AirTran to take ATA Employees with Deal

[Tristar]

I agree with those who've pointed out that the judge will be the one who decides what sticks and what doesn't. However, I can assure you the _intent_ of our merger/FRAGMENTATION clause was protection in just this sort of scenario.

We all recognize this isn't a merger - it is a fragmentation of ATA, and as such people are supposed to go with assets. Period. It doesn't say aircraft. Whether that will be the case is anyone's guess, but to pontificate that it doesn't apply because it isn't a merger is rather idiotic.

"Preferential interviews" are a nice carrot, but frankly not worth a darn unless they and the hiring is done upfront, with class dates to follow as aircraft arrive. From what I've seen so far, the AirTran deal looks out for George only, and it may run into some real opposition from the creditors.

It would be nice if the aviation community actually took care of it's own instead of feeding off of them, but alas we have a long heritage of crapping on people when they are down instead of just doing what would be right. I'm not expecting too much, so hopefully I won't be too let down.

That said, ATA is _much_ more valuable as a whole, and has assets that could be quite useful to a company with the vision and ability to use them. Here's hoping that one comes onto the scene . . .

BTC

 

[Wesb737fo]

Well Folks

I've been reading alot of posts and it looks like alot people are really stressed. Alot of guys flying at ATA worked their butts off before I got here. They finally got a decent contract in 2002 (decent pay and work rules) and it looks like it is only going to last for a little while longer. Men that have flown the Tri-stars and 75's around the world might soon find themselves at the bottom of someone's seniority list ( If we are that lucky). I know a few pilots that came here from the ranks of TWA, Pan Am, Eastern, US Air, American and even United. I think it really stinks that these folks will once again have look for employment.

As far as the sniping goes, I hope it stays limited. The high horse you ride on may get shot out from under you one day. If the Airtran deal goes through and we are wet leased, I will continue to do my job until it no longer exists. I will do it because I am a professional. My heart goes out to all ( not just ATA) the pilots who are under the stress of furlough.

Now where did I put my beer?

 

[Ty Webb]

We all recognize this isn't a merger - it is a fragmentation of ATA, and as such people are supposed to go with assets. Period. It doesn't say aircraft. Whether that will be the case is anyone's guess, but to pontificate that it doesn't apply because it isn't a merger is rather idiotic.

BTC

OK, Chief, if stating the facts is "pontificating" and "idiotic" to you, then I guess any further time spent discussing this with you is a waste of time.

Best of luck to all at ATA. Hopefully, the cash infusion will help them ride out the storm. Looks like it's going to be a bumpy couple of years:

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/external/tsmfe/SIG=1202egq2v/*http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/markets/rosssnel/10191837.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

 

[75M]

Wes,

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for saying it so well.

 

[B6Busdriver]

Poor little TWA pilots...Victims again.

Try to sue somebody...yer own union perhaps...

I never worked for TWA but can't you give it a rest? Nice little dig to try and hijack the thread.

 

[capt. megadeth]

But passengers are so fun!

Ha ha....It only took me 4 years of pax flying to realize that BOXES DON'T B!TCH

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Ty don't turn into CSYmon!

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.

You are getting a little edgie in some of your responses on this tread. I guess as long as the ATA folks are stapled at the bottom of the list and you get ahead, it will be fair and equitable. But as you stated it's not a merger, so they are not even entitled to that. But we all love the fine folks at ATA and wish them the best.

If I were at ATA, I think I would prefer a deal with AWA. I think it would be better for the employees, but Air Tran is probably a better finacial decision for the creditors.

My advise to the ATA pilots leave all your options open, but start looking for a better job. If FedEx or UPS calls, go and never look back. They are going to rip you apart and what ever crumbs are left at the table, they will tell you you're lucky to have them and what a good deal you got, etc. Plus, guys like CSYMon will take potshots at you your whole career.

If there are any ATA pilots that are looking at Allegiant Air, PM me and I will take a resume in.

Good luck.

 

[English]

Jeff Helgeson,

I met a coworker of yours at NBAA a few weeks ago. He couldn't stop talking about what an upstanding guy you are.

Now I know why.

 

[Resume Writer]

If there are any ATA pilots that are looking at Allegiant Air, PM me and I will take a resume in.

Good luck.

That is such a nice offer, Jeff. It is nice to see someone willing to help out in a time of need.

Kathy

 

[Tristar]

A compilation of selected thoughts by Ty on the ATA/AirTran situation:

1). . . 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 . . . .

2). . . 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.

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

4). . . This is a stupid assumption. AirTran has only offered to buy gates and slots, not airplanes. Seniority is not a factor in this scenario. Don;t get your panties in a wad unless there is a real reaosn to.


5). . . My point is that our management has decided to pay money to assume your lease agreements with the city of Chicago, and buy some slots out of DCA and LGA.

6). . . This is not a merger. It is not an acquisition. It is simply buying some gates and some slots, and therefore, doesn't even come close to something resembling a merger or a buyout.

7). . . what I was simply stating is that this is not a merger. It is not a buyout. There are no airplanes involved. It is a sale of some gate leases, and some slots at LGA.

8). . . That's because AWA is talking merger. AirTran is only buying some slots and some gates . . . . sheesh! Is it really that hard to understand?

9). . . Our company offered to buy some of your gates and slots. You get almost $100 million dollars, a year or so of ACMI flying while you get it together


10). . . My position is that we are not buying any of your planes. Your company may keep those planes and shift the flying elsewhere. Are we still supposed to "take your pilots"? Sorry, but it doesn't pass the "sniff test".

