SWA yes vote:

[Flycatcher99]

Lest you forget our CBA which requires merging of the lists 18 months post DOCC. AAI reafirmed in writing to honor this agreement with the sale of the company. Can GK disobey it....sure.....question is why the He!! would he unless he want to lose 100s of millions in down time retraining 1800 new pilots and putting up with a tarnished reputation.

After arbitration if the company refuses to integrate us I stop coming to work along with 1800 guys - can your warrior spirit handle that?....Probably... but your shareholders will have GK and LW butt in a sling and fired.....Me thinks GK and LW like their jobs and want to keep them regardless of what some pilots want.

Where in writing does GK promise to honor your CBA? Not trying to be argumentative...genuinely curious. If you are referring to the P/A, then, as I made a case, the P/A is null and void.

And if you know anything about the culture at SWA, you would know that lawsuits and sickouts would probably not be the best idea. Just guessing, but that might push GK to rid himself of 50% of the assets real quick. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, just furthering your hypothetical.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm no labor lawyer (my brother is, though), but I can tell you that this Process Agreement in no way requires the merger of the lists. The sections that follow these introductory paragraphs, including your Section VI, only serve to expound on the details that will be followed by the process spelled out in the agreement. There is simply no stipulation that SWA merges the two airlines. Period.

If your brother really is a labor lawyer (which I highly doubt), then I suggest you give him a call and ask him what "recitals" are, and ask him whether they are legally binding portions of a contract. You might learn a thing or two. If so, you'll learn that the introductory paragraphs you just references are not considered "terms" of the agreement, and therefore are not part of the binding legal contract. They are basically just considered a non-binding preamble. But, even if they were binding parts of the agreement, your interpretation of them is still asinine, as they don't imply at all what you're suggesting.

Where in writing does GK promise to honor your CBA? Not trying to be argumentative...genuinely curious. If you are referring to the P/A, then, as I made a case, the P/A is null and void.

Mike V. provided a letter to ALPA stating that SWA would adhere to the AirTran CBA, specifically Section 1 (scope). That happened months ago, even before the PA was signed.

 

[Flycatcher99]

If your brother really is a labor lawyer (which I highly doubt), then I suggest you give him a call and ask him what "recitals" are, and ask him whether they are legally binding portions of a contract. You might learn a thing or two. If so, you'll learn that the introductory paragraphs you just references are not considered "terms" of the agreement, and therefore are not part of the binding legal contract. They are basically just considered a non-binding preamble. But, even if they were binding parts of the agreement, your interpretation of them is still asinine, as they don't imply at all what you're suggesting.

Not that I care whether you believe me or not, but my brother indeed is a labor lawyer, and I've talked to him plenty about this whole deal. He has worked with attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser, and has assured me that SWAPA is in good hands. And if you had even half the law knowledge that you think you do, you would know that if SWA does not merge the two operations, then M/B does not apply. Period. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain this.

Oh, and the first paragraph of the P/A is not one of the recitals. Educate your own self.

Mike V. provided a letter to ALPA stating that SWA would adhere to the AirTran CBA, specifically Section 1 (scope). That happened months ago, even before the PA was signed.

Really? That sounds incredibly made up, even on an internet forum. Even if it were true, I'd be curious about the scope 1 language. Doubtful it's so ironclad that you all could make any kind of serious legal challenge to being operated separately. I worked at an ALPA carrier, and our contract was a joke compared to our SWAPA one.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Oh, and PCL, I'm still waiting for the reference of where Section VII (b) is no longer valid.

 

[PCL_128]

Not that I care whether you believe me or not, but my brother indeed is a labor lawyer, and I've talked to him plenty about this whole deal. He has worked with attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser, and has assured me that SWAPA is in good hands. And if you had even half the law knowledge that you think you do, you would know that if SWA does not merge the two operations, then M/B does not apply. Period. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain this.

Oh, and the first paragraph of the P/A is not one of the recitals. Educate your own self.





Really? That sounds incredibly made up, even on an internet forum. Even if it were true, I'd be curious about the scope 1 language. Doubtful it's so ironclad that you all could make any kind of serious legal challenge to being operated separately. I worked at an ALPA carrier, and our contract was a joke compared to our SWAPA one.

You keep telling yourself all of that if it makes you feel better. You'll learn before this is all said and done, though.

