SWA yes vote:

[Sy-bill]

Wrong. We have a holding company side letter that applies not only any holding company, but also to holding companies of holding companies. You could have 20 layers of holding companies, and it would still be binding. It was written specifically to prevent the sort of end-run that you're contemplating. Not that I think SWA management has any intent of doing such a ridiculous thing, anyway.

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court. And the lawyers who drafted that clause know that. A contract can not hold the entire company hostage. It has proven time and time again that contracts can be broken if the needs of the company out weigh the needs of the sub-group.

Does it also say that the purchasing company can not sell or dissolve its interests in said company? If SWA wanted to, it could bankrupt the carrier (Eastern Airlines) and transfer its assets to another company it operates. (Continental).

This is a nasty business but a little look back on history tells what can really happen. Don't fool yourself otherwise. Your 18 month clause is mainly there to protect you if YOUR company purchases another. That is what Scope is all about. Not if you are going out of business and someone is picking up the spare parts.

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court.

OK, Marcia Clark. :laugh:

I'll take the opinion of the seasoned M&A attorneys who wrote it, thanks.

Your 18 month clause is mainly there to protect you if YOUR company purchases another. That is what Scope is all about.

Uh, no, that's not the case. Have you read our Section 1 language and side letters? If yes, you don't understand what you read; if no, why are you bothering to comment on something you haven't read? :erm:

 

[madjack]

Ty "keepin it real" Webb, why don't you enlighten him...chief

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty "keepin it real" Webb, why don't you enlighten him...chief

There is no point in arguing about it . . . you don't even have to read any farther than the Section Headings to know that he has never read the document he is commenting on.

 

[SWA/FO]

Of course Southwest *COULD* operate us separately, but only for a defined period of time, then it gets REALLY messy, and that's not the bad part. The bad part is that it costs in the neighborhood of $200 million a year (over $250k a DAY) to operate us separately with our corporate overhead that's necessary to do so.

Gary saves 1,000,000,000 a year by hiring of the street.

 

[greenpilot]

Gary saves 1,000,000,000 a year by hiring of the street.

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court. And the lawyers who drafted that clause know that. A contract can not hold the entire company hostage. It has proven time and time again that contracts can be broken if the needs of the company out weigh the needs of the sub-group.

Yes, I guess we should have come to you when writing our scope language instead of the foremost scope attorney in the country who was writing scope language when all of us were in diapers. Not only does he say the language will hold up, but his language has already held up repeatedly in court and arbitration when companies have tried to get around it. Sorry.

 

[Lear70]

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

+1

Way past ridiculous with that one...

 

[SWA/FO]

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

No threat, just a fact. Sorry you don't like facts. Will he do it? Who knows.

 

[redflyer65]

and quit with all the baseless threats.

I'd have to agree that it, is what it is. No threat, just the reality of this business decision of Gary's.