SWA/Airtran Process Agreement??

[waveflyer]

Opposite?? No. Still good yes, and I do believe that there is tons of growth potential- but those higher on the list will reap the rewards of growth sooner and that's no argument to place one above the buyer.

 

[canyonblue]

“It wasn’t do we grow Southwest, or do we buy AirTran? It was, we need AirTran, so we can grow in the future,” Mr. Kelly said.

You are reading it all wrong though. It's more like the United States needed the Native Americans so they could grow in the future. They needed them out of the way. We just got Manhattan for $24.

 

[RLAblows]

You are reading it all wrong though. It's more like the United States needed the Native Americans so they could grow in the future. They needed them out of the way. We just got Manhattan for $24.

That's a pretty bold statement and you guys were calling us the "land grabbers." Wow! Contradictions are flying everywhere.

 

[-9Capt]

It's more like the United States needed the Native Americans so they could grow in the future.

But now there's a law that says you can slaughter the Indians.

Actually, I agree with you 100%.
SWA's growth was very much limited by AT. SWA couldn't drive us out of any markets given our similar CASM. Clearly, from a business standpoint, SWA needed AT more than AT needed SWA. Now you got us and Bond/McCaskill will make sure things are "fair and equitable" going forward.

 

[-9Capt]

that's no argument to place one above the buyer.

That, my friend, will most likely be left for arbitrators to decide.

 

[On Your Six]

GL Said: "Let someone looking in from the outside with no stake in the outcome decide."

Well he has no stake in this and does not have to live with the outcome...

Ty: no seat is protected in the current SWA CBA.....? U can still afford 2 buy on SWA FO pay...

So you're saying no advice is good advice? Just trust SWAPA? If Lee was doing the arbitrating, he'd probably put Ty Webb as number 1 on the list. Yeah, that probably wouldn't be a great idea. I think that is what he meant, and I think you knew that. Stop being shifty. And didn't Lee go through that already with his own arbitration? Be a man and roll the dice.


OYS

 

[FlyinGuy]

Clearly, from a business standpoint, SWA needed AT more than AT needed SWA.

I guess it is Friday night so the booze is flowing!!!!

 

[On Your Six]

Actually, just the opposite is true.

Your movement up the seniority list should be much faster once the "synergies" are realized. Don't think so? Ask your boss. GK never turns down an opportunity to talk about the growth this merger brings. SWA gets AirTran deliveries, cities and slots which brings growth you wouldn't have seen otherwise.

WSJ article 5/10/11:

Gary Kelly, Southwest’s chief executive, said the AirTran acquisition was a thrifty way to expand.

“It wasn’t do we grow Southwest, or do we buy AirTran? It was, we need AirTran, so we can grow in the future,” Mr. Kelly said.

The problem is they want to GROW into the left seats of your airplanes. This is why you need to take care of this.


OYS

 

[On Your Six]

I guess it is Friday night so the booze is flowing!!!!

So GK was lying to the WSJ?


OYS

 

[-9Capt]

I guess it is Friday night so the booze is flowing!!!!

Your own boss said you couldn't grow without us. His words, not mine. Sounds to me like you needed us more than you know.

AirTran, on the other hand has had no problem adding cities in Mexico and the the islands. I'm pretty sure we've been upgrading lately too.

I'd love to stay and debate the obvious with you but I have to pack for my 27hr CUN layover followed by 20 hrs in SJU.