SWA - AAI question

[FDJ2]

Sure they do. We are acquiring a company whose financials aren't nearly as strong as ours, a company that has furloughed, a company with a lot of debt and not much cash. SWA pilots are going to be a lot more exposed after the acquisition and money that could have been used for organic growth is providing for the career altering windfall at FL.

Geez, then why-o-why is SWA acquiring AAI?

 

[ivauir]

I don't think you need to be scared

On this we agree.

We are exactly where we want to be today, and we will be when the acquisition is complete.

 

[ivauir]

Geez, then why-o-why is SWA acquiring AAI?

Good question. Why isn't AAI acquiring SWA?

 

[Bill Nelson]

Geez, then why-o-why is SWA acquiring AAI?

Gates in Atlanta and some regional feed.

 

[roughneck]

Gates in Atlanta and some regional feed.

We have a winner!

 

[FDJ2]

Gates in Atlanta and some regional feed.

Sounds like AAI has something of considerable value to SWA.

 

[FDJ2]

On this we agree.

We are exactly where we want to be today, and we will be when the acquisition is complete.

Agreed, as long as at the end of the integration process you put it behind you and look forward, not backwards.

 

[roughneck]

Sounds like AAI has something of considerable value to SWA

I don't believe there has ever been a question about that.

AAI brings something to SWA.
AT ALPA brings nothing to SWAPA.

The arbitrators will weight what each pilot group brings to the other not what the companies bring to each other.

 

[PCL_128]

That is a CBA issue.

Agreed, but the SWAPA CBA isn't the only CBA involved in this merger. Our CBA also has scope protections and other provisions that must be addressed. That doesn't have anything to do with interfering with your own transition side letter talks, but it does mean that we have our own issues to resolve. Are you implying that you would like to interfere in our ability to address our issues? I certainly hope not.

No offense, and it is really cool that you come on this site, but it really looks like you guys are trying to either modify our CBA or dictate to our management how to run the airline.

I think you're drawing incorrect conclusions. Have a little faith that both sides are doing the right thing by their members without harming the other side.

 

[Bill Nelson]

Agreed, but the SWAPA CBA isn't the only CBA involved in this merger. Our CBA also has scope protections and other provisions that must be addressed.

What does that have to do with a Process Agreement?

 

[ivauir]

Agreed, but the SWAPA CBA isn't the only CBA involved in this merger. Our CBA also has scope protections and other provisions that must be addressed. That doesn't have anything to do with interfering with your own transition side letter talks, but it does mean that we have our own issues to resolve. Are you implying that you would like to interfere in our ability to address our issues? I certainly hope not.

Of course not, but your issues aren't with us. You have a contract - enforce it.

I think you're drawing incorrect conclusions.

You haven't offered any evidence to the contrary - in fact you are reinforcing my impression that the process talks have stalled because ALPA has a transitional issue

Have a little faith that both sides are doing the right thing by their members without harming the other side.

No offense, but it isn't a matter of faith and your organization's actions are troubling.

Are you guys going to agree to a reasonable process or not?

 

[scoreboardII]

Our CBA also has scope protections and other provisions that must be addressed.

a CBA which evaporates on date of closing. Good on you for getting what you can while the gettings good.

 

[PCL_128]

Of course not, but your issues aren't with us.

I never said that they were.

You haven't offered any evidence to the contrary

Since you're making the allegation, I would think that the burden of proof should be on you.

Are you guys going to agree to a reasonable process or not?

Are yours? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they will, so I would ask you to do the same for us. This process will only get ugly if you insist upon making allegations without hard evidence. I suggest that everyone just let the teams from both unions do their work.

a CBA which evaporates on date of closing. Good on you for getting what you can while the gettings good.

You have a lot to learn. Start with reading the SEC filings from September.

 

[roughneck]

a CBA which evaporates on date of closing

The AirTran CBA doesn't evaporate at closing. They may live under it for the full 5 years depending on how the integration goes. AirTran pilots do not get the SWAPA CBA at closing. They will continue to operate as AirTran under their own CBA until the operations are combined, if they ever are.

 

[ivauir]

I never said that they were.

You are talking in circles.

Since you're making the allegation, I would think that the burden of proof should be on you.

This is straight from your organization:

"Disagreement remains on the critical issue of completing an operational merger within a specified time. As such, both sides agreed to defer further discussion. In the meantime, we will work instead to arrange a meeting between SWAPA, ALPA, and the managements of AirTran and Southwest, with the goal of concluding work on a Process Agreement; reaching a common understanding of the merger process; and discussing Transition Agreements to protect the interests of AirTran and Southwest pilots during the period between the Date of Corporate Closing (DOCC) and an operational merger of the two carriers. The MEC will have additional information on plans for those meetings, coming soon."

You are ALPA. These are your own words.

Why are you attempting to control the timing of a Southwest Airlines business decision through an agreement with SWAPA over the process of negotiating an ISL?

How can you ask me to give you the "benefit of the doubt" when this is the first thing you do?