SWA - AAI question

[texman]

Since Airtran has the aircraft orders and the
Better growth potential, the senior AT f/o's
Need to have their upgrades protected.

Relative seniority does not protect the
AT senior f/o's, who have higher career
Expectations than their SW
Counterparts.

I wish you could on swa tv and see your CEO Personally state AT needs swa to grow. That should help the fast upgrade.

 

[roughneck]

I saw him saying that on a continuous loop in the lounge the other day. I hope Swapa is making a highlight film of soundbites for the Arbitrator. This should be fun.

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty,

We've been down this road before, and everytime anyone posts factual information you respond with bogus and personal arguments.

I could (and have) said the exact same thing.

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/bonds.aspx?symbol=aai

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/bonds.aspx?symbol=luv

FACT:

AAI has a 1.9 debt to equity ratio

FACT:

LUV has has a 0.6 debt to equity ratio

No one said that SWA isn't the stronger company today. I'm not buying SWA stock, though, I am being integrated into your pilot seniority list.

You want our contract. That is easy to understand; it represents a career altering windfall.[

After reading this board for the past three months, I can take it or leave it. I already have the seat, the base, and the pay I need. I'm not interested in selling my QOL for another $50K.

A fair and equitable ISL will recognize these facts and the added risk to Southwest pilots. Unfortunately a handful of FL pilots aren't interested in fair and equitable. Given the turn of last weeks events, I wonder if this hyper militant and unreasonable cadre is in control at ALPA.

I am interested in fair and equitable, but these are highly subjective terms. And, no, no one from ALPA has solicited my opinion any time in recent memory. Has your MC asked you for yours? :laugh:

 

[Lonestar]

Since Airtran has the aircraft orders and the
Better growth potential, the senior AT f/o's Need to have their upgrades protected.
Relative seniority does not protect the AT senior f/o's, who have higher career Expectations than their SW Counterparts.

This kind of thinking may do you harm. You're attempting to define your career expectations as simply getting to the left seat. Didn't most if not all of your pilots hired over the last 5-7 years come from the left seat somewhere else? So if the only expectation of your careers was to get to the left seat, why did you go to AirTran? Unless...was it maybe more money, better benefits, better QOL, etc?
You certainly can't say those things don't matter considering about 98% of you voted to shut your airline down in an attempt to see gains in all those areas.

 

[Bwipilot]

Didn't most if not all of your pilots hired over the last 5-7 years come from the left seat somewhere else? So if the only expectation of your careers was to get to the left seat, why did you go to AirTran? Unless...was it maybe more money, better benefits, better QOL, etc?

It's going to take a lot of thinking to come up with a reply to that one. I'm guessing that it gets ignored like it was never said.

 

[Bill Nelson]

Don't worry, you won't get a response. The AirTran guys on this forum generally run and hide when facts and reality rear its head. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[dicko]

It's going to take a lot of thinking to come up with a reply to that one. I'm guessing that it gets ignored like it was never said.

You chose to spend your time flying cargo and people in the military. Your choice, hence your airline seniority. Or lack of it. You gained by staying in the AF, and you lost. We are not dissimilar.

Your CEO decided to buy another airline. You had nothing to do with it. Now, you have apparently decided that this is an excellent opportunity to take some seniority that you haven't earned. Not at SWA or at AirTran. You will not personally be paying us money. Why should we personally pay you with our seniority ?

Contracts change. Ask a United or American pilot. They gloated over their contract much as you are. One minute you're making alot of money. The next minute your contract is gutted. Your seniority stays.

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

You chose to spend your time flying cargo and people in the military. Your choice, hence your airline seniority. Or lack of it. You gained by staying in the AF, and you lost. We are not dissimilar.

Your CEO decided to buy another airline. You had nothing to do with it. Now, you have apparently decided that this is an excellent opportunity to take some seniority that you haven't earned. Not at SWA or at AirTran. You will not personally be paying us money. Why should we personally pay you with our seniority ?

Contracts change. Ask a United or American pilot. They gloated over their contract much as you are. One minute you're making alot of money. The next minute your contract is gutted. Your seniority stays.

Seriously, we personally earned our contract and working conditions that you may be able to enjoy. We earned that. It is disrespectful in insinuate otherwise.

Our contract has steadily been approved for almost 40 years. This "what if" is such a weak point. One point, while every legacy carrier was getting their contract "gutted", we vastly improved ours.

