Tough Worded PR from AirTran over SWA ATA Bid

[MK82Man]

Press Release Issued December 10, 2004 11:56:00 AM ET

AirTran Airways: Southwest Airlines' Bid for ATA Is 'Clever Trick'

ORLANDO, Fla., Dec. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AirTran Airways, a subsidiary of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AAI), today called the Southwest Airlines' bid for ATA Airlines' assets a "clever trick" to eliminate competition at Chicago Midway's Airport.

With direct lease of 25 of the 43 gates at Midway and a marketing arrangement over the use of ATA's remaining eight gates, Southwest Airlines would effectively control 80 percent of Midway Airport. Even if ATA Airlines were to eventually fail or sell rights to its eight gates, the deal with Southwest Airlines would shut out the potential for another hub carrier to operate there.

AirTran Airways has an agreement with ATA to acquire all 14 of ATA's Midway gates and use of some slots at Washington's Reagan National Airport and New York's LaGuardia Airport for $90 million in cash, plus a code share arrangement for its entire system that is valued at well over an additional $100 million.

"Southwest Airlines' bid is nothing more than a clever trick to gain a stranglehold at Chicago's Midway Airport," said Kevin Healy, AirTran Airways'
vice president of planning and sales for the airline. "Southwest's proposal is not in the best interests of the city of Chicago. As the second largest aviation market in the country, Chicago has a unique situation with two principal airlines at each airport -- United and American at O'Hare and Southwest and ATA at Midway. Southwest's proposal destroys this balance and creates a monopoly at Midway."

AirTran Airways believes its bid is superior to Southwest Airlines' bid for the following reasons:

* Southwest Airlines' bid will raise additional concerns at the Department of Justice as it will directly control 25 of the 43 gates at Chicago Midway Airport -- thereby shutting out the possibility of another carrier operating a hub in Chicago.

* Southwest Airlines' bid will give the airline a stranglehold at Midway.

* Southwest Airlines has the ability to add up to 50 flights from Chicago on its current 19 gates -- the airline doesn't need more gates to grow.

* Southwest Airlines has no experience with code share operations whereas AirTran Airways has entered into several code share arrangements over the past few years.

* Southwest Airlines' proposed code share with ATA appears to be a one-sided code share, thus giving Southwest even more control over destinations served from Midway.

AirTran Airways is one of America's largest low-fare airlines -- with 6,000 friendly, professional Crew Members and operating over 500 flights a day to more than 40 destinations. The airline's hub is at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the world's busiest airport by passenger volume, where it is the second largest carrier. AirTran Airways, a subsidiary of AirTran Holdings (NYSE: AAI), is the world's largest operator of the Boeing

717 and has America's youngest all-Boeing fleet. The airline recently added the Boeing 737-700 aircraft, one of the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft flying today. For reservations or more information, visit http://www.airtran.com (America Online Keyword: AirTran).

Media Contact: Tad Hutcheson 678.254.7442

[email protected]

SOURCE AirTran Airways Web site: http: //www.airtran.com

 

[Dizel8]

Nothing like a "good ole dogfight".

Now how long before we get a response from LUV?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

"Southwest Airlines' bid is nothing more than a clever trick to gain a stranglehold at Chicago's Midway Airport," said Kevin Healy, AirTran Airways'
vice president of planning and sales for the airline. "Southwest's proposal is not in the best interests of the city of Chicago. As the second largest aviation market in the country, Chicago has a unique situation with two principal airlines at each airport -- United and American at O'Hare and Southwest and ATA at Midway. Southwest's proposal destroys this balance and creates a monopoly at Midway."

AirTran Airways believes its bid is superior to Southwest Airlines' bid for the following reasons:

* Southwest Airlines' bid will raise additional concerns at the Department of Justice as it will directly control 25 of the 43 gates at Chicago Midway Airport -- thereby shutting out the possibility of another carrier operating a hub in Chicago.

* Southwest Airlines' bid will give the airline a stranglehold at Midway.

* Southwest Airlines has the ability to add up to 50 flights from Chicago on its current 19 gates -- the airline doesn't need more gates to grow.

* Southwest Airlines has no experience with code share operations whereas AirTran Airways has entered into several code share arrangements over the past few years.

* Southwest Airlines' proposed code share with ATA appears to be a one-sided code share, thus giving Southwest even more control over destinations served from Midway.

