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

[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.

 

[slaquer5]

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

This is about the only thing you have ever said that is true.

PS still think your a nut job.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Thank you...I think.

 

[SWA Bubba]

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.

Hmmm, didn't realize that YOU were in the room with Airtran's MEC to know that the feedback was "universally negative." They said that their pilots didn't want the deal and voted against actually sending the deal to the membership for a vote. Gee, let's see... they're being accused of lying about the contents of the deal and what they knew they could get instead. I don't suppose lying about whether the pilots told them to kill the deal (which covers their collective azz, by the way) is out of the realm of possibility. Do you?

Unions (and other representative bodies) generally poll their members to find out their desires. Listening to a few hotheads who call in does not accomplish this, and every union in the world knows this. Even yours, Fubi. Of course, it IS a well-respected tactic in the CYA handbook.

And, actually, the membership was not given the opportuntity to read and understand AIP1. All they knew (and everyone ELSE in the world) was what Airtran ALPA strategically leaked (against their word, by the way) to push their agenda. If the deal really was so bad, and the majority of Airtran rank-and-file would have said no, that of course begs the question: why NOT send it to a vote? Everyone knows ALPA wanted to go straight to arbitration--if they had let their members "overwhelmingly vote it down," it would have gone straight to arby like they wanted, AND strengthened their hand at the arbitration table (after the lengthly voting period, there would have been no more "negotiating" time). The answer is, everyone on the MEC knew it would pass, and they wanted to push for something different. A lot like Obama and his Democrats: they always think they know what's better for you than you do yourself. And they'll give you what's best for you, whether you like it or not.

Bubba

PS Also, it's my opinion that the only "buyer's remorse" being experienced at Airtran has to do with having ALPA in the first place. The same "buyer's remorse" being currently felt at Delta. And the same that the guys at JetBlue were afraid of having when the voted nearly 60-40% against having ANY union instead of ALPA.

 

[maru657]

How much money did SW spend on this abortion/merger? Now if the AT pilots call SWAPA,s bluff will the SW board be happy with the thought of having spent all of that money for some used airplanes and gates in ATL, because I doubt that SW will be able to continue with international ops. Morris had ops in Mexico and Alaska. They were very profitable, but SW could not continue those operations so history tells us that dog won't hunt and those could be the most expensive gates and aircraft ever purchased. I suspect that one of these days flt ops management in Dallas is going to smack SWAPA.

 

[SWA Bubba]

How much money did SW spend on this abortion/merger? Now if the AT pilots call SWAPA,s bluff will the SW board be happy with the thought of having spent all of that money for some used airplanes and gates in ATL, because I doubt that SW will be able to continue with international ops. Morris had ops in Mexico and Alaska. They were very profitable, but SW could not continue those operations so history tells us that dog won't hunt and those could be the most expensive gates and aircraft ever purchased. I suspect that one of these days flt ops management in Dallas is going to smack SWAPA.

Really? History tells me that once again, you haven't the first clue about what you're blabbering about. Morris flew to Alaska but not Mexico. Alaska, as I feel sure we all learned in the fifth grade, is part of the US, and not an international destination. Regardless, Southwest hasn't flown internationally yet because we've concentrated on domestic expansion (and are now the largest carrier in the US for our efforts). We don't leave profitable routes; we leave unprofitable ones. By the way, that's how you log 38 consecutive years of profits.

To address your actual point: How much did SWA spend? About $1.4B, plus absorbing Airtran's debt. And, if as you say, Airtran calls "SWAPA's" bluff (it's actually Gary's so-called "bluff," not SWAPA's, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant), you seem to believe that we're left with gates and planes and can't fly internationally? Really? Only the Airtran pilots are able to land at an airport whose first letter isn't 'K'? Do you realize how ignorant you sound making such a claim? Have you ever personally flown an airplane? I think the only dog that won't hunt is YOUR "dog," which I suspect is probably actually dead.

You're actually just trying to stir up trouble anyway, because it seems pretty obvious that it'll pass both sides overwhelmingly. And when it does, and operations are combined over the next several years, your description of an "abortion/merger" will go down in history as probably the smoothest combination of airlines in history. And what will you be left with? Just your bitterness and your dead dog.

Bubba

 

[slaquer5]

How much money did SW spend on this abortion/merger? Now if the AT pilots call SWAPA,s bluff will the SW board be happy with the thought of having spent all of that money for some used airplanes and gates in ATL, because I doubt that SW will be able to continue with international ops. A.

I am sure you hear this everyday and already know.

You are a complete idiot.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

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.

Crap I guess I missed the memo that I as junior member of the seniority list was controlling not only SWAPA but SWA. Cool. I'm going to call Gary right now and tell him he needs to fix the SL because all this one is giving me is decreasing seniority as the Airtran guys come over and a probable displacement out of my domicile of choice.

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

The above is not an irrational rant. That is how the math will really work out for the junior WN F/Os under this deal. Most likely the last AAI pilots to cross over will be the ones junior to us. We will lose domicile bidding seniority before we gain it. All I get out of this deal is most likely another couple of years commuting to the West Coast.

 

[canyonblue]

Alasko and Delto still suck. uke:

 

[Regul8r]

What burns me up is that ALPA is playing chicken with the careers of the Tranny pilots. Fair and Equitable Integration: IT. AIN'T. GONNA. HAPPEN. And ALPA knows this. ALPA sees the writing on the wall...AirTran is going away. And with it, all the dues money ALPA needs to defer the costs of setting up shop at AirTran. Hell, had AAI approved the first offer, ALPA'd be out on their ass by now. The question is "When will AirTran go away?" ALPA will drag this out as long as possible even at the risk of the Tranny pilots' careers. And it will be sold to the Tranny pilots as "Fighting the Good Fight!" ALPA doing what they do best: Looking out for ALPA's own damn interests!

I wonder if any former ATA pilots would take a staple?