These "crystal ball" arguments really only weakens any point.

 

[dicko]

Seriously, we personally earned our contract and working conditions that you may be able to enjoy. We earned that. It is disrespectful in insinuate otherwise.

Our contract has for almost 40 years. This "what if" is such a weak point. One point, while every legacy carrier was getting their contract "gutted", we vastly improved ours.

These "crystal ball" arguments really only weakens any point.

I'd be willing to bet that you are claiming far more credit than you've actually earned. Right ? What have you done to "steadily been approved" your contract (Your words not mine ) If I'm wrong then let me know. If you've spent the last 15 to 20 years building your great company then I'll apologize.

You're near the bottom of the list and hoping for a quick seniority bump. At another groups expense. On your CEO's dime.

 

[Dude]

I'm not interested in selling my QOL for another $50K.

Ty,

Do you really think you would be sacrificing ANY QOL? And the $50K number is quite a bit low. I get your other arguments and whatnot, but this statement is just flawed logic and incorrect.

Other than that, good luck with your one-man battle out there....it must be exhausting. Don't you have a MC to do the fighting for you? Go get some fresh air.

Dicko,

At another groups expense.

Are you serious, dude?! What EXACTLY is this deal costing you? What expense? That's the crap that irritates the reasonable out there.

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

I'd be willing to bet that you are claiming far more credit that you've actually earned. Right ? What have you done to "steadily been approved" your contract (Your words not mine ) If I'm wrong then let me know. If you've spent the last 15 to 20 years building your great company then I'll apologize.

You're near the bottom of the list and hoping for a quick seniority bump. At another groups expense. On your CEO's dime.

Even if I am the most junior pilot I am part of a group that some have 34 years on the property and I am now part of the effort that it is now my responsibility to continue.

Every SWA pilot who currently works or has worked for SWA has made sacrifices to help build this airline what it is today. And not just the pilots, every work group has been asked to do what others will not and share in those rewards for the sacrifice.

With that being said, I have been here longer than your minimum of 15 years. I do have my own personal concerns but I am more concerned about the pilots junior to me that I expect to be treated fairly in this integration. And it certainly is not close to relative seniority.

 

[vixin]

They give SWA ATL, 50 orders and those beautiful 717's. Isnt that enough to please you guys? Geez! Thats what the AAI contract brings that AAI pilots have fought so hard for these last few years.

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

I could (and have) said the exact same thing.





No one said that SWA isn't the stronger company today. I'm not buying SWA stock, though, I am being integrated into your pilot seniority list.



After reading this board for the past three months, I can take it or leave it. I already have the seat, the base, and the pay I need. I'm not interested in selling my QOL for another $50K.



I am interested in fair and equitable, but these are highly subjective terms. And, no, no one from ALPA has solicited my opinion any time in recent memory. Has your MC asked you for yours? :laugh:

Aww c'mon Bill, Ty a'int "wrong", he's just "D'iffernt".

 

[FlyinHigh737]

They give SWA ATL, 50 orders and those beautiful 717's. Isnt that enough to please you guys? Geez! Thats what the AAI contract brings that AAI pilots have fought so hard for these last few years.

Everyone works to build careers and futures, that’s progression and pride. However, SWA is buying Airtran, SWA pilots help build the revenue and capital to purchase Airtran, whether they were here 2 years or 30. There in lies the pride we feel at SWA. Everyone wants what is fair, it's human nature to want that or better. Someone not wanting more money to put towards their family, retirement or charities and would rather hold on to their left seat status is clearly wearing their 4 stripes to Chilies to eat. Guys, this is an end sum game, and when we look back at our careers we will, without a doubt utter those words "show me the money" not "where is the money".

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

Here is the info. Not saying it can happen again but this is how it went down.


More complex example
In the real world it is easy to overestimate BATNA and invest too little time to research real options. This can lead to poor or faulty decision making and negotiating outcomes. 1987 saw the conclusion of a complex series of negotiations between Southwest Airlines and two different pilot groups: Southwest pilots and Muse/Transtar pilots. The Muse/Transtar pilots failed to properly analyze their BATNA: their missteps and misfortune offer valuable lessons for anyone exposed to the risks of negotiating in a volatile industry.