HAHAHA!!

Yeah, sure SWA's bid is meant to benefit SWA.

Flyboeingjets believes Airtran's comments are BS for the following reasons:

* Why do you have to have "code share experience", what is the benefit of that?

* What is a "one sided codeshare"? How is that better than Airtran's plan of eventually kicking ATA out of the gates?

* Airtran and Delta have a stranglehold on Atlanta. Why can't Southwest, UAL, and AA have a stranglehold on Chicago?? Why is Airtran more deserving of a stranglehold on a city?

 

[Ty Webb]

* What is a "one sided codeshare"? How is that better than Airtran's plan of eventually kicking ATA out of the gates?

Maybe you haven't been following the discussion closely, Sporto, but AirTran 's deal actually did have ATA selling tix on AirTran, flying codeshare International (both indefinitely), and operating 10-12 aircraft on a wet-lease for Airtran (6 months or more). All three things would provide additional revenue for ATA.

* Airtran and Delta have a stranglehold on Atlanta. Why can't Southwest, UAL, and AA have a stranglehold on Chicago?? Why is Airtran more deserving of a stranglehold on a city?

Uh, look around Concourse D, Chief. You have Frontier, Midwest, AWA, NWA and CAL. . . . . and if anyone is doing the strangling, it's not AirTran .

And in Chicago, we would still be a minor fiddle compared to SWA, UAL and AMR.

Nice cry, though . . . err, I mean try.

 

[CaptSeth]

The value of the SWA offer exceeds that of the AAI offer by more than double. It also keeps an essentially intact and viable ATA, which is more than I can say for the AAI offer.

 

[lowecur]

Sporto

Neato, TYO!

Did you know a broken clock is right twice a day?

 

[Ty Webb]

The value of the SWA offer exceeds that of the AAI offer by more than double. It also keeps an essentially intact and viable ATA, which is more than I can say for the AAI offer.

And you get these "facts" from where, again?

Because from what I am reading, the SWA offer is for $11 mil more, (not double) and it only provides for $50 mil in codeshare revenue, but the AirTran deal provides $100 mil/yr to ATA.

As for a "viable" ATA . . . . if it would keep ATA viable, SWA wouldn't be doing it.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BCDABD368%2DE7E5%2D4567%2D9B7E%2D905ABD57B710%7D

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Maybe you haven't been following the discussion closely, Sporto, but AirTran 's deal actually did have ATA selling tix on AirTran, flying codeshare International (both indefinitely), and operating 10-12 aircraft on a wet-lease for Airtran (6 months or more). All three things would provide additional revenue for ATA.

Uh, look around Concourse D, Chief. You have Frontier, Midwest, AWA, NWA and CAL. . . . . and if anyone is doing the strangling, it's not AirTran .

And in Chicago, we would still be a minor fiddle compared to SWA, UAL and AMR.

Nice cry, though . . . err, I mean try.

you're right. I don't know the details. I need to read up on the codeshare comparison between SWA and Airtrans offers.

But I do know that O'hare has lots of airlines like Hartsfield does. Even Midway has flights from other airlines...

 

[CaptSeth]

And you get these "facts" from where, again?

Well, we only give up 6 gates and get a lot more money. That's where. 100 million a year? From what? There is no intrinsic value that I can discern from a code share with your airline. The only money was 89 million, over time, and we have to vacate our hub to the likes of you and your lovely coworkers. Sorry, this won't fly.

 

[boeingdriver]

For the most part I do agree with Seth. However, I am a realist, Southwest is not looking at the best interest of ATA. They know GM will manage this airline right into liquidation rather quickly. Then SWA will have anything they want.

I guess none of this is bad business...just seems like bad manners. We are all human and have been through our own ordeal. I am very proud of ATA. We actually went and recuited several airlines when they went out. This is the kind of person any ATA employee is. Wherever these employees end up, they will be a great asset. It has been an honor to fly among these people.

It is unfortunate that Airtran didnt take some extra time and offer at least preferential interviews with their original offer...before Dailey suggested them. That would have gone a long way to building some more goodwill. Were preferential interviews required...not at all...would it have been a great gesture...absolutely. Are they viewed as a good gesture now...absolutely, thank you.

I hold no bad feelings towards any person from any company, except for a certain mgmt team. We are all in a fight for our livelihood. Anybody in aviation could be where ATA is right now, and some still may make it there before this crap storm is all over.

