SWA to speed up Airtran integration.....article

[dicko]

A thank you would suffice.

Would a "GFYS" work for you ?

 

[PCL_128]

It's nice to see that dicko and I can agree at least on a rare occasion.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Appreciate the kind words guys. I need to learn to not worry about things out of my control.

And remember that this is FI!!!! Never take anything on this board seriously.

 

[HOMER D POE]

this thread needs to be moved to the circle jerk section.....bunch of fuktards..go southwest!

 

[SWA/FO]

nice ass Homer!

 

[Lear70]

Yeah, a little different from Bake's...

 

[maxblast72]

Jack, First off Happy New Year to you and all the folks at FI.
I'm not sure which former MKE pilots you have spoken with, but I will share with you this. The LEC chairman, at the MKE domicile, who is now at SW, is a very good friend of mine. He was one of the 8 voting members of the mec and was very much involved and right in the middle of the sli9/10 process. We would speak from time to time during the process and he would share with me a few things that he probably shouldn't have, but nevertheless he did. One of the items he shared with me was that he (Capt LEC rep) and the FO lec rep, polled their respective constituents as to how they should vote on sli 9. Mke was a relatively small base at the time, 100 pilots I think, so it was fairly easy to get input from the pilots. He told me that overwhelmingly the majority of the mke pilots told him and the fo rep to vote no on sli 9 and he also had all the documentation to prove it. I believe the MCO reps did the same thing, but not sure. Lear can probably confirm that.

Yes, the MCO and MKE reps "polled" their constituents. However, there was a lot of misinformation spread about AIP/SIA #1. The better choice would have been to have 30 days of roadshows with all members of ATN MEC/MC that attended the July 14th Gary Kelly meeting present. Then, pilots actually could have been making an informed decision.

One of the biggest problems on the AirTran side of the house was arbitration expectations. Our dispatchers got DOH minus 4 years in their case from a single NMB arbitrator. Our rampers got DOH minus 2.5 years in their case from a panel of 3 NMB arbitrators. The rampers' arbitration panel was unconvinced our merger was a merger of equals. Hard to achieve DOH or better when an arbitration panel doesn't view your airline as equal to the airline that is acquiring you.

Anyway, SIA #2 the set of documents both pilots groups will continue to operate under. There are some FAT plots that actually did better under SIA #2 both financially and seniority wise (including two ATN MC members).

I can't believe I actually agree with PCL128. I actually don't mind if Gary Kelly takes his sweet old time completing the integration. I like flying my green and white BRJ and the 15 day off, 78 hr guarantee reserve lines.

 

[PCL_128]

However, there was a lot of misinformation spread about AIP/SIA #1.

Yes, that is true. The Merger Committee did spread a lot of lies and fear about it.

 

[maxblast72]

Yes, that is true. The Merger Committee did spread a lot of lies and fear about it.

So the ATN MEC had the balls to shoot down $100 million in annual pay increases and industry leading fences in the hopes of getting a better seniority list through the arbitration process but didn't have the balls to fire a Merger Committee that was telling lies to their pilots?

 

[PCL_128]

So the ATN MEC had the balls to shoot down $100 million in annual pay increases and industry leading fences in the hopes of getting a better seniority list through the arbitration process but didn't have the balls to fire a Merger Committee that was telling lies to their pilots?

Hey, if you're looking for me to defend the MEC, you know that ain't gonna happen.