Can the ATN MEC forward any AIP?

[redflyer65]

Back to the original question..

NO the MEC will never send anything to its members. Their goal the entire time is to take it to arbitration. I would say that's not bargaining in good faith.

Gary wants a negotiated deal.
ALPA wants to take it to arbitration.


Wonder who's going to come out on top?

 

[Fubijaakr]

Nindiri This user is on your Ignore List.
Gen Lee This user is on your Ignore List.
On Your Six This user is on your Ignore List.

The trifecta

Keeps the Canyon Blue Kool-Aid fresher if you ignore contrary opinions. Besides we're all just haters anyway.

What's great is that this guy could end up at the bottom of the whole list, with no upgrade in sight for decades.

Now that will be justice. Or karma, if you prefer.

Gary wants a negotiated deal.
ALPA wants to take it to arbitration.


Wonder who's going to come out on top?

Unfortunately, Mr. Kelly doesn't supersede U.S. Labor law. I know its hard to believe your God King (GK) isn't all powerful.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Keeps the Canyon Blue Kool-Aid fresher if you ignore contrary opinions. Besides we're all just haters anyway.

If you could actually offer anything other than ALPA talking points it could be an intelligent debate.

There is nothing that forces Kelly to integrate Airtran pilots with SWA pilots. Nothing. No labor laws nothing. There is nothing that forces Kelly to keep operating a company that is losing money and is no longer financially viable. Nothing.

Your MEC has handed him a gift because if (or when) he shuts down Texas Sub LLC or Guadalupe Holdings or whatever you want to call yourselves, he'll be able to stand up and say, "I tried. I gave them a great offer and they turned it down. I offered them jobs as Southwest Pilots and they didn't want to work here"

That's how it will be written and read by all the major news outlets who will have no ability to grasp your weak argument that even though you were acquired you somehow thought it entitled you to Super Swa System Seniority. Sorry, acquisitions don't work that way. Especially acquisitions where one GIANT corporation purchases a smaller, less productive, less financially viable one.

 

[redflyer65]

he'll be able to stand up and say, "I tried. I gave them a great offer and they turned it down. I offered them jobs as Southwest Pilots and they didn't want to work here"

.

Absolutely true. Gary has all the cover he needs to make whatever business decision is best for Southwest.

 

[Fubijaakr]

There is nothing that forces Kelly to integrate Airtran pilots with SWA pilots. Nothing. No labor laws nothing. There is nothing that forces Kelly to keep operating a company that is losing money and is no longer financially viable. Nothing.

You seriously need to READ Bond/McCaskill instead of parroting the crapola you hear in the bar on the layovers. I'll highlight the important parts for you (to simplify your attempt at comprehension):


SEC. 817. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) Labor Integration - With respect to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carrier; except that--
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at the covered air carrier, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supercede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of the covered air carrier shall also not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section, so long as those provisions supply at least the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(b) Enforcement- Any labor organization that represents individuals that are aggrieved as a result of a violation of the labor protective provisions applied under subsection (a) may bring an action to enforce this section, or to enforce the terms of any award or agreement resulting from arbitration or a settlement relating to the requirements of this section. An action under this subsection shall be brought in an appropriate United States district court determined in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, without regard tothe amount in controversy.
(c) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER- The term `air carrier' means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER- The term `covered air carrier' means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE- The term `covered employee' means an employee who--
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION- The term `covered transaction' means--
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
(d) Application- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.


Get it yet? The God King's "desires" do not supersede U.S. law. Sorry, boys.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Fubi

You seriously need to READ Bond/McCaskill instead of parroting the crapola you hear in the bar on the layovers. I'll highlight the important parts for you (to simplify your attempt at comprehension):

I've read it several times. Over and over again. There is nothing that forces Gary Kelly to integrate AAI pilots into Southwest jobs. You can cut and paste all you want about your opinion. The government cannot force a business owner to hire or fire employees and they cannot force a business owner to keep certain parts of his business open just because you want him to to keep your jobs.

"If" Get that through your thick melon. I have not even laid out the items that are taking place on other threads regarding voluntary furloughs and the potential sale of the B717. That WOULD be fear mongering. However, one can draw their own conclusions. You can bury your head in the sand, hold your breath until you turn blue and cry "Bond Mcaskill" all you want but at the end of the day it is not a "job creation" bill.

Keep singing from the same ALPA talking points sheet of music. BM is not a SUPER SYSTEMWIDE SWA SENIORITY bill. It is not in place to provide an unfair advantage to the pilots of the ACQUIRED carrier. You and ALPA seem to think so. Eventually, we'll see who's right.

 

[tzskipper]

If you could actually offer anything other than ALPA talking points it could be an intelligent debate.

There is nothing that forces Kelly to integrate Airtran pilots with SWA pilots. Nothing. No labor laws nothing. There is nothing that forces Kelly to keep operating a company that is losing money and is no longer financially viable. Nothing.

Your MEC has handed him a gift because if (or when) he shuts down Texas Sub LLC or Guadalupe Holdings or whatever you want to call yourselves, he'll be able to stand up and say, "I tried. I gave them a great offer and they turned it down. I offered them jobs as Southwest Pilots and they didn't want to work here"

That's how it will be written and read by all the major news outlets who will have no ability to grasp your weak argument that even though you were acquired you somehow thought it entitled you to Super Swa System Seniority. Sorry, acquisitions don't work that way. Especially acquisitions where one GIANT corporation purchases a smaller, less productive, less financially viable one.

I would imagine the shareholders and the BOD would then like an explanation as to why $1.4 bln in LUV equity was spent with no return. I doubt a failed deal of this size would bode well for anyone's corporate career.

