SWA/Airtran pilot integration thoughts, what will the new list look like?

[MCDU]

Hopefully this will be a doh merger. I wish the airtran pilots all the best and never allow swa to staple you.

M

 

[race#53]

I agree 100%. I've been saying all along that it needs to be fair, I never have advocated stapling anyone or a windfall for anyone (re. your original reply).

I know from the Southwest pilot's perspective that it seems AirTran pilots are getting all the benefits, but the fact of the matter is that the money isn't something Southwest pilots are "giving up".

Lear, what if SW took the AT cash balance and gave it to the SW FO's
to soften the blows a bit....do you have a problem with AT "giving up" ?
Dennis in Chicago

 

[yoyoma]

He says from a dorm room in Prescott -

would you like me to read you something off of swalife?

 

[BigEasy]

In response to the B plan over there, yes it is better than our 9.3% match.

Now if I would still be at Airtran I would be making $74 an hour at an average of 85 hours.

$74 * 85 = 6290 * 10.5% is $660.45

That is pretty good.

Now at SWA I make $99.02 * 105 TFP = $10,397.10 * 9.3% is $966.93

My point is that it is not only the %, the money does have a factor. I would rather have the higher pay, hence the better match.

Now with the B fund you do not have to contribute to get the match.

Just thought I would point that out.

 

[Lear70]

In response to the B plan over there, yes it is better than our 9.3% match.

Now if I would still be at Airtran I would be making $74 an hour at an average of 85 hours.

$74 * 85 = 6290 * 10.5% is $660.45

That is pretty good.

Now at SWA I make $99.02 * 105 TFP = $10,397.10 * 9.3% is $966.93

My point is that it is not only the %, the money does have a factor. I would rather have the higher pay, hence the better match.

Now with the B fund you do not have to contribute to get the match.

Just thought I would point that out.

The question wasn't whether you'd want the entire financial side of the house, but rather what specific elements of our contract you'd want to keep.

I'd take the 10.5% of the Southwest hourly rate in a B-fund if we could keep it structured that way and let me contribute my max to the 401(k) without a match. Better tax position, by far.

 

[bmpilot]

Ding Ding Ding

AT pilots haven't been watching the news over the last 10 years considering what has happen to pension funds at various airlines and other companies.

Ding Ding Ding Do you have a financial planner? A plan B plan figure it out.

 

[bmpilot]

Ding Ding Ding

AT pilots haven't been watching the news over the last 10 years considering what has happen to pension funds at various airlines and other companies.

WOW OH WOW

Does he know an A Fund from a B Fund. I would take AT's in a heart beat. If I could.

He jumps in at page 13 of this thread and has anyone looked at the rest of his post.

Only 24 post up to this last one. I know I don't post much but!

 

[Ty Webb]

In response to the B plan over there, yes it is better than our 9.3% match.

Now if I would still be at Airtran I would be making $74 an hour at an average of 85 hours.

$74 * 85 = 6290 * 10.5% is $660.45

That is pretty good.

Now at SWA I make $99.02 * 105 TFP = $10,397.10 * 9.3% is $966.93

.

Not to dispute the above, but I just wanted to point out that these numbers are based upon our 2001 Contract. With all sections of the new CBA TA'd except for Compensation (and a 98% strike vote) our FO's were (are?) within a few months of having 2010 pay, not 2001 pay.

The "big windfall" that I keep reading about on these boards is not nearly as "big" as some might think, especially for senior AirTran FO's, depending upon how SLI is handled. After all, the 50 deliveries we have on order represents 300 CA upgrades that they have been waiting for, some more patiently than others . . .

For a mid-level CA like me, I would be looking at a 20%-25% raise, in exchange for an uncertain seniority, uncertain commute, and an uncertain work environment. Some things are more important than money, and if I lose out on any of the above, it's not worth it to me for some extra pay.

However, whether this goes down, or how it goes down is not up to me, and I will accept it as it happens, just trying to share how it looks from this side of the airport fence. I'm sure there are plenty of guys with quite different perspectives, too, that are equally vaild.

Ty

 

[roughneck]

Two things strike me as odd. SWA increased ancillary revs to over $200m in 2Q 2010, representing a 35% increase over 2q 2009. Also, look at Airtran's % change and $ for 2Q 2010. Maybe they shot their wad already. With internet across their fleet and unbundling of most items for $ this may be the end of the up stream for them. They make a big deal about growth in their ancillary revenues in all their Wall Street presentations, but from the looks of it its been flat at $65 million or so for over a year. This is at odds with almost every other carrier's ancillary rev results which grew substantially over the past year (except for JB).

Airtran may be out of money, gas and ideas. So much for the 50 airplanes they planned to grow with. Less bag fees and Airtran is a money losing company. SWA can roll the AT product into our business model and revenue management process and make it profitable but to argue Airtran is a winning business model today and viable longterm is a stretch. They have hit the wall and Fonaro knew it.

He is taking his golden parachute and running for the hills. Good news for the Airtran guys is they get to come over and join our team. Welcome aboard.

 

[Kharma Police]

Two things strike me as odd. SWA increased ancillary revs to over $200m in 2Q 2010, representing a 35% increase over 2q 2009. Also, look at Airtran's % change and $ for 2Q 2010. Maybe they shot their wad already. With internet across their fleet and unbundling of most items for $ this may be the end of the up stream for them. They make a big deal about growth in their ancillary revenues in all their Wall Street presentations, but from the looks of it its been flat at $65 million or so for over a year. This is at odds with almost every other carrier's ancillary rev results which grew substantially over the past year (except for JB).

Airtran may be out of money, gas and ideas. So much for the 50 airplanes they planned to grow with. Less bag fees and Airtran is a money losing company. SWA can roll the AT product into our business model and revenue management process and make it profitable but to argue Airtran is a winning business model today and viable longterm is a stretch. They have hit the wall and Fonaro knew it.

He is taking his golden parachute and running for the hills. Good news for the Airtran guys is they get to come over and join our team. Welcome aboard.

Here is a quote from Gary Kelly:

"Southwest CEO Gary Kelly gave three reasons: 1) The financial health of the company, 2) there is little or no organic growth left with Southwest's route system, and 3) the right leadership team is in place."

Prior to the acquisition announcement, SWA was out of ideas regarding growth in its existing route structure. I suspected as much for awhile due to your flat to negative growth for the year. The above quote by your CEO confirms this. No growth means your huge cash cushion will slowly disappear as your costs continue to rise. Weather you want to admit it or not, Southwest needs what we have. This will be great for both companies and I am looking forward to the future possibilities.