SW/AirTran question

[aeolian]

Not trying to start a food fight here, honest. I'm to lazy to read thru every post on FI to find the answer. So maybe somebody can help without drama. I'm wondering if either party to that merger could have called upon the provisions of McCaskell/Bond (forgive misspelling) to arbitrate the seniority list. Thats really all I want to know... did the two parties have that option. If not, why?

thanks,

windblown

 

[N1atEcon]

No. it was settled before it got that far in the process.

 

[Fubijaakr]

It never got that far because both groups voted for the proposed settlement.

 

[Lear70]

Nevermind...

 

[SWA Bubba]

Not trying to start a food fight here, honest. I'm to lazy to read thru every post on FI to find the answer. So maybe somebody can help without drama. I'm wondering if either party to that merger could have called upon the provisions of McCaskell/Bond (forgive misspelling) to arbitrate the seniority list. Thats really all I want to know... did the two parties have that option. If not, why?

thanks,

windblown

Well, it might very well start a food fight or ruffle feathers (at the least I expect General Lee to impart his infinite wisdom on 'fairness'), but here's an honest answer:

The provisions of McCatskill-Bond are vague on their face, using terms like "fair" and "equitable," without defining them. It speaks of bargaining, mediation, and arbitration. In fact, SWAPA's CBA with the company recognizes MB in its merger/acquisition clause. So, literally, MB WAS complied with. There was bargaining, and an agreement was made and voted on before getting to the mediation or arbitration stages.

The company expressed a desire to have a negotiated list rather than an arbitrated one, and was very involved in the negotiation process. In fact, the company designed the main framework of both AIPs that resulted. The two unions then filled in the rest. The first AIP never got voted on (approved by SWAPA's BOD but rejected by Airtran's MEC), and the second one is the one that was voted on and approved by both unions. During negotiation for the second AIP, the company made it clear that it REALLY wanted a negotiated list rather than an arbitrated list, and suggested that it could operate Airtran separately rather than integrate, should a negotiated list not happen.

Apparently, the bottom line was that it was more important to the company to have a negotiated list (for its "culture" reasons), than it was to gain the synergies of their acquisition by forming a combined company, and made that point clear. This is distinctive because to the best of my knowledge, it's never happened before. Managements normally just let the unions slug it out until it is arbitrated because they want the merger to happen more than anything else.

If either side had voted down (or not let it go to a vote), mediation and arbitration would have happened in accordance with MB and the transistion agreement. However MB only requires the process ending with arbitration and the creation of a integrated list; it cannot force the company to actually use the arbitrated list and merge operations. That's a financial and operational decision that's left to the owners and management, and that's where SWA management spoke up. MB merely says that IF you merge the lists, you have to use the "fair and equitable" provisions.

At any rate, here we are. We have an agreed-and-voted-upon seniority list and the appropriate CBA amendments, and we'll go forward from here. Trust me, there's plenty of people on both sides unhappy with the process and the result. However, approx 84% of the pilots on both sides voted for it, rather than face any of the possible alternatives. Personally, I like to believe that the overwhelming majority of both sides are now ready to accept it and move forward. Does that answer your question?

Bubba

 

[Fubijaakr]

That's democracy, Bubba. The deal may stink, but it won by a landslide. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[aeolian]

If either side had voted down (or not let it go to a vote), mediation and arbitration would have happened in accordance with MB and the transistion agreement. However MB only requires the process ending with arbitration and the creation of a integrated list; it cannot force the company to actually use the arbitrated list and merge operations. That's a financial and operational decision that's left to the owners and management, and that's where SWA management spoke up. MB merely says that IF you merge the lists, you have to use the "fair and equitable" provisions.

At any rate, here we are. We have an agreed-and-voted-upon seniority list and the appropriate CBA amendments, and we'll go forward from here. ...Does that answer your question?

Bubba[/QUOTE]

Hi Bubba,

Thanks for the explanation and I comment further on the presumption that your explanation is complete and correct...both of which seem likely..

I thought both the process and outcome were binding upon all parties (pilots and management). You're explanation leaves me wondering as to the value of the law to pilots in a merger. If you have a comment.. I'm all ears.

If you are correct I find it interesting and suggest it should be a caution to any pilot group believing the MB legislation grants them any protection, let alone more protection than ALPA merger policy. Seems to me one guarantees both the process and the outcome will be respected. The other just guarantees the process but no more...One gives each party teeth (use them as you see fit) the other just gums to flap...

aeolian

 

[Secret Squirrel]

As a ATN guy SWA Bubba pretty much nailed it exactly. It is untested legal territory. Ask two lawyers if MB was triggered prior to our vote and you would have had three different opinions. The closest precedent is the award that the Midwest flight attendants just got (which came out a week after our vote closed). But there is a big difference. SOC. In the Midwest/Republic merger they were able to show that there was a single operating certificate. That was what SW management was holding over the heads of the Airtran side. Was it a legitimate threat? The majority thought it was not worth the fight for what we were told might only be low teens increase in seniority with the possibility of non-integration . We will never know now. This might have been a unique enough situation for it to work. I don't see the same situation working in two like sized companies.

 

[SWA Bubba]

That's democracy, Bubba. The deal may stink, but it won by a landslide. That's all that needs to be said.

I agree it's a democratic process. And the deal did pass by a landslide, ironically by almost exactly the same 84% on both sides. And 90-95% of both sides voted (inclucing me!), which is, to quote the General, FANTASTIC.

As far as "that's all that needs to be said," I said more because I was explaining it to someone who asked a question. That's all.

Bubba

 

[scoreboardII]

as it happened, no, if either party voted no, then yes.