I want to be very clear on my utmost regard to ALL CACTUS TYPES. You guys are "good **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**" to borrow a phrase I read on here awhile back. I know this deal would have screwed some of you but you were willing to work on it anyway. Thank you for your efforts.

One humble Captain...soon to be FO

 

[Ty Webb]

Well, we only give up 6 gates and get a lot more money. That's where. 100 million a year? From what? There is no intrinsic value that I can discern from a code share with your airline.

Ah, Seth, the Rocket Surgeon. Long on opinions, short on facts. Whatever, buddy.

The only money was 89 million, over time, and we have to vacate our hub to the likes of you and your lovely coworkers. Sorry, this won't fly.

Hmmm. I can see that I am going to have to follow my signature line here, and not argue further with someone who is obviously just a fool. Stick your head in the sand, Seth, and, if nothing else, it will prevent you from further embarassing your coworkers.

 

[CaptSeth]

I hope I meet you in person.

 

[lowecur]

I hope I meet you in person.

Seth, don't be too hard on ol Ty. He has a Napolean complex. Afterall, how many pilots do you know that have blocks on the pedals so they can reach them. But I give him credit. He worked his way up from a job on Fantasy Island. You probably remember him yelling, "da plane boss, da plane." I give Joe Leonard credit for hiring the handicapped.

 

[CaptSeth]

Lowecur - What?

One more thing...Ty is clearly at the right airline.

 

[SWA/FO]

What about NWA and their strangle on MSP & DTW? I told you SWA would not sit back.

 

[fletch717]

Gentlemen,

AirTran is not responsible for your current situation. Your management got you to this point. Last summer ATA approached 10 airlines with this proposal. Our management team was the only airline to respond. I am truly sorry for your predicament but we are not the cause, and we pilots have no say in management's future growth plans. As with all companies decisions are made in an effort to increase shareholder profit. Do I think you will get a fair deal? probably not, but WE the pilot group have very little input. I know we all like to think that we have much more power than we really do, but when it comes down to it I get paid to fly managements airplane when they want to where they want. It has been made clear to me that the day I don't want to do as I'm told I am free to leave, because there are thousand other guys waiting for the call. I have been in your shoes, I sent in a resume and got hired, starting at the bottom again sucks, but I consider myself lucky. Lucky someone still wants to pay me to do the thing I love the most.

Good Luck to all,

Fletch

 

[mt2]

It's shame that it came down to selecting the lesser of two shrinkages (no comment) for us at ATA. It really looked promising for a time with us becoming a part of AWA. I thought, as did many at AWA, that the combination would have yielded something formidable,very unique, and extremely promising.

The agreements our two ALPA groups came together to work out showed that with a little mutual admiration merger/buyouts can be beneficial and palatable to both sides. My sincere thanks to all the class individuals at AWA for the respect and true professionalism they showed to all of us at ATA. It's a shame that I won't get to work with such a fine group of pilots. I wish you all the best.

And thanks to those ATA folks who worked so hard to hammer out the deal that was not to be.

 

[fletch717]

I don't think that the ATA pilot union approached the AirTran pilot union with any proposal. Does anyone know? If this is true why not?

 

[Ty Webb]

I hope I meet you in person.

The way this industry is going . . . . you probably will.

Just hope I'm not coming off of a two-leg commute to MDW.

ATA guys- I can really sympathize with what you guys are going through. Hopefully, within a few short years you are back where you were pay-wise, and with more job security (whatever that is).

 

[Tristar]

AirTran is not responsible for your current situation. Your management got you to this point. Last summer ATA approached 10 airlines with this proposal. Our management team was the only airline to respond. I am truly sorry for your predicament but we are not the cause, and we pilots have no say in management's future growth plans.

I agree with all of this, but there is one thing the AAI pilot group could have done to change everything: Make a simple statement to the effect that they would hope that AAI management would find a way to accomodate the pilots at ATA in a way which would protect both ATA & AAI pilots. AAI management could have chosen to listen to this message or ignore it, but the message from one pilot group to another would have made a great deal of difference to us at ATA. The silence instead has been deafening.

The AWA pilots on the other had did exactly that. Save your breath on the difference between merger/purchase of assets, it's all been said already. My point remains the same either way - you either try to help out fellow pilots, or you turn a blind eye. The latter only ultimately serves to bring us all down eventually.