TranStar began as Muse Air amid the 1982 traffic controllers’ strike. By the end of 1984 the company was still struggling, and actively looking for a merger to keep it afloat. At the end of the year, Harold Simmons, president of the Amalgamated Sugar Company offered the airline the money to continue, on the condition that Lamar Muse return as CEO. Despite the new influx of cash and new leadership, the company was not able to generate a consistent profit despite its use of non-union labor and competitive fares.

In 1985, Southwest Airlines acquired Muse Air. The Muse pilots were initially unrepresented so negotiations between ensured between Southwest Airlines and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA). Complicating the always-contentious issue of seniority list integration was the large disparity in pay at the two companies. The difference was so large that the Muse Air operation was unable to support the Southwest Airlines pay scale.

SWAPA pursued a strategy of integrating the Muse pilots to the bottom of the list, with pay parity in five years combined with a card campaign to represent the Muse pilots. This strategy was rejected by the company on the basis of Duty to Fairly Represent and SWAPA agreed to a one time, temporary waiver of their scope clause. This allowed Muse to be run as a separate operation with numerous caveats and protections including a 1:4 growth ratio.

Muse became TranStar and chose independent representation through the TranStar Pilots Association (TPA). Perceiving the dangers inherent in a wholly owned subsidiary the pilot groups attempted to negotiate a combined master seniority list. In November of 1986 an agreement was reached.

This agreement placed a pilot hired in Jun of 1982 by Southwest senior to a TranStar pilot hired in January of 1981 and improved the relative seniority of all Southwest Airlines pilots. The agreement included fences, Captain seat protections and brought the TranStar pilots to pay parity no later than December of 1990.

The TPA Board of Directors rejected the proposed Integrated Seniority List(ISL), apparently believing that such rejection would create more leverage for their Merger Committee to obtain a more favorable ISL.

What followed was a breakdown in negotiations and an angry exchange between union presidents.

"I can only conclude that your inner circle objects to the seniority settlement and engaged in a last minute search for reasons to sabotage the agreement and rationalize the action within your organization. This indicates a lack of good faith, which precludes any further dealings between our two unions." SWAPA President Gerald Bradley to TPA President Captain Golich

"I have waited a few days to respond to your recent letter addressing our unsuccessful negotiations. As you can imagine, it was difficult not to be angered by your groundless accusations, blatant threats and misleading statements." Captain Golich to Captain Bradley.

Negotiations were never resumed and TranStar was operated as a wholly owned subsidiary until the 9th of August 1987 when it closed its’ doors forever. 146 pilots who had seniority numbers at Southwest Airlines, seat protection, and (eventually) substantial raises now had no jobs. Excerpts from a letter Captain Golich wrote to Herb Kelleher on August 2nd:

"As you know, the TranStar pilots are in their darkest hour … I therefore request first right of hire, subject to Southwest’s normal screening, in seniority order, for the TranStar Pilots … … request some form of assistance be provided relative to the requirement for a 737 type rating … … the TranStar pilots will provide their own ground school."

The TPA BOD assessed their BATNA as superior to the agreement their merger committee was able to negotiate. Unfortunately for the pilots they represented this was a gross overestimation, and the actual BATNA turned out to be inferior not only to the negotiated agreement, but even to SWAPA’s opening position of staple.

Unfortunately the mistakes made by the TPA Board of Directors are not unique. The Airline industry is littered with examples of misapplied or overestimated BATNA. BATNA isn’t a walk away position or an assessment of the lowest acceptable offer. It is a tool to assess the certain gains presented in a negotiated agreement against the uncertain risks of the alternative. The uncertainty of those risks can lead to outcomes that are surprising and devastating

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

What I find interesting is that the SWA pilots have already negotiated a side letter with the company on a growth ratio in case this happens. It seems that some Airtran pilots on this board, as well as a few SWA haters, think that Bond Mcaskill will prevent this from happening. We all know that there is a way around BM if the negotiations get ugly. Gary Kelly will protect his own first. What nobody wants to acknowledge is that we (SWA) are buying Airtran - not the other way around, and to say that the SWA pilots have nothing to do with your windfall really is just pissing us off like you can't even imagine. The company just didn't hand us our contract. I say BM doesn't seem to be working out too well for Frontier. It seems the Frontier negotiators overplayed their hand. Only time will tell!
I hope ALPA almighty does go ahead and push Gary Kelly a little too much! What I find ironic is that just about every airline that ALPA has represented has been through bankruptcy! To my future Airtran brothers: nobody over on the SWA side expects a staple so please do yourselves a favor and get real with what you expect out if this SLI!