 

[Flycatcher99]

You keep telling yourself all of that if it makes you feel better. You'll learn before this is all said and done, though.

Translation: I can't answer any of the questions or points you've posited. PCL's equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?!!"

 

[Flycatcher99]

Oh, and PCL, I'm still waiting for the reference of where Section VII (b) is no longer valid.

Still waiting...

 

[Sy-bill]

If, and I mean if, SWA decided to join the two airlines, one being held in Texas Sub LLC, the AirTran CBA would have some teeth. But you are being held in a different holding company being controlled by SWA. They are legally two separate entities. The AirTran CBA is in effect with Texas Sub LLC but not with SWA.

Think what you will but there are no legal obligations for SWA to recognize the 18 month merger or integration scope clause in your CBA if SWA decides not to merge Texas Sub LLC with SWA.

Argue with this all you want but this is the fact. It sucks for certain. But this is what your former management agreed to. As if they are going to have the last word on a five year labor dispute. Just be glad their gone no matter what the price. But you do have other concerns now. As long as everyone is reasonable, SWA pilots included, you are in a much better position now than you were on September 26th.

 

[madjack]

I would argue that threatening our future coworkers is not productive, instead I would like to hear a reasoned conjecture on how we merge the lists and the AAI pilots are not the only winners? I sense a that the AAI CPs want to keep their seats...focusing on that part of the integration that would meant that a junior AAI CP (year 6-7 in AAI Longevity) would have pay, seniority and position over SWA FOs at 10-11 years SWA longevity...why should the AAI CPs gain all that and the SWA FOs merely "lose nothing"? Shouldn't the SWA pilots also "gain" something in the acquisition. I know you bought the airplanes with you but that does not mean that all the windfall goes to the AAI pilots...any ideas on resolving this very important disparity?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I would argue that threatening our future coworkers is not productive, instead I would like to hear a reasoned conjecture on how we merge the lists and the AAI pilots are not the only winners? I sense a that the AAI CPs want to keep their seats...focusing on that part of the integration that would meant that a junior AAI CP (year 6-7 in AAI Longevity) would have pay, seniority and position over SWA FOs at 10-11 years SWA longevity...why should the AAI CPs gain all that and the SWA FOs merely "lose nothing"? Shouldn't the SWA pilots also "gain" something in the acquisition. I know you bought the airplanes with you but that does not mean that all the windfall goes to the AAI pilots...any ideas on resolving this very important disparity?

Offer them a staple with no furlough clause and pay protection. Let them vote on it. It will pass easily.

If for some reason it doesn't, offer preferential interviews.

 

[N1kawotg]

Thinking of all those that think GK isn't going to want to lose 100s of millions by not combining both companies, just a thought, he loses Swa that already for not charging bag fees! He's doing whats right for the external customer, does anyone have any evidence that GK won't do what's right to his existing internal customer, meaning his current employees.

 

[Lear70]

Still waiting...

He's not going to respond, nor am I.

The attorneys we have are happy with the language, and that's good enough for me. Nothing is "perfect" and nothing is "foolproof", on either side. It's a gamble to have to go the legal avenue, plain and simple, for either side. Any lawyer that would tell you different isn't painting a fair picture of real-world possibilities.

As far as the MV letter, you can "doubt" all you want, but it's very clear on two major points. First, he committed that Southwest is a "successor" as defined by our CBA Section 1 language (which requires adherence by Southwest to our ENTIRE CBA). Second, he committed specifically to adhering to our acquisition language in Section 1.

Neither of those statements or anything else in the letter was an "if" or "when".

Of course Southwest *COULD* operate us separately, but only for a defined period of time, then it gets REALLY messy, and that's not the bad part. The bad part is that it costs in the neighborhood of $200 million a year (over $250k a DAY) to operate us separately with our corporate overhead that's necessary to do so.

There's a REASON Southwest management is pushing for this deal to be done as soon as possible. I'm in full support of our respective negotiators to hammer our part of it out and move forward.

 

[Lear70]

Thinking of all those that think GK isn't going to want to lose 100s of millions by not combining both companies, just a thought, he loses Swa that already for not charging bag fees! He's doing whats right for the external customer, does anyone have any evidence that GK won't do what's right to his existing internal customer, meaning his current employees.

The bag fees are recaptured by higher fares (your fares are higher on similar segments than ours), so Southwest isn't losing anything once SOC happens and the routes can be priced as per Southwest rates. Just one of the little tidbits that has come out since BJ took over the helm.

