AirTran to take ATA Employees with Deal

[airlinepilot]

BK brings on special rules....

The judge has the power.....and I forget the BK title...to do away with contracts, etc .......I don't think he would make any company buying assets to take the ATA employees with them......he will look after the creditors....FIRST.... not the employees. Let's face it....if GE finance or Boeing were to take the aircraft bacK and enter into an agreement with us....the pilots would not come along......Kill the lawyers but it is true....Don't flame me guys and gals...ATA has some great people and I wish each and everyone of them the best.....but what I say is true.

 

[CaptSeth]

...not to mention the fact that the airline is worth much more as a whole, particularly as an operating entity. Good routes, frequent fliers, load factors, no start-up costs, trained employees, great performance - it all goes down the tubes in a liquidation, and you have to start from scratch.

Renogatiate the debt, and you have a winner. Any other takers? We shall soon see.........

 

[SWA/FO]

Virgin?

 

[ultrarunner]

I agree...it's a chance it'll let others in. But the playing field is so small (airlines with cash), that it may be a good risk.

 

[mt2]

In a nutshell, if SWA (or AAI, or AWA, whoever) were to take the 737-800s, it would trigger the fragmentation clause in our contract that states the pilots must go with the airplanes.
Also, it is technically only 30% of the fleet, or enough of the fleet that those planes accounted for 30% of the revenue in the past 12 months, or 30% of the block hours flow the past 12 months.

Pickle -- don't forget our frag clause also talks about Routes as well as aircraft. And we all know MDW makes up more than 30% of our revenues. Just another brick in the wall.

 

[Ty Webb]

Pickle -- don't forget our frag clause also talks about Routes as well as aircraft. And we all know MDW makes up more than 30% of our revenues. Just another brick in the wall.

I just really don't get where you guys are coming from. How would you guys respond if you bought our gate rights at BWI and PHL and DCA, and suddenly AirTran pilots were all over this board saying how we thought that we were entitled to ATA seniority numbers on that basis, and not a staple, either, but date of hire . . . .

I mean, come on.. . . . . We're not buying any of your airplanes. You guys aren't even parking the airplanes, and you will probably continue to fly these routes for a year or so, while your company finds other routes to deploy them on, which may or may not compete with AirTran's routes.

Also, you would have to resign your ATA number . . . what if ATA redeploys your airplane on other routes . . . . . are you still going to give up your ATA seniority then, and come to AirTran? Should we hold a spot for you? Would you like my number, while you make up your mind? This discussion is just ridiculous. Unless we buy some of your airplanes, it's a waste of time.

 

[Resume Writer]

One thing to remember about the gates; they are controlled by the city, not ATA. Who they go to is not for ATA to decide.

Whatever happens, it'll be interesting!

I agree with SWA Guy on this one. You bet the City of Chicago will have a say in what happens, since they are technically a creditor; probably in a higher position depending upon the amount of money owed, but after the aircraft lessors.

There will be HUGE political pressure to keep people employed in Chicago. But the positions are going to be the ground positions.

As for the pilots and flight crews, I would almost bet that there will be a "reapplication" for positions at Air Tran. Unless someone has a really bad record with ATA, they will most likely get hired, if the airplanes are acquired. The reasoning is simple; the crews are already trained on the a/c and that makes for a huge savings in training costs.

For those in the position of getting furloughed, I would suggest getting your materials into the other airlines that are hiring. This situation could work for or against you. There is a certain amount of sympathy that will come out of this, which means getting hired. Or, there could be the attitude that you are only applying with that airline because you lost your job to a furlough. Hard to predict what the attitude will be; but I think the chances are greater for sympathy.

With that being said, I am going to go out on a limb here. Please do not be upset that I say this. If I were in your position, I would have no bones about resigning a seniority number. I think ATA is going to come out a leaner airline, and the chances of the positions coming back anytime soon is not good. It took AWA pilots and FA's about 3-4 years to get their jobs back after the 1991 bankruptcy.

These are just my opinions. I might be way wrong here. I just want to see everyone get jobs; no matter where it is. Good luck to everyone and keep the faith.

Kathy

 

[mt2]

Ty -- Merely relating what our frag clause says. Like or not, that's what we negotiated and ATA agreed to.

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty -- Merely relating what our frag clause says. Like or not, that's what we negotiated and ATA agreed to.

Would we be happy to have ATA guys come work here? Absolutely.

Is this a merger? No, it's not. That is all I am trying to get across.

 

[Pickle]

Ty, you are right it is not a merger. BUT, the frag clause DOES reference routes as one of the things that, if transferred, require the pilots to go with them. I guess that we will all have to agree to disagree on this one.

As far as this ACMI wet lease goes, I compare it to this:

You are working in a rope factory. Your job is to make nooses. One day YOU are measured for a noose, they give you the specs (as you are the noose guy), and tell you to get crackin'.

 

[Ty Webb]

You are working in a rope factory. Your job is to make nooses. One day YOU are measured for a noose, they give you the specs (as you are the noose guy), and tell you to get crackin'.

Well, I can see why you might feel that way, but I would liken it more to them telling you, "Our nooses aren;t selling. We can make nooses for xxx company for a year and revise our business plan and come up with better nooses, or we can close the doors".

I know it must be terribly difficult to be in that position right now, and I know that as pilots, we all deserve better than this crap. That is why I have always been in favor of an industry union. SOmeday, it will have to happen, and it's things like this that will make it a necessity . . . but I'll be retired to some island by then (21 years 9 months, but who's counting?).

 

[CaptSeth]

. but I'll be retired to some island by then (21 years 9 months, but who's counting?).

May I suggest Rikers Island? It's lovely, I hear. Lots of sex, too....

 

[Ty Webb]

May I suggest Rikers Island? It's lovely, I hear. Lots of sex, too....

Not for me . . . . . . . but it looks good on you!



I'll be sure to rock the wings next time we depart LGA, so you'll know it's me.

 

[Jetjockey]

Not for me . . . . . . . but it looks good on you!



I'll be sure to rock the wings next time we depart LGA, so you'll know it's me.

I'm sure your passengers will enjoy that. Very professional.

 

[Ty Webb]

I'm sure your passengers will enjoy that. Very professional.

If you can't make the distinction between a message board and an actual flight, maybe you should log off and seek some psychological help.