 

[Lear70]

What I find interesting is that the SWA pilots have already negotiated a side letter with the company on a growth ratio in case this happens. It seems that some Airtran pilots on this board, as well as a few SWA haters, think that Bond Mcaskill will prevent this from happening. We all know that there is a way around BM if the negotiations get ugly. Gary Kelly will protect his own first. What nobody wants to acknowledge is that we (SWA) are buying Airtran - not the other way around, and to say that the SWA pilots have nothing to do with your windfall really is just pissing us off like you can't even imagine. The company just didn't hand us our contract. I say BM doesn't seem to be working out too well for Frontier. It seems the Frontier negotiators overplayed their hand. Only time will tell!
I hope ALPA almighty does go ahead and push Gary Kelly a little too much! What I find ironic is that just about every airline that ALPA has represented has been through bankruptcy! To my future Airtran brothers: nobody over on the SWA side expects a staple so please do yourselves a favor and get real with what you expect out if this SLI!

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date. Some of you expressed confusion as to why the Process Agreement is being held up, the above is a perfect example of why. It's not personal, it's business... we refuse to put ourselves in the same boat as Muse. Not trying to be in the driver's seat, just making sure we're not a helpless passenger along for the ride with a bad ending.

I understand your frustrations with things being said on this board, and if you look back in the history of this board, there's at least three dozen AirTran pilots who are regular posters. The fact that only half a dozen are posting on here and only one or two are insisting relative seniority from the number 1 person on the SWA list down is the only way to go... well... you make up your own mind on where the *MAJORITY* of AirTran pilots fall in what we think is "fair".

I've noticed more of our AAI pilots posting as things get more contentious and more posts like the one I quoted here pop up from SWA pilot. It's a veiled threat, and no one likes to be threatened; it brings out the worst in people and our people respond in kind and it escalates from there... it doesn't need to be that way.

I'm therefore posting this trying to help "keep the peace" and I'm probably going to draw a lot of heat for it on our private board. The problem we have is that, from all experience with OUR management, if we don't "shoot for the moon" from the very beginning, we always come up on the short side of the stick. So some of our guys were doing the same here, not realizing how polarizing it is, just as your pilots who say "staple" or "Muse" is polarizing to us.

Fair will be somewhere in the middle. I'll leave it to our MC's to figure out where that is. I believe the majority of our pilots feel the same which, in addition to our MC's asking us not to talk about it on here, is why the silence from the AAI camp is so deafening. It's not that we're not engaged, it's that the silent majority is just that... silent, but listening and waiting.

Ya'll fly safe out there... :beer:

 

[texman]

What I find interesting is that the SWA pilots have already negotiated a side letter with the company on a growth ratio in case this happens. It seems that some Airtran pilots on this board, as well as a few SWA haters, think that Bond Mcaskill will prevent this from happening. We all know that there is a way around BM if the negotiations get ugly. Gary Kelly will protect his own first. What nobody wants to acknowledge is that we (SWA) are buying Airtran - not the other way around, and to say that the SWA pilots have nothing to do with your windfall really is just pissing us off like you can't even imagine. The company just didn't hand us our contract. I say BM doesn't seem to be working out too well for Frontier. It seems the Frontier negotiators overplayed their hand. Only time will tell!
I hope ALPA almighty does go ahead and push Gary Kelly a little too much! What I find ironic is that just about every airline that ALPA has represented has been through bankruptcy! To my future Airtran brothers: nobody over on the SWA side expects a staple so please do yourselves a favor and get real with what you expect out if this SLI!

Well said my brother. Like I have said before GK and company will take of it's own first.

 

[scoreboardII]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date.

Gary has said he has no intention and that it would be inappropriate to interfer in the seniority list integration. In other words, he isn't going to give any assurance one way or the other.

He fully realizes the current law provides for relief in the courts, that could be years, your side has just "thrown down" and started that "longer road to peace and prosperity" instead of "day one full up SWA employee".

Now, what do you do when gary says "no deal, can't give a firm date"? Seriously, just want to know.

 

[Bwipilot]

Lear70,

I think I'll enjoy meeting you someday. I agree that the extremes on both sides make us grumpy.

Of course, those extremes do make the wheel go around and expand ones thought process. Just have to remember the other 95% of the groups are shaking their heads too.

 

[ivauir]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date.

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.

Some of you expressed confusion as to why the Process Agreement is being held up

But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

He wouldn't lie would he?

