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

[humveedriver]

No doubt, he was playing a game. Gave Bob and BOD his word that he would take all employees etc....

But then the AT MEC gave him his chance to consider a plan B. Perfect! Gary is just a CEO trying to run a company and the big bad UNION is trying to ruin it all - scapegoat.

However, Gary lying to the AT Pilot group probably saved a lot of jobs. That and the way the AT Pilot group reacted to his message, got the job done. My guess is plan C would have been ugly for AT guys. Love him or hate him, he got what he wanted, at "others" expense. So if you think about it like that, do you hate the guy or thank him for doing what he did???

I think 86 percent of both pilot groups figured the amount of special attention that was going to be allotted to dealing with pilot integration issues was coming to a close. So I agree plan C was not going to be good for either pilot group. I hope he knows what he is doing and that his plan works. In about 10 years I'll know if I should thank him. I'm along for the ride either way.

 

[climbhappy]

I think 86 percent of both pilot groups figured the amount of special attention that was going to be allotted to dealing with pilot integration issues was coming to a close. So I agree plan C was not going to be good for either pilot group. I hope he knows what he is doing and that his plan works. In about 10 years I'll know if I should thank him. I'm along for the ride either way.

I know there's more to it like QOL, but when you can make 175,000 as a FO after a few years...i'd like to think he'd get a thank you. if I worked there i'd thank him...getting yanked around from base to base just comes with the territory...nothing good ever stays the same in the airline biz anyway..

 

[humveedriver]

I know there's more to it like QOL, but when you can make 175,000 as a FO after a few years...i'd like to think he'd get a thank you. if I worked there i'd thank him...getting yanked around from base to base just comes with the territory...nothing good ever stays the same in the airline biz anyway..

That would counting eggs before they are hatched. Don't know that any of us will be making historical SWA pay. If I worked at Miami Air or a regional/commuter of course I would be happy with the proposition. You see some things sound good in theory and then when reality strikes, its not always what you planned on. But if I apply you idea that nothing good ever stays the same, then I guess I'm screwed.

 

[Full of LUV]

Something else to consider. NWA made sure through the TPG corporation that AirTran did not acquire Midwest. The same can't be said about Delta's reaction to SWA buying AirTran. In fact they seemed to accept SWA's entrance into their fortress almost in stride. 6 months after the deal is inked Delta is acquiring 88 of their former competitors aircraft and business articles are being written about a smaller SWA operation in ATL. Black helicopters? Hardly. Just business as usual amongst the big players.

Different.... Airtran would have been damaging to NWA, where Midwest was reasonably small and expensive. Airtran was already in Delta's parking lot destroying yields to any market that would "compete" on. SWA was viewed as a forgone conclusion in ATL by Delta, taking out Airtran in the process actually was probably BETTER for Delta than having SWA war it out with Airtran in ATL.

 

[Full of LUV]

Last night while watching the hockey game with the old lady, it dawned on me.
This is what I understand: The AirTran guys are mad at Gary for lying to them or threatening them with their job, and every Tranny lost 32% seniority, their seat, their base, their airplane, their Wives blah blah blah etc….
Little do you guys (PCL and gang) realize, there is a double edged sword here. Because, if Gary was truthful, you know if he had told SWAPA and ALPA what he really wanted to do with your 717s. Then under law there wouldn’t have been any requirement to combine the Pilot group. This would have been a difference of an added 68% of lost seniority or 100% lost in seniority.
Nobody would be crying about lost seniority, they would be crying about a lost job. Other than being bought, Gary did you guys a huge favor by withholding that info. So as you see Gary didn’t tell the truth to us either. Don’t you think SWAPA would have loved to have that info? Staple at best, if anything… maybe a hiring pool. Now the message was delivered by Gary Kelly to your Pilot group because – HE KNEW ALL THE FACTS…. Plus your Group was spoon feeding you essentially what you wanted to hear.
Now you guys have the benefits of working for a carrier that has never furloughed and tells you they plan no furloughs. We are a FAT Pilot group; everybody (minus the top 10%) is making less money and it sucks…. But better times are ahead.

