Looks like I was right about the failed SWA TA

[shearedshaft]

Shearedshaft,

How is unlimited RJ's if we just purchase the entire company good?

What if we bought Republic and every plane they have after the ink is dry?

You OK with that?

Under the TA, if we bought another company that had RJs, the number of RJs was capped, it couldn't grow. The pilots would have to be integrated into the SWAPA seniority list. No big deal.

However, after rejecting the TA, we can now purchase a carrier with RJs and there is no limit (I'll repeat, no limit) on what they can do with the RJs, they can expand the subsidiary.

Also, under the failed TA, there was zero, none, nada, not at all, nothing in terms of domestic codeshare allowed.

After the TA was rejected, we now have ourselves a situation where tomorrow, Gary Kelly could call up Republic and start flying Houston to Lubbock (hey General). We have zero recourse, nothing in our current contract, that was preached as so much better than the TA says he can't do that.

Simplified: Under the TA, no RJs, unless we purchase another carrier, then the RJs are capped and the pilots join our list.

Under the current, 1994 contract you guys stuck us with, there are ZERO restrictions on domestic codeshare. None.

 

[shootr]

Shortshaft,

You are not correct and do not understand the failed TA. Here's an "out there" example but maybe simple enough for you to understand...

We buy Mother Delta. We would merge SWA and Delta lists. All the RJ contracts would still be in effect so Skywest, Comair, ASA, and anyone else they are using at the time would now be our connection carriers. No domestic RJ's, huh?

You spout a good emotional rant but you have very little idea what you are actually talking about. If what Gary offers us $ucks, we'll say no again. The current contract is fine until we get it ironed out.

shootr

 

[Diesel-9]

How can SWA buy anyone right now? Are you aware of your balance sheet?

 

[scoreboardII]

Gary's letter is fear. Promoting fear in hopes a segment of the pilot group will revolt and demand passage. That won't happen. The second part is Gary's fear he won't get a contract completed which gives him some level of lattitude in doing his close international crap. Without a contract, he is bound by SL32 which prevents codeshare without growth, and prevents ancillary revenue attempts of point and click website sale of other airline seats.

He needs this contract as bad as we want it. But he needs it, we have the ball on this one. Lets not screw this up and get all testy.

 

[ASADFW7]

This doe not look like fun

 

[redflyer65]

How about we buy Republic and 200+ RJ's and start parking 737's. Yes they would not be able to purchase anymore RJ's but what about parking ours? Make sense now?

Massive loophole that could have cost us most of our jobs....

 

[Nevets]

Under the TA, if we bought another company that had RJs, the number of RJs was capped, it couldn't grow. The pilots would have to be integrated into the SWAPA seniority list. No big deal.

However, after rejecting the TA, we can now purchase a carrier with RJs and there is no limit (I'll repeat, no limit) on what they can do with the RJs, they can expand the subsidiary.

Also, under the failed TA, there was zero, none, nada, not at all, nothing in terms of domestic codeshare allowed.

After the TA was rejected, we now have ourselves a situation where tomorrow, Gary Kelly could call up Republic and start flying Houston to Lubbock (hey General). We have zero recourse, nothing in our current contract, that was preached as so much better than the TA says he can't do that.

Simplified: Under the TA, no RJs, unless we purchase another carrier, then the RJs are capped and the pilots join our list.

Under the current, 1994 contract you guys stuck us with, there are ZERO restrictions on domestic codeshare. None.

Curious, if SWA meets the growth requirement, how much above 6% can they go? And is SWA scheduled aircraft delivery currently at the growth requirement?

 

[SevenThreeSeven]

I am so proud of my union brethren who understood the issues on this TA and agreed the increase in wages were far less important than the swiss cheese loopholes in section 1 that could be of far greater impact in the near future.

I am embarrassed by shearedshift coming on here AFTER the vote to whine about losing his payraise. And he has clearly shown he did not properly educate himself on everything else in the TA except payrates.

I traded my payraise to make sure not one single union brother at SWA loses job to outsourcing, merger, or acquisition. I will do it again.

 

[MILPILOT17]

I am so proud of my union brethren who understood the issues on this TA and agreed the increase in wages were far less important than the swiss cheese loopholes in section 1 that could be of far greater impact in the near future.

I am embarrassed by shearedshift coming on here AFTER the vote to whine about losing his payraise. And he has clearly shown he did not properly educate himself on everything else in the TA except payrates.

I traded my payraise to make sure not one single union brother at SWA loses job to outsourcing, merger, or acquisition. I will do it again.

We have a winner!!!!!! Nice post!

 

[GuppyWN]

That post right there? It doesn't suck!

Gup