And my whole point is that our contractual language and intent was for just such a situation as this. There DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A TRANSFER OF AIRCRAFT! It was written that way for a reason – our negotiators had the foresight to envision the possibility of a scenario just like this! Sniff test my a$$, it’s IN OUR CONTRACT. You may not like it, but hey, there it is. I also recognize that our contract may well be trashed before all is said and done, but at least as of this moment it isn’t, and hence our merger/FRAGMENTATION clause still applies. I don’t know why you can’t or won’t seem to grasp that.

Now, to address some of these point by point:

1) Not necessarily by date of hire, but with a fence or some other means of protecting the careers of both pilot groups, I’d think it would be the right and fair thing to do
2) The simple fact is, there are going to aircraft parked and pilots out of work here as a result. To claim otherwise is nonsense – even our CEO concedes this.
3-7) See above. It’s a fragmentation. Can you say fragmentation boys and girls?
8) No it’s not, that’s why I am amazed at your inability to comprehend this concept.
9) See #’s 3-7
10) According to our contract, yes you are supposed to take our pilots. Do you have so little regard for your own contract? May keep the planes and operate them elsewhere - a slight possibility, and if so, so what? Either we hire more pilots or you do. Big deal. If the aircraft are parked – then people are screwed. Now that IS a big deal.

BTC

 

[CSY Mon]

guys like CSYMon will take potshots at you your whole career.

Hmm, hurt feelings here?

Don't think I have ever started a thread or initiated a discussion on merger policies and such.

Merely responded to guys that have been whining over the unfair treament from APA/AMR/God/Career Choices, 9/11, etc.

Never called anybody a moron, a prick or whatever, but the ex-TWA crowd sure have.

Whatever, I am loosing interest.

Should we kiss and make up?

 

[Wesb737fo]

Mr Ty,

You do seem a bit edgy about ATA pilots opinions regarding seniority. Would you not expect some of the same reactions from your pilot group if the tables were turned? With the level of experience attained by the fine captains at ATA, it is natural for them to expect some consideration toward retaining some of their seniority. In reality, I think we all know that there is a good possibility that we won't even be lucky enough to have anyone look at our resumes down there.

Hey, you picked the right place to be during the most difficult time ever for an airline pilot. Give the ATA guys a break. Quit busting their @#lls.

Lets all be like Fonzie. What's Fonzie like?
He's Cool. Correctomundo!

Dang cat! He ran off with my beer again!

 

[atldc9]

Just a question... If AirTran were to take some ATA pilots, who would go? We obviously could not need all of them. Would we take just MDW 737 pilots? What about the ATA seniority list? Suppose we only took 100 pilots, which 100 would go? Lots of questions....

 

[AA717driver]

Tristar--Please, for your own sake, do not get too comfortable with the "protections" offered by your frag clause. I hope it does protect you(that would be the first time I've seen one work).

But, as I said before, the creditors will not let a frag clause stand in the way of a successful(by their standards) resolution of the ATA Ch. 11.

Sec. 1113 allows the bankruptcy judge to void all or part of a labor agreement if it is requested by the company during the proceedings. We've seen this during UAL and USAir. The mere threat of 1113 brought USAir's MEC to its knees.

Good luck.TC

 

[Boeingman]

Tristar--Please, for your own sake, do not get too comfortable with the "protections" offered by your frag clause. I hope it does protect you(that would be the first time I've seen one work).

But, as I said before, the creditors will not let a frag clause stand in the way of a successful(by their standards) resolution of the ATA Ch. 11.

Sec. 1113 allows the bankruptcy judge to void all or part of a labor agreement if it is requested by the company during the proceedings. We've seen this during UAL and USAir. The mere threat of 1113 brought USAir's MEC to its knees.

Good luck.TC

Very good advice. I feel for the ATA folks but I'd be willing to bet that the frag. clause will eventually not be worth the paper it is written on. One only has to look at history to see how these things will play out. Once the lawyers and the creditors discover the slightest financial problem the clause will cause, it will be shredded and bastardized or outright overruled by a bankruptcy judge. No doubt about it.

And what about ALPA helping to fight this? Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything other than a cursory legal position and a limp legal or union response.

You're being to polite about the USAIR MEC.

 

[Tristar]

Tristar--Please, for your own sake, do not get too comfortable with the "protections" offered by your frag clause. I hope it does protect you(that would be the first time I've seen one work).

To quote myself,

I also recognize that our contract may well be trashed before all is said and done

I'm all too aware that having our contract dismantled is a distinct probability. My only point being that Ty doesn't seem to think we have any right to expect anything. We do, I just expect that right to be trampled like every other recent occurance. I seriously doubt it will occur with us, but it would be nice if someday the industry as a whole would realize that we are destroying ourselves little by little.

BTC

 

[CaptSeth]

Never say never. Remember when we were negotiating the contract and they said the best we could hope for was about 30% and some 401K matching?

 

[Tristar]

I'm ever the optimist - I belive the AirTran deal is not a good one for the company (as a whole) or the creditors. ATA is _much_ more valuable intact, and I still believe that someone out there recognizes that value and would like to take advantage of it. Frankly, I think AirTran is missing the boat with their whole proposal.

BTC

 

[CaptSeth]

I think AirTran is missing the boat with their whole proposal.

BTC

The plot will thicken.

 

[atafan]

New offers are on the table.

I don't see AirTran making the final cut. AirTran may get a few gates in MDW but that's all.

On another note: I spoke to certain MEC officers and I was told that the AWA's merger committee, if required, will treat the ATA pilots with respect.

Treat others how you want to be treated and good Karma will follow.