"The New ATA"

[xanderman]

There are pilots at ATA that have forgotten more things than you know about flying. There is a wealth of experience and knowledge that is NOT being respected in this deal.

Just how, exactly, does your experience and knowledge determine where you should be placed on a seniority list? And if it's respect you want then don't talk down to us. The "Son your gonna have to learn a few things before you can swing gear for me" crap will not fill this pilot group with love for our ATA friends.

Ya know it's really interesting to think about how the discussions would go if it were AWA in dire straights and ATA was a potential purchaser of our company.

Could I then say things like "I expect more than a staple."

Or, "There are pilots at AWA that have forgotten more about flying than you know."

 

[HalinTexas]

>>"Just how, exactly, does your experience and knowledge determine where you should be placed on a seniority list? And if it's respect you want then don't talk down to us. The "Son your gonna have to learn a few things before you can swing gear for me" crap will not fill this pilot group with love for our ATA friends.

Ya know it's really interesting to think about how the discussions would go if it were AWA in dire straights and ATA was a potential purchaser of our company.

Could I then say things like "I expect more than a staple."

Or, "There are pilots at AWA that have forgotten more about flying than you know."<<


Knowledge and experience alone don't determine it, but it shouldn't be disregarded as it is in this case. I just turned 39, upgraded at 37 with 4 years 9 months at ATA. I'm the first to acknowledge how lucky I am. The only reason you assume I'm talking down to you is that I've been following this discussion on this board for a while now, have looked at the "offers" from management and Airtran, and have concluded that management from both companies, and many Airtran pilots look down on the ATA crewmembers. How am I supposed to react? We've hired a lot of USAir and TWA guys in the last couple of years. Without a doubt, I'm little embarrassed some are pulling gear for me for first year pay. They've done nothing wrong, spent a large part of their adult lives at one carrier and get screwed by unions and managment alike, as well as by 9-11 and the economy.

In January 2003 ALPA-ATA imposed a $500 per pilot merger assessment for legal representation. It's around $250K right now. The discussion on our "bitch" board was what would we do if we were the larger carrier. I can honestly say that we would follow ALPA's policy, at least with other ALPA carriers. I personally would fight for job/postion/domicile/pay protection for anyone we merged with. I would give up any integration fight for the above conditions. Meaning, non-ALPA carriers would get stapled with the above conditions. The devil is in the details, but I think I can assume most of the ATA list would agree to these terms.
Answer me this.....What did Valujet do with the old Airtran and old AirFL guys/gals they absorbed? How were they integrated? I guess you feel that the AMR/TWA deal was fair?

 

[On Your Six]

Any idea on what kind of RJs ATA Connection would fly? You'd think something like the E170 would be appealing at the moment with MDA freezing their order - or are those too big for the ATA Connection operation? Good news for the Saab drivers...

 

[Pickle]

Hal, you are about half off on your merger fund amount. I believe that it is more along the lines of $500k, not 250.

 

[HalinTexas]

>>"Any idea on what kind of RJs ATA Connection would fly? You'd think something like the E170 would be appealing at the moment with MDA freezing their order - or are those too big for the ATA Connection operation? Good news for the Saab drivers..."<<

A little past history. ATA was supposed to get some B767's last year, then 6-10 B757's this year, and with our concessions this summer, we were to get a bunch of 100 seaters. Where are they now?

Also, I believe that Chico was supposed to get RJ's if they didn't vote in ALPA last year. Where are they? They won't even buy them Saab 2000's.

I wouldn't count on ATA buying anything.

 

[HalinTexas]

>>"Hal, you are about half off on your merger fund amount. I believe that it is more along the lines of $500k, not 250."<<

I stand corrected.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

The only thing I'm owed is respect. This deal, and you Whiskey, don't offer it.

I don't know how you figured that you are being disrespected by me but you are entitled to your opinion. If you feel that way because I am somewhat opposed to line jumping then fair enough but somewhere in there you have to gather that there is respect for the ATA crews in my book, cause if it weren't I would be yelling STAPLE'EM ALL!!!!!! or Pref interviews ONLY!!!!

The only true solution to this is a national seniority list, but neither airline management nor unions want it. It will take away their power.

National seniority list hummm sounds good but lets look closer. A 30yr pilot who's never flown anything bigger than a B1900 wakes up one day and descides that since he has 30yrs seniority on the 1900 at his carrier that it looks like a great day to go and bid 777 at another. How do we aviod this???

WD.