 

[Flycatcher99]

If, and I mean if, SWA decided to join the two airlines, one being held in Texas Sub LLC, the AirTran CBA would have some teeth. But you are being held in a different holding company being controlled by SWA. They are legally two separate entities. The AirTran CBA is in effect with Texas Sub LLC but not with SWA.

Think what you will but there are no legal obligations for SWA to recognize the 18 month merger or integration scope clause in your CBA if SWA decides not to merge Texas Sub LLC with SWA.

Argue with this all you want but this is the fact. It sucks for certain. But this is what your former management agreed to. As if they are going to have the last word on a five year labor dispute. Just be glad their gone no matter what the price. But you do have other concerns now. As long as everyone is reasonable, SWA pilots included, you are in a much better position now than you were on September 26th.

Spot on as usual, Sy-bill.

 

[Cruncher]

Gonna be twice as long to upgrade
to Captain at SW as Airtran.

Seems like less career expectation
Rather than more!

Kwick,

Except for the fact that ALL AII FOs will upgrade (compared to their current rate) as soon as they are on the swa cba. Instantly! No going to training, commuting across country to sit reserve. Then they get ANOTHER huge raise when they eventually do upgrade.

A third less in benefits costs?

Best 401k in the US!

And the list goes on n on ... How can you say this with a straight face? Really, less career expectations? Really?

 

[redflyer65]

And the list goes on n on ... How can you say this with a straight face? Really, less career expectations? Really?

I think this one statement pretty much sums up what alot of Southwest guys see on this form. Give me mine, and here's a kick in the sack for good measure. (Not everyone, but most)

 

[dicko]

As far as the MV letter, you can "doubt" all you want, but it's very clear on two major points. First, he committed that Southwest is a "successor" as defined by our CBA Section 1 language (which requires adherence by Southwest to our ENTIRE CBA). Second, he committed specifically to adhering to our acquisition language in Section 1.

Neither of those statements or anything else in the letter was an "if" or "when".

Of course Southwest *COULD* operate us separately, but only for a defined period of time, then it gets REALLY messy, and that's not the bad part. The bad part is that it costs in the neighborhood of $200 million a year (over $250k a DAY) to operate us separately with our corporate overhead that's necessary to do so.

There's a REASON Southwest management is pushing for this deal to be done as soon as possible. I'm in full support of our respective negotiators to hammer our part of it out and move forward.

The above quote is a bump for Flycatcher

 

[PCL_128]

If, and I mean if, SWA decided to join the two airlines, one being held in Texas Sub LLC, the AirTran CBA would have some teeth. But you are being held in a different holding company being controlled by SWA. They are legally two separate entities. The AirTran CBA is in effect with Texas Sub LLC but not with SWA.

Wrong. We have a holding company side letter that applies not only any holding company, but also to holding companies of holding companies. You could have 20 layers of holding companies, and it would still be binding. It was written specifically to prevent the sort of end-run that you're contemplating. Not that I think SWA management has any intent of doing such a ridiculous thing, anyway.

 

[Skyboy722]

Second, he committed specifically to adhering to our acquisition language in Section 1.

Neither of those statements or anything else in the letter was an "if" or "when".

I haven't read it in a while, and can't find it now, but didn't Mike VdV's letter that you refer to contain language to the effect of:

".....to the extent required by law."


Why would that be in there?

 

[N1kawotg]

The bag fees are recaptured by higher fares (your fares are higher on similar segments than ours), so Southwest isn't losing anything once SOC happens and the routes can be priced as per Southwest rates. Just one of the little tidbits that has come out since BJ took over the helm.

I'd have to look at the fare differences, but at 40-80-120 sale thru nov, I am hard pressed to believe at those rates AAI competes closely with those fares, if that was the case Jordan would be raising fares as to not to compete against each other for pax when all profits now go to SWA corp. My point was SWA leaves millions upon millions off the profit sharing table and out of investors hands by not charging for bags on any flights, even thoughs where there is zero competition. even at $5 a bag and 25 pax pay that per flight at 3000 flights a day thats 135 million/yr. So, those thinking he won't leave money on the table to make sure his legacy remains intact with current employees for 100mil(potential loss from not combining the 2 carriers spouted on FI) may need to consider that. I just posed a question to cite an example of GK not putting his current employees first.