SWA today like the airline in the book, "Nuts!"?

[madjack]

PCL,

We're u involved in the ALPA discussions with ATA in 2006? Heard AAI/ALPA offered to host job fair? Not even preferential interviews, way to hook up ur ALPA bros...

 

[dicko]

I might cross a pocket line too. It depends how much money is in that pocket and how much is headed my way.

No need for any sort of commentary on this quote.

 

[redflyer65]

No need for any sort of commentary on this quote.

I was making fun of the guys spelling of picket line with 'pocket' line. Re-read his post.

Grab a cold one Dicko and chill out.

 

[Just thinking]

"Not even preferential interviews, way to hook up ur ALPA bros..."

Which company hired more of the ATA folks? Certainly not the luv machine.

 

[madjack]

And which company integrated the list vs offering to host a "Job Fair"?? I realize that ATA was on the way out but my understanding was that during the the "merger" discussions between ATA and AAI, the offer from AAI/ALPA was "job fair", NOT preferential interviews, not staple, more like "If we buy your company, you MIGHT interview". The AAI/SWA ISL seems generous as compared to the terms AAI/ALPA was dictating to their ALPA brothers at ATA...ATA was an international carrier, flying big equipment and you could argue doing a more demanding pilot job than their counterparts at AAI, but that did not matter when it came down to the ISL...now that AAI is in the role of the acquired carrier, you guys are screaming bloody hell about the deal you got from GK and SWA, when the same pilot group was ready to f-over their ATA bretheren... And we have plenty of former ATA at SWA...We should have bought ATA and ditched the L1011's...now we are stuck with a bunch of FAT pilots who don't want to be here, while we de-hub ATL...

 

[Ty Webb]

And which company integrated the list vs offering to host a "Job Fair"?? I realize that ATA was on the way out but my understanding was that during the the "merger" discussions between ATA and AAI, the offer from AAI/ALPA was "job fair", NOT preferential interviews, not staple, more like "If we buy your company, you MIGHT interview". The AAI/SWA ISL seems generous as compared to the terms AAI/ALPA was dictating to their ALPA brothers at ATA...ATA was an international carrier, flying big equipment and you could argue doing a more demanding pilot job than their counterparts at AAI, but that did not matter when it came down to the ISL...now that AAI is in the role of the acquired carrier, you guys are screaming bloody hell about the deal you got from GK and SWA, when the same pilot group was ready to f-over their ATA bretheren... And we have plenty of former ATA at SWA...We should have bought ATA and ditched the L1011's...now we are stuck with a bunch of FAT pilots who don't want to be here, while we de-hub ATL...

Fact check-

1) ALPA wasn't the union at AAI when our management bid for ATA assets.

2) Our Company didn't buy any part of ATA, yours did. If you ask the ATA guys we hired, AirTran hired more ATA than SWA did, even though we were a quarter of your size and you swallowed their planes and gates.

3) I can tell you that when AirTran management made a bid for Midwest (a more similar scenario to the SWA/AAI deal) the talk on the Line was relative seniority versus date of hire. I never heard even a random Line Swine suggest we should "capture their Captain seats", let alone hear one of our Union Reps say something that belligerent and offensive.

WTF kind of talk is that for a Union official to make toward a group of Pilots that you will be working with for the next 20 years, anyway? You guys need to straighten SWAPA out, unless you agree with the way they have behaving towards your future coworkers. Seriously.

 

[madjack]

I stand corrected on the ALPA representation at AAI at the time of the talks with the ATA pilots, but even though your company ultimately did not buy any part of the ATA outfit, the FACT remains that your group was offering a "Job Fair" to the ATA pilots IF a deal was reached to merge the companies...WHAT KIND OF TALK is that to another pilot group during merger talks...not even an interview or a job?

The point is that now that your company has been acquired, and the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, you guys (on here at least) are all up in arms with SWA, SWAPA and I guess Steve Chase, who isn't even at SWAPA, but you were willing to offer a big fat ZERO to the ATA guys...please explain...I can't wait...

 

[redflyer65]

3) I can tell you that when AirTran management made a bid for Midwest (a more similar scenario to the SWA/AAI deal)

I don't think so Ty.

 

[Ty Webb]

MJ, someone is feeding you some poor info. We never got to the point in the deal where there were any formal negotiations between the Pilot groups.

Maybe there are some ATA guys on here who could comment? I'd like to hear what they have to say.

 

[Ty Webb]

I don't think so Ty.

Really? You must not know much about what happened.

The similarities are readily apparent, if you only look-

AirTran was larger- proportionally, about the exact same ratio- 3:1

AirTran operated only one aircraft type (717) Midwest had two plane types; 717 and MD80

Midwest was financially less stable than AirTran.

AirTran was interested in MKE in the same way that SWA was interested in ATL

Midwest had long-range aircraft, AirTran did not. At the time, AirTran wanted to go to the West Coast, much in the same way that SWA wants to go International. In fact, AirTran had a deal with Ryan to do West Coast flying, SWA had Volaris.

Differences-

Midwest was the more senior Pilot Group

Midwest had been in business longer

Midwest was not profitable when the offer to buy it was made; AirTran wa profitable when SWA bought it.

So, Red . . . . Let's hear your take on what was so different?

And why it is acceptable to have Union reps making statements about "capturing" (ie. "stealing") Captain seats from AirTran pilots whom you will be working with, and whom they want to be representing?