Again with the "Hired, not Acquired" argument. Tired. And wrong. But, whatever.
Fubi,
That wasn't exactly the argument he made, but I'm sure you knew that. Did you notice? He spokd of
management wanting a deal. His point was not one of pilots quoting "hired, not acquired," but rather that
management acquired Airtran, and then apparently
management made a decision that giving AAI pilots what they wanted wasn't worth it to them (keep in mind that, unlike an ALPA carrier, SWA believes its relationship with its employees and its culture ARE important, and have a tangible benefit to the fiscal bottom line), weighing synergistic gains vs the cost of culture loss. I guess AAI ALPA found out what kind of price tag GK put on culture loss.
This may come as a surprise to you, Fubi (and probably OYS/GL and others), but pilot unions do not actually run
any airline. ALPA may try to get people to believe it, but the reality is that pilot unions do not get to make the rules. ALPA (or any other union), can make its own internal rules and policies, and strut around quoting them, but at the end of the day, the people with the checkbooks get the final word. ALPA's rules and policies and ideas of "fairness" are only binding on those ALPA members who have agreed to be bound by them, and no one else, despite what YOU want or think.
Speaking of which, any objective person could tell you that the word "fairness" is on its face subjective, and in the eye of the beholder. ALPA's idea of fairness, I hate to tell you, is not universal. You seem to be under the impression that it is, and when someone disagrees, you don't even have any backing to offer, just invective.
Example: Why does 5 or 6 years' service at Airtran make a pilot more deserving of a SWA captainship than 10 years' service at Southwest? I dunno.... I suppose because ALPA says so. Hmmm... So sorry.
I guess if I disagree with ALPA, I'm a "sky nazi" (Lumberg) or a "buttf#cker" (Fubi). As it turns out, Southwest pilots have a different perspective on "fair," which is no less a valid opinion than ALPA's, other than it's apparently closer to the perspective on "fair" held by the only people that actually matter in this case, SWA management. You remember, the guys paying for all this.
I've noticed (actually, everyone's noticed) that you spout opinions on all this with absolutely no backing argument. Why? Do you even actually believe the stuff you write? Doesn't seem like it. You also like to use the term "red herring" to casually dismiss other people's opinions. I suggest you get a dictionary, because you don't seem to know what it means. Either that or you
do know, but are intentionally using it incorrectly.
Bubba
