Wow. Amazing rebuttal.
Does it matter? You won't listen. In your mind, the SWA trailer park is the end all, be all. But it's the end of the month before rent collection starts, so I've got a few spare minutes to waste on you:
You gonna actually explain? Gonna offer any proof of your perceived "conspiracy"?
I've never alleged a "conspiracy." Conspiracies are complicated, and this is really quite simple. SWAPA and the SWA pilot group are a bunch of entitlement minded whiners who believed they were owed something from the integration, and Gary was worried about what would happen to the operation if they weren't appeased. So he issued a bunch of threats to scare the AirTran pilots into accepting a deal that they never should have accepted. No conspiracy.
Gonna rebut Gary's actual pre-negotiation comments and how they related to his actual subsequent actions?
Gary's comments aren't in dispute. Of course he preferred a negotiated agreement. That's better for him and the company. But what he preferred was irrelevant. The Process Agreement was in place and should have been followed to its conclusion. His actions in threatening his new employees were completely unethical, no matter how empty those threats were.
And If you want to believe (and argue) that the two carriers were "equal" in terms of how an arbitrator would decide, well then, that's your right. However, other work groups' arbitrators thought differently than you, and made lists that accounted for inequality. Can you explain why a pilot arbitrator would do anything differently? Explain why he would ignore all that, and give one side a boost (at the other side's expense), just because we're pilots and have to all retire at 65?
Again, other work groups are irrelevant. Other pilot groups are the correct measuring stick. And we have so many examples of pilot integrations by now that there is no debate among any knowledgeable people about how that integration would have turned out in arbitration. Ratio by category and status is the standard, and it would have been no different for us.
And no, nothing would have been at your "expense." If you're 50% in seat before the integration, and 50% in seat after, you've lost nothing. Which is why ratio by category and status is the arbitrated standard. Neutral third party arbitrators can see that, even though you can't.