SWA yes vote:

[Flycatcher99]

Lest you forget our CBA which requires merging of the lists 18 months post DOCC. AAI reafirmed in writing to honor this agreement with the sale of the company. Can GK disobey it....sure.....question is why the He!! would he unless he want to lose 100s of millions in down time retraining 1800 new pilots and putting up with a tarnished reputation.

After arbitration if the company refuses to integrate us I stop coming to work along with 1800 guys - can your warrior spirit handle that?....Probably... but your shareholders will have GK and LW butt in a sling and fired.....Me thinks GK and LW like their jobs and want to keep them regardless of what some pilots want.

Where in writing does GK promise to honor your CBA? Not trying to be argumentative...genuinely curious. If you are referring to the P/A, then, as I made a case, the P/A is null and void.

And if you know anything about the culture at SWA, you would know that lawsuits and sickouts would probably not be the best idea. Just guessing, but that might push GK to rid himself of 50% of the assets real quick. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, just furthering your hypothetical.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm no labor lawyer (my brother is, though), but I can tell you that this Process Agreement in no way requires the merger of the lists. The sections that follow these introductory paragraphs, including your Section VI, only serve to expound on the details that will be followed by the process spelled out in the agreement. There is simply no stipulation that SWA merges the two airlines. Period.

If your brother really is a labor lawyer (which I highly doubt), then I suggest you give him a call and ask him what "recitals" are, and ask him whether they are legally binding portions of a contract. You might learn a thing or two. If so, you'll learn that the introductory paragraphs you just references are not considered "terms" of the agreement, and therefore are not part of the binding legal contract. They are basically just considered a non-binding preamble. But, even if they were binding parts of the agreement, your interpretation of them is still asinine, as they don't imply at all what you're suggesting.

Where in writing does GK promise to honor your CBA? Not trying to be argumentative...genuinely curious. If you are referring to the P/A, then, as I made a case, the P/A is null and void.

Mike V. provided a letter to ALPA stating that SWA would adhere to the AirTran CBA, specifically Section 1 (scope). That happened months ago, even before the PA was signed.

 

[Flycatcher99]

If your brother really is a labor lawyer (which I highly doubt), then I suggest you give him a call and ask him what "recitals" are, and ask him whether they are legally binding portions of a contract. You might learn a thing or two. If so, you'll learn that the introductory paragraphs you just references are not considered "terms" of the agreement, and therefore are not part of the binding legal contract. They are basically just considered a non-binding preamble. But, even if they were binding parts of the agreement, your interpretation of them is still asinine, as they don't imply at all what you're suggesting.

Not that I care whether you believe me or not, but my brother indeed is a labor lawyer, and I've talked to him plenty about this whole deal. He has worked with attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser, and has assured me that SWAPA is in good hands. And if you had even half the law knowledge that you think you do, you would know that if SWA does not merge the two operations, then M/B does not apply. Period. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain this.

Oh, and the first paragraph of the P/A is not one of the recitals. Educate your own self.

Mike V. provided a letter to ALPA stating that SWA would adhere to the AirTran CBA, specifically Section 1 (scope). That happened months ago, even before the PA was signed.

Really? That sounds incredibly made up, even on an internet forum. Even if it were true, I'd be curious about the scope 1 language. Doubtful it's so ironclad that you all could make any kind of serious legal challenge to being operated separately. I worked at an ALPA carrier, and our contract was a joke compared to our SWAPA one.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Oh, and PCL, I'm still waiting for the reference of where Section VII (b) is no longer valid.

 

[PCL_128]

Not that I care whether you believe me or not, but my brother indeed is a labor lawyer, and I've talked to him plenty about this whole deal. He has worked with attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser, and has assured me that SWAPA is in good hands. And if you had even half the law knowledge that you think you do, you would know that if SWA does not merge the two operations, then M/B does not apply. Period. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain this.

Oh, and the first paragraph of the P/A is not one of the recitals. Educate your own self.





Really? That sounds incredibly made up, even on an internet forum. Even if it were true, I'd be curious about the scope 1 language. Doubtful it's so ironclad that you all could make any kind of serious legal challenge to being operated separately. I worked at an ALPA carrier, and our contract was a joke compared to our SWAPA one.

You keep telling yourself all of that if it makes you feel better. You'll learn before this is all said and done, though.

 

[Flycatcher99]

You keep telling yourself all of that if it makes you feel better. You'll learn before this is all said and done, though.

Translation: I can't answer any of the questions or points you've posited. PCL's equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?!!"

 

[Flycatcher99]

Oh, and PCL, I'm still waiting for the reference of where Section VII (b) is no longer valid.

Still waiting...

 

[Sy-bill]

If, and I mean if, SWA decided to join the two airlines, one being held in Texas Sub LLC, the AirTran CBA would have some teeth. But you are being held in a different holding company being controlled by SWA. They are legally two separate entities. The AirTran CBA is in effect with Texas Sub LLC but not with SWA.

Think what you will but there are no legal obligations for SWA to recognize the 18 month merger or integration scope clause in your CBA if SWA decides not to merge Texas Sub LLC with SWA.

Argue with this all you want but this is the fact. It sucks for certain. But this is what your former management agreed to. As if they are going to have the last word on a five year labor dispute. Just be glad their gone no matter what the price. But you do have other concerns now. As long as everyone is reasonable, SWA pilots included, you are in a much better position now than you were on September 26th.

 

[madjack]

I would argue that threatening our future coworkers is not productive, instead I would like to hear a reasoned conjecture on how we merge the lists and the AAI pilots are not the only winners? I sense a that the AAI CPs want to keep their seats...focusing on that part of the integration that would meant that a junior AAI CP (year 6-7 in AAI Longevity) would have pay, seniority and position over SWA FOs at 10-11 years SWA longevity...why should the AAI CPs gain all that and the SWA FOs merely "lose nothing"? Shouldn't the SWA pilots also "gain" something in the acquisition. I know you bought the airplanes with you but that does not mean that all the windfall goes to the AAI pilots...any ideas on resolving this very important disparity?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I would argue that threatening our future coworkers is not productive, instead I would like to hear a reasoned conjecture on how we merge the lists and the AAI pilots are not the only winners? I sense a that the AAI CPs want to keep their seats...focusing on that part of the integration that would meant that a junior AAI CP (year 6-7 in AAI Longevity) would have pay, seniority and position over SWA FOs at 10-11 years SWA longevity...why should the AAI CPs gain all that and the SWA FOs merely "lose nothing"? Shouldn't the SWA pilots also "gain" something in the acquisition. I know you bought the airplanes with you but that does not mean that all the windfall goes to the AAI pilots...any ideas on resolving this very important disparity?

Offer them a staple with no furlough clause and pay protection. Let them vote on it. It will pass easily.

If for some reason it doesn't, offer preferential interviews.