 

[Bill Nelson]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date.

A process agreement isn't required or needed by the SWAPA pilots according to my Rep. Our protections are in our CBA and will be in our transition agreement with SWA. A Process agreement would be preferable but isn't needed. If ALPA holds it up, we will press forward without them.

 

[Max Powers]

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.



But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

He wouldn't lie would he?

This is going to binding arbitration; the sooner we all realize this the better.....Why fight the inevitable ivauir?

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

And now you understand why AirTran ALPA won't sign a process agreement without a firm commitment to merge the two seniority lists by a specific, set-in-stone date. Some of you expressed confusion as to why the Process Agreement is being held up, the above is a perfect example of why. It's not personal, it's business... we refuse to put ourselves in the same boat as Muse. Not trying to be in the driver's seat, just making sure we're not a helpless passenger along for the ride with a bad ending.

I understand your frustrations with things being said on this board, and if you look back in the history of this board, there's at least three dozen AirTran pilots who are regular posters. The fact that only half a dozen are posting on here and only one or two are insisting relative seniority from the number 1 person on the SWA list down is the only way to go... well... you make up your own mind on where the *MAJORITY* of AirTran pilots fall in what we think is "fair".

I've noticed more of our AAI pilots posting as things get more contentious and more posts like the one I quoted here pop up from SWA pilot. It's a veiled threat, and no one likes to be threatened; it brings out the worst in people and our people respond in kind and it escalates from there... it doesn't need to be that way.

I'm therefore posting this trying to help "keep the peace" and I'm probably going to draw a lot of heat for it on our private board. The problem we have is that, from all experience with OUR management, if we don't "shoot for the moon" from the very beginning, we always come up on the short side of the stick. So some of our guys were doing the same here, not realizing how polarizing it is, just as your pilots who say "staple" or "Muse" is polarizing to us.

Fair will be somewhere in the middle. I'll leave it to our MC's to figure out where that is. I believe the majority of our pilots feel the same which, in addition to our MC's asking us not to talk about it on here, is why the silence from the AAI camp is so deafening. It's not that we're not engaged, it's that the silent majority is just that... silent, but listening and waiting.

Ya'll fly safe out there... :beer:

Excellent post Lear 70.

I must say that if SWA is not allowed to progress with this integration that this acquisition will still likely go on without it. My thoughts are I hope for the AT pilots they are not negotiating too hard for something that likely wouldn't make a difference. SWA pilots are mushrooms right now except for the occasional unintentional leak.

I am one that hopes we go to arbitration for a litany of reasons. I also think it would be better for the Airtran pilots to stay out of attrition for these same reasons. I know it is hard to imagine but most of the SWA guys really want this to go well for both sides if it is going to go at all. I will stand by that this forum has exposed some personalities that I fear are the kind of character I would not to work with at SWA. I do not want this acquisition but if it happens, I can only hope that my co-workers feel it went fairly.

This forum is the only voice the line pilots of SWA are really hearing. Don't go by what you see while you are jump seating in our cockpits. We are always nice and respectful to our guests and do not want any unnecessary tension while you are there. I would personally deflect any talk of SLI away so that we can have a nice visit. I am certain the same works the other way around.

Every SWA pilot I fly with, or they have flown with, or I share a crew change with, or we are down in the lounge before a trip, or down in the bar on the overnight express the same sentiments, they do not want this acquisition because of the apparent disrespectful attitudes of the AT work group generated largely on this forum.

Sad, but true.

 

[ivauir]

.. we refuse to put ourselves in the same boat as Muse.

Lear,

Maybe you should take another look at the Muse scenario. There was a negotiated list. It was not a staple. Their MEC rejected it.

The way to avoid a Muse scenario is to be reasonable and negotiate an integrated list in good faith. Stalling the talks and making unreasonable demands doesn't fit the bill.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear, "We didn't start the fire"--Billy Joel.

 

[Lear70]

Gary has said he has no intention and that it would be inappropriate to interfer in the seniority list integration. In other words, he isn't going to give any assurance one way or the other.

He fully realizes the current law provides for relief in the courts, that could be years, your side has just "thrown down" and started that "longer road to peace and prosperity" instead of "day one full up SWA employee".

Now, what do you do when gary says "no deal, can't give a firm date"? Seriously, just want to know.

