capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Ha ha....It only took me 4 years of pax flying to realize that BOXES DON'T B!TCHResume Writer said:But passengers are so fun!![]()
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ha ha....It only took me 4 years of pax flying to realize that BOXES DON'T B!TCHResume Writer said:But passengers are so fun!![]()
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.Ty Webb said: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.
That is such a nice offer, Jeff. It is nice to see someone willing to help out in a time of need.Jeff Helgeson said:If there are any ATA pilots that are looking at Allegiant Air, PM me and I will take a resume in.
Good luck.
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".
Hmm, hurt feelings here?guys like CSYMon will take potshots at you your whole career.
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.AA717driver said: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
To quote myself,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).
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.I also recognize that our contract may well be trashed before all is said and done
The plot will thicken.Tristar said:I think AirTran is missing the boat with their whole proposal.
BTC