Actually a very good point that should give Gary some street cred with AT ALPA group...... but probably won't

 

[humveedriver]

Different.... Airtran would have been damaging to NWA, where Midwest was reasonably small and expensive. Airtran was already in Delta's parking lot destroying yields to any market that would "compete" on. SWA was viewed as a forgone conclusion in ATL by Delta, taking out Airtran in the process actually was probably BETTER for Delta than having SWA war it out with Airtran in ATL.

What made SWA a foregone conclusion in ATL? Their political influence with the city? I think building up BNA stand alone had about an equal chance as SWA taking a shot at ATL and AT.

 

[PCL_128]

SWA/FO, your knowledge of the law leaves much to be desired. In order to avoid the requirement to merge the pilot groups under MB, he would have had to have an acquisition deal with AirTran that included not taking the 717s, which obviously never would have happened, since it wouldn't have made sense to the AirTran shareholders. Once the transaction closed and SWA owned the 717s, he couldn't simply change his mind and decide to not merge operations. That's not how the law is written.

 

[madjack]

Thx perry mason

 

[scoreboardII]

Once the transaction closed and SWA owned the 717s, he couldn't simply change his mind and decide to not merge operations. That's not how the law is written.

But he could have outright divested them (you) with the jets per the law.

My take on this is Gary knew 100% the 717 jets would be going, just not when, and therefore not on paper. The deltoids played him as long as they could for the best deal they could and then it materialized. End of story, no secrets other than a deals not a deal till its on paper.

I'm confident this will bear true in light of whatever legal process develops. An employee cannot dictate nor expect an employer to consult the employee about their management of the airline.

 

[waveflyer]

Ya'll still talking about this?

I suggest counseling

 

[FDJ2]

Different.... Airtran would have been damaging to NWA, where Midwest was reasonably small and expensive. Airtran was already in Delta's parking lot destroying yields to any market that would "compete" on. SWA was viewed as a forgone conclusion in ATL by Delta, taking out Airtran in the process actually was probably BETTER for Delta than having SWA war it out with Airtran in ATL.

Airtran had already been reducing frequencies in ATL since shortly after DAL exited BK. The SWA acquisition just increased the rate and amount of that reduction in frequencies.

 

[slaquer5]

SWA/FO, your knowledge of the law leaves much to be desired. In order to avoid the requirement to merge the pilot groups under MB, he would have had to have an acquisition deal with AirTran that included not taking the 717s, which obviously never would have happened, since it wouldn't have made sense to the AirTran shareholders. Once the transaction closed and SWA owned the 717s, he couldn't simply change his mind and decide to not merge operations. That's not how the law is written.

Shareholders only care about ROI

Thats , return on there investment .

 

[redflyer65]

he would have had to have an acquisition deal with AirTran that included not taking the 717s, which obviously never would have happened, since it wouldn't have made sense to the AirTran shareholders.

Airtran shareholders? What?

If the stock is trading at 5 dollars a share, and Southwest comes in and offers $7.50 a share for the buyout, you think the shareholders would care what happened to the 717?

If I were a AAI shareholder when that was announced, I would have just been calculating my profit and not thought anything about were the planes were going.


PS - Slaquer beat me to it

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA/FO, your knowledge of the law leaves much to be desired. In order to avoid the requirement to merge the pilot groups under MB, he would have had to have an acquisition deal with AirTran that included not taking the 717s, which obviously never would have happened, since it wouldn't have made sense to the AirTran shareholders. Once the transaction closed and SWA owned the 717s, he couldn't simply change his mind and decide to not merge operations. That's not how the law is written.

Mccaskill/Bond has a specific definition of a "covered transaction." It states:
The statute applies when two or more air carriers are involved in a "covered transaction," described as:

1. A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
2. Involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
3. 1. 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
   2. 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 42112 (b)(4).

It seems you are stating that M/B may actually compel a corporation to in fact combine its assets into a single carrier and not allow a corporation to operate two subsidiaries separately.

If SWA had a desire to operate these two subsidiaries separately are you stating that M/B would have prevented that?

If SWA felt it was in the corporate best interest to divest certain assets that did not fit the business model, are you stating that M/B would prevent that?

If assets were divested are you stating that M/B would compel the corporation to keep employees on the payroll even though the equipment they operated was no longer owned by the corporation?

If SWA decided the day after corporate closing to sell off AirTran are you stating M/B would prevent that transaction?