Our side hasn't "thrown down". We knew it wouldn't be "day one full-up SWA employee with pay, benefits, etc" at DOCC, it never was going to be that way. What our MC *HAS* said was that agreement couldn't be reached on this issue and it's been tabled while they work on other things. That's not "throwing down".

As far as what we do if agreement on that issue can't be reached? I don't know, I'm not on the MEC or the MC, just one of the people who picks up the phone and gets informed when I read the updates and know there's more to them than just what was written. I'll leave it to them to figure out, but I do have faith that it'll get worked out - half the MC are people I've known for over a decade and trust, one of them implicitly, and the word I'm getting is that the mood in Dallas is still very amicable, which is good.

We do, however, have an interesting dynamic change coming up in our MEC structure. They're making MCO and MKE full voting domiciles, rep elections will start next month. Whoever gets elected in those elections will have the power to tip the balance of decisions at the MEC level which *COULD* direct some changes in strategy. I say "could", because the MC has been left almost completely autonomous in how they operate, including negotiating the Process Agreement, so it might have absolutely zero change in what's being done in Dallas right now or they might choose to get more involved at the MEC level. Very touchy subject around here, actually.

Lear70,

I think I'll enjoy meeting you someday. I agree that the extremes on both sides make us grumpy.

Of course, those extremes do make the wheel go around and expand ones thought process. Just have to remember the other 95% of the groups are shaking their heads too.

Thanks, and you're right of course, it does inspire thought sometimes, just have to make sure people realize a lot on here is posturing, and the 1%'ers are at EVERY airline, and mostly harmless, so we don't let it get our blood pressure up.

Happy to buy the beer when we get to hang out (even if it's the expensive stuff)! :beer:

Lear,

The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.

It also covers many other aspects of the merger that deal with union relations as well.

You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.

Hardly a reasonable approach.

I think you misunderstood what is being asked for. It's not a date to integrate OPERATIONS at the AIRLINE level fully, it's a date to integrate SENIORITY LISTS with SWAPA representation for ALL pilots. That's perfectly acceptable to bring into the Process Agreement between the two unions.

But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...

It's not being held up. That implies that it's at a stalemate with neither side willing to move or work on anything else until someone "blinks". What's happening is that both sides haven't reached agreement on this issue and that other things are going to be worked on while both sides work privately on the issue.

However, just to play Devil's Advocate, by your argument, someone could say that SWAPA is holding up the Process Agreement by refusing to agree to a date. I know you don't see it this way, but our guys are left with the question "If SWAPA won't agree to this, maybe they really DO have plans for a Muse scenario. Why ELSE would SWAPA not agree?" Makes us *VERY* uneasy to proceed without it...

Honestly, it depends on which side of the argument you lie on; each side sees it their way, that's just a part of negotiations. I'm sure it'll be back on the agenda for discussion at a later date. There's still 2-3 months (or more, depending on when the DOJ responds) to get back to it, and I believe cooler heads will prevail, so no worries, mate...

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

Lear thanks for the response, you say the Airtran pilots have to shoot for the moon, if this transaction goes thru you guys are pretty much getting the Moon! It would be nice for some of you guys to acknowledge that our pilots have something to do with that. After all our contract wasn't given to us by management, we worked with management to get it.

And I agree hopefully we can meet someday and have a beer!

 

[redflyer65]

Stalling the talks and making unreasonable demands doesn't fit the bill.

This is exactly what I tried to say months ago. The Transtar scenerio could be very real if the AAI side starts going down this long protracted ALPA road. B/M will not come into play at all.

I wouldn't follow ALPA to far down this road, it could lead to a cliff and I really hope it doesn't come to that, I really don't. Not saying SWAPA is the best union ever, but they are light years ahead of the dark side.

Nice history leason Tweet. Well written.

 

[Bill Nelson]

Lear70

I know you don't see it this way, but our guys are left with the question "If SWAPA won't agree to this, maybe they really DO have plans for a Muse scenario. Why ELSE would SWAPA not agree?" Makes us *VERY* uneasy to proceed without it...

It wouldn't be in Swapa's best interest to agree to use an integrated seniority list if Gary Kelly hasn't committed to integrating the flight operations. I think SWA is going to keep the Muse Scenario option available until they see ALPA agree to a reasonable SLI. If ALPA pushes to hard I think Gary wants the option to go "Muse." Legally speaking he has every right to do just that. B/M only applies if there is an actual combination of operations. In this case it doesn't seem that an actual combination is guaranteed.