Gotta love that SWA culture.....SWA considers stand alone Airtran, if.......

[SWA Bubba]

Well, it does speak to the fact that Kelly and the Southwest board promised the regulators that there would be no job losses and consequently if the decision went to arbitration the letter of the law would be followed. Now as a result of the labor difficulties Kelly is experiencing with SWAPA he's " flip-flopping". I think the regulators should revisit the decision and say no merger. Of course then Southwest will probably be forced to furlough with the resultant loss of growth leading to another devaluation of stock. It appears that SWAPA and SW is being controlled by junior members of the seniority list. Airtran with a little management change could come out of this in a better position.

Je-zus. Where do you get this stuff? Do you even hear the crap that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard)? GK is not flip-flopping. Do you really think he didn't have an idea of what he wanted to do before the deal closed? Or what he thought was "fair"? Or what he would allow to happen to his culture?

"I think the regulators should revisit the decision and say no merger. "

What world do you live in that you think that could happen? It's a done deal, closed in May of this year. The "regulators" could no more revisit this decision than your parents could revisit the decision to have you born. It's not like returning clothes to the store and getting your money back because you don't like the fit anymore. They don't just take back the product, and return the money from the cash register. Old owners (stockholders) have been paid, many have moved on to other investments, others have no desire to go back (after all, they voted overwhelmingly for this financial deal), etc. The money just isn't there in the "cash register" anymore. And by the way, Airtran's management IS Southwest. Airtran's president is Bob Jordan, one of Southwest's vice-presidents.

"Of course then Southwest will probably be forced to furlough with the resultant loss of growth leading to another devaluation of stock."

This statement has no basis in anything, other than Maru's bad drugs. If this deal hadn't happened (the closest analogy to your weird scenario), we'd be in the same predicament as before Sep 2010. Waiting for economic improvement, growth and retirements, still making money, and still not furloughing.

"It appears that SWAPA and SW is being controlled by junior members of the seniority list."

And finally, this statement has to rank as one of the stupidest things ever posted on this forum. Again, Maru, please step away from the crackpipe. The junior members of the SWAPA seniority list are the ones bitching that they're being hurt the most in this deal. What exactly do you think these junior guys are controlling? SWA is being controlled by management, as it always has been, from Herb then to Gary now. Deals happen the way THEY want, and unions and outsiders have little to nothing to do with it. As always.

But, hey, atleast General Lee agrees with you. That ought to count for something.

Bubba

 

[Sacha]

Delta bud told me last night that DPA Delta Pilot Association is up to 4000 signatures and expect 6000 shortly. Losing Airtran guys coupled with the DFR lawsuit that's sure to come followed by the loss of Delta ......well....ALPA is on Life Support...

Delta bud told me ALPA National secretaries are making more than many Delta pilots....

No wonder OYS is whacked..........

Godspeed!!! Buh Bye!

 

[maru657]

Je-zus. Where do you get this stuff? Do you even hear the crap that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard)? GK is not flip-flopping. Do you really think he didn't have an idea of what he wanted to do before the deal closed? Or what he thought was "fair"? Or what he would allow to happen to his culture?

Culture smulture, it's coolaid. What he really thought??? No idea what he really thought, but what he said is another matter, ie; A merger, not a SWAPA driven rape.

 

[CF34-3B1]

A merger, not a SWAPA driven rape.

It was never a merger, it is an acquisition. The whole "merger of equals" was a fallacy perpetuated by ALPA. Look how that turned out for the average AT guy.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Je-zus. Where do you get this stuff? Do you even hear the crap that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard)? GK is not flip-flopping. Do you really think he didn't have an idea of what he wanted to do before the deal closed? Or what he thought was "fair"? Or what he would allow to happen to his culture?

Culture smulture, it's coolaid. What he really thought??? No idea what he really thought, but what he said is another matter, ie; A merger, not a SWAPA driven rape.

I'm sorry; it looks like your lips are flapping, but it doesn't seem like you're actually saying anything. Try again?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Je-zus. Where do you get this stuff? Do you even hear the crap that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard)? GK is not flip-flopping. Do you really think he didn't have an idea of what he wanted to do before the deal closed? Or what he thought was "fair"? Or what he would allow to happen to his culture?

Culture smulture, it's coolaid. What he really thought??? No idea what he really thought, but what he said is another matter, ie; A merger, not a SWAPA driven rape.

Wait... maybe I see now. Are you trying to change the subject from the legalities of the transaction, to now harping on the tired idea of the "ALPA-driven opinion of unfairness" of the deal itelf? Why didn't you say so? I get it: couldn't back up one of your arguments, so you switch to another. Nice imagery, by the way. Wow. A "SWAPA driven rape." Somebody call SVU.

Just because Gary's idea of fair isn't shared by ALPA (who seems to think it runs the entire industry), doesn't make it a "rape," or even unfair. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look that word up. Uh, "fair," I mean, not rape.

And as far as "SWAPA-driven" goes, in case you hadn't noticed, SWAPA wasn't driving anything in this deal. That's what pissed off OUR more militant guys.

Bubba

 

[HalinTexas]

Did SWAPA give in on scope?

When WN owned only part of TZ (27%), there was scope language prohibiting WN from "outsourcing" to other airlines, i.e. all flying the generates revenue for WN had to be flown by SWAPA pilots. TZ had to pull out of all competing routes with WN. Wouldn't a "stand alone" FL also violate this language?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Did SWAPA give in on scope?

When WN owned only part of TZ (27%), there was scope language prohibiting WN from "outsourcing" to other airlines, i.e. all flying the generates revenue for WN had to be flown by SWAPA pilots. TZ had to pull out of all competing routes with WN. Wouldn't a "stand alone" FL also violate this language?

SL-10 (our contract amendment to accomplish the second SLI deal) contains a provision to allow SWA to codeshare with Airtran in a limited fashion until they are completely absorbed into SWA. It does not allow any growth of Airtran (which would hurt SWAPA), but allows Gary's "synergies" to occur during the transition. In the event of a "stand-alone" Airtran (the "Plan B) people have been talking about recently if this deal fails, yes, it would be a violation of the current, un-modified CBA. However, SWAPA could (and probably would) agree to such a exemption to our scope language to run Airtran separately for a while, or on a limited basis. This is what is most likely the dialog that would occur if there had been an arbitration or lawsuit that resulted in a SLI considered "unfair" by SWAPA or SWA. SWAPA would probably agree to let SWA run Airtran separately rather than accept such a SLI (this, of course, assumes GK wanted to implement the "Plan B"). At least, that's the way -I- understand it. Hope this helps.

Bubba

 

[Fubijaakr]

...you've just handed the SWAPA pilot group the nuclear codes. If this story is true, what's to stop 6000 SWAPA pilots from collectively flushing this whole mess down the tubes?

Absolutely nothing...except of course the God King spent $1B to make it happen and whose hide will he take that out of if the pilots toss a monkey wrench into his machine.

Theirs.

I don't think SWAPA has the nuts to stand up to the God King.

 

[Fubijaakr]

The people were lied to about the first offer. That's the point. They didn't know hat they should have been more vocal about. Hence the recall. DFR...BROKE.

If the membership was given the opportunity to read AIP1 and didn't choose to respond to their reps that is THEIR problem, not the reps problem. The reps voted AIP1 down based on the feedback they got and it was universally negative.

The recall is buyer's remorse. Period.