AirTran MEC: Whine on!

[Phlintstone]

Yuuuuuup!

Phred

That's what you voted for.

Is there a point to your comment?

Phred

 

[K-Mart]

The information that was put forth by SWA to us, both in meetings and in the press, was that the 717 fleet would remain until the leases ended, which began in 2017.

BIG difference between ending them in 2017 and 2014. Hence the DRC's.

I would think that would be easy to understand.

I can understand your angle and resentment, along with the DRC.

 

[Ty Webb]

Nope, not buying it. Multiple articles in the press said the exact opposite and a letter was sent by GK to the AT pilots that said the future of the 717 was tenuous at best. You can't rewrite history.

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

 

[vixin]

And there would have been a firestorm on this side if we had been told this truth.

Sad thing is the union knew about it.

 

[Tripower455]

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

We were told the same thing, and voted accordingly.

Had we all known about the loss of 2/3 of AT's airframes, the vote would've gone a lot differently on our side. I bet the vote would've been the same on the AT side though.

 

[27 driver]

We were told the same thing, and voted accordingly.

Had we all known about the loss of 2/3 of AT's airframes, the vote would've gone a lot differently on our side. I bet the vote would've been the same on the AT side though.

It probably would have passed by a smaller margin but it would have passed. The transition bid would looked considerably different though. The whole bid was a farce.

 

[doh]

That is a question. Why don't they redo the transition bid? That would at least let people plan for the new reality.

 

[fam62c]

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

The minimum number of crews for a TPA base was negotiated? What written agreement is that in? What written agreement mentions TPA anywhere? Do you mean TBA....which could have been anywhere SW wanted it to be?

 

[ATLplt]

I bet the vote would've been the same on the AT side though.

Any why do you think that would be the case?

 

[Phlintstone]

The minimum number of crews for a TPA base was negotiated? What written agreement is that in? What written agreement mentions TPA anywhere? Do you mean TBA....which could have been anywhere SW wanted it to be?

SLI1 had negotiated overnight crews for ATL but none in SLI2 that I recall. TPA was never negotiated, it was 717TBA. TPA was announced prior to the vote though.

Phred

 

[Tripower455]

Any why do you think that would be the case?

I that case, I believe that 2/3 of the AT guys would've been even more worried about keeping their jobs, and rightfully so, since effectively, SW is only integrating roughly 1/3 of the aircraft.

The SW guys would've viewed it as a partial asset purchase, which, as it turns out, is effectively the case with the departure of the 717s (WRT SLI stuff). IIRC, this wouldn't trigger the Bond McCaskill SLI provisions.

You guys thought you had a "gun to your head" when 100% of your AC were coming over, how would you have felt knowing that 2/3 of the AC weren't going from the beginning?

"Synergies" and other Kompany BS aside, this SLI leaves us grossly overmanned. I sincerely hope I am wrong, and the company starts putting some more AC on the ramp to replace the lost airframes.

 

[Just thinking]

"WHEREAS, on September 26 , 2010, Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) and AirTran
Holdings, Inc., parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc. (together “AirTran”) entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, under the Merger Agreement, effective on the Merger Closing Date,
Southwest – through a series of simultaneous transactions - will acquire all of the stock of
AirTran and AirTran will become a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Southwest,
conditioned on approval of the shareholders of AirTran, receipt of regulatory clearance, and customary closing conditions; and
WHEREAS, the McCaskill-Bond Act provides that in the event of a transaction between
air carriers in which one air carrier acquires fifty (50) percent or more of the stock of
another air carrier in a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a
single air carrier, the seniority lists of the employees of the air carriers shall be integrated pursuant to the provisions set out in Sections 3 and 13 of the CAB’s decision in Allegheny-Mohawk, 59 CAB 22 (1972); "...............

silly little thing that said 50% or more of the stock triggered the MB

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, this was debated on here quite a bit over the past few years, and I'm not going to re-hash it (although you can easily do a site search and read it yourself).

Suffice to say that prior to the vote, we were told that the 717 would be staying until at least 2017, that there would be an ATL base, and a TPA base, and that the minimum number of crews for each were also negotiated. The rest of the facts will be up to the Arbitrator(s) to decide.

I will concede that you were originally told that the 717's would remain until 2017 if you will concede that GK changed that tune after AIP1 was not sent to membership ratification. Prior to the vote you were told there was a distinct possibility that the 717 would exit much more quickly.

The presentation to AirTran pilots notes that Southwest executives briefed union leadership on Plan B after the first deal was rejected. Executives said Southwest must reexamine its options due to a softening economy, high jet fuel costs and "unforeseen difficulties with AirTran integration." Those issues include "difficulty weaning" AirTran from $200 million a year in revenue from baggage fees and difficulty integrating AirTran's Boeing 717s, according to the presentation.


http://www.ajc.com/news/business/southwest-raises-possibility-of-alternate-plan-for/nQMdG/

 

[j41driver]

5th and 20th, 5th and 20th...

 

[27 driver]

IIRC the 717's staying intil 2017 and beyond was because the first deal was not put out to vote therefore AAI pilots not receiving SWA wages. That's what made the 717's a little more cost effective. That's when the ATL 717 and TBA 717 base became more important to AAI pilots. That's why the transition bid turned out how it did. Many 737 capt's bid to go to and were awarded the 717 to remain in the left seat. My memory may be a bit fuzzy though.