the primrose path of destruction.

Some times you need to know if your the bug, or the windshield. Which one are you?
 
Windfall for SWA/FO = He gets to finally upgrade
Click to expand...

SWA/FO is gonna upgrade regardless of Tranny. He is real close now.
 
Sy-bill said:
If you are union leadership as you try to appear
Click to expand...

I try to appear? I've never implied that I was in the union leadership. Other people have. I'm just an AirTran pilot like every other AirTran pilot posting here at FI. The union leadership speaks for themselves through official channels.
 
PCL_128 said:
I try to appear? I've never implied that I was in the union leadership. Other people have. I'm just an AirTran pilot like every other AirTran pilot posting here at FI. The union leadership speaks for themselves through official channels.
Click to expand...

What a cop out. Now that everybody knows you are not as smart as you think you are saying you are just a regular pilot. Like somebody else said, the airline that is being acquired thinks they control the airline that is buying them. I think that is the statement that proved you are not the smart one you think you are.

The airtran contract is more restrictive in everything so I guess the SWA guys will be getting your contract. Will it be the old one or the new one? Probably not much difference.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top