 

[Ty Webb]

I've been following this discussion on this board for a while now, have looked at the "offers" from management and Airtran, and have concluded that management from both companies, and many Airtran pilots look down on the ATA crewmembers.

AirTran pilots have said nothing of the sort. This statement is so far out in left field that I can't believe you even wrote it.

As for AirTran management, they made a deal with your management to acquire some gate leases. If you have a beef with anyone, it is ATA management, and to lump the AirTran pilots in with the two managements is assinine.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

What did Valujet do with the old Airtran and old AirFL guys/gals they absorbed? How were they integrated? I guess you feel that the AMR/TWA deal was fair?

The number one seniority pilot on the current Air Tran list was an original Air Tran pilot. Does this answer your question?

This whole thread is great entertainment. Of course, that's about all it's worth, since nothing AT ALL discussed or "decided" here will have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this "deal".

 

[HalinTexas]

>>"The number one seniority pilot on the current Air Tran list was an original Air Tran pilot. Does this answer your question?

This whole thread is great entertainment. Of course, that's about all it's worth, since nothing AT ALL discussed or "decided" here will have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this "deal".<<

Not really. ValuJet bought Airtran for the name (operating certificate), right? They didn't buy them for MCO, old B737-200's, or for anything else. So, if you've bought some part of another carrier and taken their pilots and said merger/acquisition resulted in an old "manatee" as number 1 on the list, then a precedent has been set for integration.

I agree that we on this board nor the employee groups or unions will have any real bearing on the outcome of ATA's bankruptcy. The package doesn't even address Boeing, ILFC, or GECAS, so it's doomed to fail if another reasonable offer(s) is on the table.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

Not really. ValuJet bought Airtran for the name (operating certificate), right? They didn't buy them for MCO, old B737-200's, or for anything else. So, if you've bought some part of another carrier and taken their pilots and said merger/acquisition resulted in an old "manatee" as number 1 on the list, then a precedent has been set for integration.

While that may have been the underlying reason that ValuJet bought Air Tran, they DID buy the ENTIRE operation and they were merged together to form the current Air Tran. The 737-200s, along with the current HQ building in MCO, and the employees ALL went with the deal. So, it isn't exactly the same as the current Air Tran buying some gates and landing slots from ATA. No matter how you try and rationalize it.

 

[TWA Dude]

Ya know it's really interesting to think about how the discussions would go if it were AWA in dire straights and ATA was a potential purchaser of our company.

Five and a half years ago when I was hired by TWA I might've been called naive but no longer. Now the buzzwords are "we need to protect ourselves" and that translates to taking advantage of the other pilot groups. As much as I hate to say it I doubt there'd be much difference at any particular airline. Somebody here wrote that all mergers/acquisitions from now on would involved a failing carrier and I agree. What a shame that it affects seniority integration.

 

[TWA Dude]

This just in from the AWA MEC Chairman's Hotline:

I am pleased to report to you that the MEC has made a decision to
pursue an individualized approach of our own design, yet based on protocols
utilized successfully by other MECs in the past. The protocols the MEC
intends to use will employ the services of an arbitrator throughout the
process and not just at the very end. Initially, the arbitrator will be
present for seniority integration discussions as a facilitator. In this
way, that individual will have the benefit of an in-depth understanding
of the issues before having to rule as an arbitrator, should that
become necessary.

I find this to be very good news for both sides, should a merger/acquisition come to pass.

 

[AA717driver]

TWAdude--Don't keep your head above the trench line too long...

ALL--If you ATA'ers read no other post in this thread, read Jim Smyth's on page 3. I have several TWA friends who, right up to the day they got furloughed, sat back and really, really hoped it wouldn't happen.

You can always say no to a prospective employer if it looks like your job is safe but you can never make up the time you wasted not looking for a job while you WERE getting a pay check.

You have way too many sources of information on what it's like when you end up out of a job on short notice on this board. PLEASE avail yourselves of our experience.

Good luck, all.TC

 

[UALjan15]

Every other union in this country honors the service of its members when they move to another company. Why is it different for the airline industry?

Dude, if you are really drawing this comparison and asking this question, someone should revoke your posting privileges. It colors the other 50 or so other posts you made on this thread with ignorance (even though I did read them and thought you made a lot of valid points).

The lesson (that appears unlearnable) is that airlines should not do M&As. They never (OK, very rarely) deliver on management's rosy predictions, and the integration is ALWAYS contentious, sometimes for decades. Controlled growth is the way to go.