ALPA vs ALPA merger

[Flyer1015]

Any idea which attorney the Alaska MEC has hired? That might give some indication about how they'll try to proceed with it.

Generally, if it gets to arbitration, the answer is always the same: ratio by category and status. But the Alaska MEC is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent it. It's going to be ugly.

For VX it's Altshuler Berzon. Lead is Jeffrey Demain.

Any thoughts on it PCL_128? I don't know anything about labor lawyers in SLIs.

 

[PCL_128]

That pick is, shall we say, non-traditional. Very well respected labor attorney, and I think he did some work for the Eagle MEC regarding their flow or something else related, but I'm not familiar with any pilot seniority integration he's litigated.

 

[Flyer1015]

Oh ok, hopefully sounds good. Thanks

 

[DUBLINFLYER]

Depends on whether outside factors are involved. Remember, Southwest management was the wild card that screwed us over. They shouldn't have been involved, but they interjected themselves into the process and started making threats.

PCL on the rant again about the take over (yes it was a take over) and your beloved ALPA screwed the pouch by not accepting the first offer from SWA.

 

[maru657]

Depends on whether outside factors are involved. Remember, Southwest management was the wild card that screwed us over. They shouldn't have been involved, but they interjected themselves into the process and started making threats.

PCL on the rant again about the take over (yes it was a take over) and your beloved ALPA screwed the pouch by not accepting the first offer from SWA.

I wouldn't sweat it Dub, if you girls actually go beyond picketing you might find out just what that's like.

 

[PCL_128]

Depends on whether outside factors are involved. Remember, Southwest management was the wild card that screwed us over. They shouldn't have been involved, but they interjected themselves into the process and started making threats.

PCL on the rant again about the take over (yes it was a take over) and your beloved ALPA screwed the pouch by not accepting the first offer from SWA.

The pouch? Guess they don't teach spelling to you trailer park dwellers.

It was a merger, by the way. You'd know that if you weren't illiterate so you could read the SEC documents.

 

[Flyer1015]

PCL, do you know what merging/acquiring airlines need to get a SOC status or the SOC itself? Mainly do the pilots need to have a JCBA and/or SLI before SOC? Or are one or both those things not a necessity and can continue flying under each individual contract with each individual list? If everything can still be separate what's the advantage of SOC?

 

[freightdogfred]

Depends on whether outside factors are involved. Remember, Southwest management was the wild card that screwed us over. They shouldn't have been involved, but they interjected themselves into the process and started making threats.

PCL on the rant again about the take over (yes it was a take over) and your beloved ALPA screwed the pouch by not accepting the first offer from SWA.

So I can assume you voted yes on the TA that SWA presented, as you and the rest of the cartel here have always said "the first offer is always best"

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, do you know what merging/acquiring airlines need to get a SOC status or the SOC itself? Mainly do the pilots need to have a JCBA and/or SLI before SOC? Or are one or both those things not a necessity and can continue flying under each individual contract with each individual list? If everything can still be separate what's the advantage of SOC?

SOC is entirely a regulatory issue, so labor seniority and contracts aren't really an issue. You can have multiple seniority lists under the same operating certificate, or multiple operating certificates for a single seniority list. The government doesn't care.

From a corporate perspective, though, unless the goal is a whipsaw, then SOC is always preferable, as it requires less overhead. Two certificates means redundancy, which means less efficiency. Bad for business. Again, unless the goal is to utilize a whipsaw to drive labor costs down.

 

[SWA Bubba]

SOC is entirely a regulatory issue, so labor seniority and contracts aren't really an issue. You can have multiple seniority lists under the same operating certificate, or multiple operating certificates for a single seniority list. The government doesn't care.

From a corporate perspective, though, unless the goal is a whipsaw, then SOC is always preferable, as it requires less overhead. Two certificates means redundancy, which means less efficiency. Bad for business. Again, unless the goal is to utilize a whipsaw to drive labor costs down.

I'm sorry, PCL, but are you trying to imply that was the case with SWA/AirTran? That SWA management intended a whipsaw? It seems that way, seeing as how you thought to mention it twice in the same short paragraph.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

No, not at all. I was pretty clear throughout the SLI process that Southwest management intended to merge the two operations, no matter what. I never believed that separate operations was a real threat. I was speaking in general terms, because sometimes a company is looking for a whipsaw.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The pouch? Guess they don't teach spelling to you trailer park dwellers.