At the very least it is "unsettled" law because none of it has not been tested in the courts.

Regardless, at this point we will never know what might have happened in this particular case because both parties chose to forgo the arbitration process and arrived at a negotiated settlement as outlined in the process agreement.

 

[PCL_128]

But he could have outright divested them (you) with the jets per the law.

Absolutely. Nothing prevents fragmentation. Of course, then the pilots go with the airplanes.

 

[humveedriver]

Normally this is where I punch out of the conversation. But I never read through much of the M/B stuff. So those are some great questions. Because SWA bought all the shares of AT (even mine!), so that would have triggered the law, even if we operated DC3s and they were all sold to Cuba on 4 May 2011. Then what? Lucy... you got some splaining to do.

 

[PCL_128]

It seems you are stating that M/B may actually compel a corporation to in fact combine its assets into a single carrier and not allow a corporation to operate two subsidiaries separately.

No, not at all. Nothing in the law compels a company to take one course of action or another in a business transaction. But what the law does require, is that once a transaction takes place with the intent of combining the operations, combining the employee groups using the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs is required. In this case, SWA signed an agreement with AirTran that involved acquiring the entire company, and merging the operations. Once that transaction was final, there was no turning back on the requirements of MB. A day after corporate closing, Gary couldn't have come out and said "never mind, I've changed my mind on this whole merger thing; we're just going to get rid of 2/3 of the fleet and fire those employees." Doesn't work that way. MB was specifically designed to prevent such an action.

If SWA had a desire to operate these two subsidiaries separately are you stating that M/B would have prevented that?

No. The transaction just would have had to have been structured that way, which it was not.

If assets were divested are you stating that M/B would compel the corporation to keep employees on the payroll even though the equipment they operated was no longer owned by the corporation?

MB doesn't speak to how many employees must be kept on the payroll. What it speaks to is a seniority integration process. Nothing stops a company from divesting assets and furloughing accordingly. The furloughs would just have to come from a combined list that was decided using the Allegheny-Mohawk process.

If SWA decided the day after corporate closing to sell off AirTran are you stating M/B would prevent that transaction?

No.

 

[HowardBorden]

No, not at all. Nothing in the law compels a company to take one course of action or another in a business transaction. But what the law does require, is that once a transaction takes place with the intent of combining the operations, combining the employee groups using the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs is required. In this case, SWA signed an agreement with AirTran that involved acquiring the entire company, and merging the operations. Once that transaction was final, there was no turning back on the requirements of MB. A day after corporate closing, Gary couldn't have come out and said "never mind, I've changed my mind on this whole merger thing; we're just going to get rid of 2/3 of the fleet and fire those employees." Doesn't work that way. MB was specifically designed to prevent such an action.

Please cite the specific language from the amendment which supports this claim.

No. The transaction just would have had to have been structured that way, which it was not.

Again, please back this claim up by citing specific passages from M/B.

MB doesn't speak to how many employees must be kept on the payroll. What it speaks to is a seniority integration process. Nothing stops a company from divesting assets and furloughing accordingly. The furloughs would just have to come from a combined list that was decided using the Allegheny-Mohawk process.

But again, if the assets were never combined into a single transportation system, there is no combined list.

Please respond to the bold insertions.

 

[Full of LUV]

What made SWA a foregone conclusion in ATL? Their political influence with the city? I think building up BNA stand alone had about an equal chance as SWA taking a shot at ATL and AT.

Perhaps, what I meant by foregone conclusion was ATL was just too big of a "dot" for SWA to ignore forever. They may have not tried overrun AT or DAL, but they were bound to set up some shop in ATL eventually, it is a large market in its own right.

 

[flynvixen]

How's it working out over there Captain Work Ethic? Is the company advertising for voluntary leaves? Not much time and half or charters filtering down the seniority list? I don't mind flame bait. But you are just so bad at it. You talk about greed and working hard. But you speak with forked tongue. All you care about is your pay check, and I bet you are going to be the biggest whiner in the crew room when the next contract wipes out your soft time.

Hey humveedriver, you should stick to things that you know like driving humvee's your just another "TED" .......please get some paper out to one of your ALPA airlines so you can burn their house down and not ours,,,,, you malcontents will never be happy no matter where you are masquerading as pilots.........now STFU and give me the before start originating checklist !!