In reality, I would guess that prior to the acquisition, GK and company actually reviewed this potential scenario and considered it acceptable (but probably not preferable) as a possible path to getting the deal done.

S

 

[Ty Webb]

Interestingly enough, the trigger is not 50% of the aircraft, as some folks seem to think; it's 50% of the assets or the shares of the corporation. Simply selling the 717 would not necessarily prevent triggering McCaskill-Bond.

The definition of "equity Security", as referenced in M-B:

(16) The term “equity security” means— (A) share in a corporation, whether or not transferable or denominated “stock”, or similar security;
(B) interest of a limited partner in a limited partnership; or
(C) warrant or right, other than a right to convert, to purchase, sell, or subscribe to a share, security, or interest of a kind specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph.

 

[shootr]

Interestingly enough, the trigger is not 50% of the aircraft, as some folks seem to think; it's 50% of the assets or the shares of the corporation. Simply selling the 717 would not necessarily prevent triggering McCaskill-Bond.

Interesting point. Would office space in MCO, 717 support equipment, and station office supplies count (none of which SWA needs)? Just what are AT's assets if not the A/C? A/C are leased, gates are leased, office space most likely leased...it seems like SWA bought the RIGHTS to many leases but not a whole lot of assets. A 50% solution actually sounds easier if the A/C don't count.

 

[Roomwithaview]

ATA Skipper

I would imagine the shareholders and the BOD would then like an explanation as to why $1.4 bln in LUV equity was spent with no return. I doubt a failed deal of this size would bode well for anyone's corporate career.

In reality, I would guess that prior to the acquisition, GK and company actually reviewed this potential scenario and considered it acceptable (but probably not preferable) as a possible path to getting the deal done.

Thanks for offering a rational opinion. Agree. I'm willing to bet Kelly had certain plans that are no longer so certain. IMO, Kelly is used to dealing with an amenable work force. He usually gets his way but we have been rewarded throughout the years for our loyalty. We'll see how that plays out in the end.

There's always a chance it could be a suckers bet and the place falls apart for the RSW pilots. However, we're not the one's that are disagreeing with him and stifling his plans. Also, it can easily be construed by the perceived lack of cooperation from the AAI MEC (not necessarily my opinion) that he is now having to deal with a large group of malcontents that are no longer going to go along with anything and everything he wants without a HUGE fight.

Once again. Perception.

 

[texman]

None apply till SOC. Yes 51% is the law. If GK gets rid of the 717 it will be interesting. How would it effect Alpa's fragmentation policy. Ty could you chime in please.

 

[redflyer65]

I would imagine the shareholders and the BOD would then like an explanation as to why $1.4 bln in LUV equity was spent with no return.
S

TZ,

You make a good point. Have you read where Gary is already saying the economy has worsened? This is were he will hang his hat if he decides to jettison AAI. You know, 'Hey we gave it the best shot, but tough times..'

I wouldn't say it would be 'no return' you state if he exercises the ALPA fragmentation policy. It could actually unlock alot of value.

RF

 

[tzskipper]

TZ,

You make a good point. Have you read where Gary is already saying the economy has worsened? This is were he will hang his hat if he decides to jettison AAI. You know, 'Hey we gave it the best shot, but tough times..'

I wouldn't say it would be 'no return' you state if he exercises the ALPA fragmentation policy. It could actually unlock alot of value.

RF

Thanks.

The main thought I had, is that LUV management are neither short sighted or foolish. I would bet that both GK and the LUV BOD fully understand that completing this merger will have its issues. This includes either party (meaning pilot group) exercising their rights under the Process Agreement, up to and including an arbitration. I doubt that is want they want, but I have no doubt that they have planned for it.

They approved the acquisition of AAI, as it still made financial sense, even when taking all of the potential issues into account.

I think those that believe GK is willing to tank this deal and lose the majority of LUV's investment at this point, really do not understand or appreciate the diligence that was done prior to the acquisition.

As a "non-party" to this, I have to say it is interesting to read those who pontificate about how things will be, when truly they have no idea.

Best of luck,

S

 

[Ty Webb]

None apply till SOC. Yes 51% is the law. If GK gets rid of the 717 it will be interesting. How would it effect Alpa's fragmentation policy. Ty could you chime in please.

When we started taking delivery of the 717's, the Company found that they were 20-25%% more efficient than the DC9's they were replacing. That is when oil was $15./bbl. I don't think you are going to see SWA selling DAL the 717.

Regards,
TW

 

[Roomwithaview]

Ty

What is clear is that the rhetoric needs to be toned down . . . . on all sides.

Funnier than hell considering the rhetoric that you've posted in the past. Why the change all of a sudden?

 

[Ty Webb]

If you're responding to me, don't bother.

This message is hidden because Roomwithaview is on your ignore list.

 

[Roomwithaview]

----boo!----

 

[ultrarunner]

...I don't think you are going to see SWA selling DAL the 717.

Regards,
TW

Could they? I thought Boeing owned all but just a few of them?

 

[On Your Six]

Could they? I thought Boeing owned all but just a few of them?

They would be a good Dc9 replacement for 10 years.

Godspeed!


OYS

 

[Roomwithaview]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!

On Your Six This message is hidden because On Your Six is on your ignore list.

Good afternoon honey. I smelled you when you came in the door. Once again I'm having a real hard time hearing you.

Is it true that DAL is going to buy the 717's from Uncle Gary? I sure hope so. Because after all you are the expert on fair and equitable and I'm sure you'll be fighting just as hard to make sure they get the best deal they can possibly get when integrated into the DAL pilot group.

Missed you.