It was a merger, by the way. You'd know that if you weren't illiterate so you could read the SEC documents.

Hey, PCL, I don't think anyone would call me illiterate, or accuse me of not being able to spell, so perhaps you could help me out a little. After reading your comment, I did a little internet research. Clearly, this wouldn't represent exhaustive reaseach, but my quick search of www.sec.gov and Southwest's list of filings and other legal documents on its Investor Relations page tends to contradict your assertion.

On the SEC's website, the only results I could get were too recent, and primarily involved individuals investigated for insider trading with respect to the deal.

However, on Southwest's Investor Relations page, which goes back a lot further, a search using the keywords "AirTran merger" returned only 2 documents, with one of them simply a transcript of Gary Kelly in 2015 simply referring to "progress made merging AirTran's operations into Southwest's." The other, and probably more pertinent document, is a filing dated Feb 2011, which does refer to "merging." It says that a newly-created "subsidiary of Southwest will be merged with and into AirTran, with AirTran surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines." Nowhere does it say that AirTran is to be merged with Southwest Airlines itself.

On the other hand, there were 92 documents returned containing the exact phrase "AirTran acquisition," describing among other things, the intent, the price to be paid, and the actual closing of the acquisition of AirTran, including filings with various governmental agencies.

Maybe you can show something different, but it sure sounds like an "acquisition" instead of a "merger" to me.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

No, not at all. I was pretty clear throughout the SLI process that Southwest management intended to merge the two operations, no matter what. I never believed that separate operations was a real threat. I was speaking in general terms, because sometimes a company is looking for a whipsaw.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

Hey, PCL, I don't think anyone would call me illiterate, or accuse me of not being able to spell, so perhaps you could help me out a little. After reading your comment, I did a little internet research. Clearly, this wouldn't represent exhaustive reaseach, but my quick search of www.sec.gov and Southwest's list of filings and other legal documents on its Investor Relations page tends to contradict your assertion.



On the SEC's website, the only results I could get were too recent, and primarily involved individuals investigated for insider trading with respect to the deal.



However, on Southwest's Investor Relations page, which goes back a lot further, a search using the keywords "AirTran merger" returned only 2 documents, with one of them simply a transcript of Gary Kelly in 2015 simply referring to "progress made merging AirTran's operations into Southwest's." The other, and probably more pertinent document, is a filing dated Feb 2011, which does refer to "merging." It says that a newly-created "subsidiary of Southwest will be merged with and into AirTran, with AirTran surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines." Nowhere does it say that AirTran is to be merged with Southwest Airlines itself.



On the other hand, there were 92 documents returned containing the exact phrase "AirTran acquisition," describing among other things, the intent, the price to be paid, and the actual closing of the acquisition of AirTran, including filings with various governmental agencies.



Maybe you can show something different, but it sure sounds like an "acquisition" instead of a "merger" to me.



Bubba

Go back to the original SEC filings when the merger was announced.

 

[maru657]

Yes Bubba, some of us think your illiterate and cannot spell.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Yes Bubba, some of us think your illiterate and cannot spell.

Holy crap that's funny.

If this post had been made by anyone else, I'd assume that the grammatical error bolded above was intentionally done as a joke, but we all know you and your deficiencies, Maru. We all know that you're actually just that stupid.

Bubba

 

[maru657]

Why Bubba are YOUR tampons leaking?

 

[St. Nic]

Bubba paid for his job. Bubba rides on the backs of the REAL airline pilots who hired on without plopping down a checkbook.

 

[maru657]

Bubba paid for his job. Bubba rides on the backs of the REAL airline pilots who hired on without plopping down a checkbook.

That's the trouble with bubba, He just sounds too bought and paid for.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba paid for his job. Bubba rides on the backs of the REAL airline pilots who hired on without plopping down a checkbook.

That's the trouble with bubba, He just sounds too bought and paid for.

Seriously?--That's the best you two imbeciles can come up with? The same tired and widely-discredited PFT insult? You can't think of any better insult than that?

Well, I suppose it's not too surprising, considering that you two are considered to be two of the stupidest posters on this forum. You don't understand logic, you continually make wild and unsupported claims that are easily refuted, and both of you have the spelling and grammar skills of third-graders. In fact, it's hard to imagine that either of you are, or ever were, actual airline pilots; you're probably just kids on their dads' computers. Either that, or you're high school dropout, pilot-wannabes. And every time you post, you just further that impression.

Bubba