Will SWA and AT truly merge?

[Sy-bill]

Guppy,

You are on the right track. There is absolutely no legal requirement to merge seniority lists. There is only a required process if a company chooses to do so.

SWA's history of Transtar and Morris is good example of how they may choose to operate with this transaction.

Now with that said, it has been indicated that SWA prefers to combine operations. If 5700 pilots and 9000 flight attendants become disgruntled over seniority negotiations, it may have other ideas.

This can be a slippery slope. Proceed with caution.

If I was an Airtran pilot and I was offered DOH for double the pay and benefits I would take that in a heart beat verses risking my future. I do respect others not feeling this way. I just don't think it wise.

 

[doh]

I'm willing to bet $100 that you will get a ratio merged seniority list. Oh, a few senior guys may start out on top, but the majority will be a ratio. There, that keeps it simple. Any takers?

 

[Bwipilot]

I'm willing to bet $100 that you will get a ratio merged seniority list. Oh, a few senior guys may start out on top, but the majority will be a ratio. There, that keeps it simple. Any takers?

Sure, I'll take that bet from a guy with the acronym DOH for a screen name :}

Of course, it's like everything else on a forum, just an exercise in the ether world. We'd have to decide what outcome constitutes a ratio--is the ratio done by career earnings expectations, current payscales, current seat position, longevity. Would make for another few good pages of reading.

 

[Lear70]

Moderator hat on:

PapaWoody, another warning on the ToS. You may NOT use creative spelling to get around the profanity sensor. Type out the word you want to use, let the profanity sensor insert all *********, and that is legal. Using a single letter or creative spelling is NOT. That's clearly spelled out in the ToS.

Additionally, as a practical matter, telling one person who doesn't work for either SWA or AAI to not post here would apply equally to all the OTHER posters who agree with your thoughts and you didn't go after THEM to not post here, which is a bit one-sided. Don't go on personal attacks for someone who just happens not to share your thoughts on the matter while leaving the others who DO agree with you alone - especially with profanity, that borders on a personal attack and we are going to start enforcing those more strictly as well.

A personal attack differs from attacking someone's view on something in a very clear way. If you call someone a name or tell them to **** off, that's a personal attack. Telling them their idea or thought is stupid is not. One is debate on the idea, the other is being personal about it.

Secondly, to the other poster, discussion of the USAir/AWA integration in a non-USAir/AWA thread is strictly prohibited. If someone wants an answer of WHY that circumstance is different, please create a thread for that specifically. Otherwise all the USAir/AWA crowd will get on here and skew this into one of THOSE threads and that's why we created these rules half a year ago.

/mod

Moderator hat off: The reason so few AirTran pilots are posting in response is that we've mostly all agreed on our private message board to let your SWA 10%'ers go at it here on their own or with whoever else from other airlines will listen.

One or two AAI pilots on here might post some realities about our new T.A. and how it applies or what's being said directly from both our ALPA attorneys AND SWAPA. One or two of them posting on here are high enough up our union food chain that they ARE getting their information first-hand from GK, MV, and SWAPA.

For the most part, we realize engaging in this kind of debate only fosters hostility and is pointless and we're not taking the bait.

You have to remember, having been on here for a long time and having been heavily involved in union work in the past, I know quite a few of the posters on here personally and know what union offices they hold. If you read between the lines, you can easily identify them by the way they speak and the information they give.

Best of luck to all of us.

 

[Bwipilot]

Lear 70,

I'm guessing the next guy on here will post that he knows just as much from the other side of the aisle. The smart ones don't post much and just bait the other side. In any case, the forum is serving it's purpose--letting both sides know what the boundaries of each group think.

Summary: AT guys want pure relative seniority. That's the best they feel they can get (plus posslibly an Atlanta fence). SWA fringe want a staple--again the best that the SWA guys can get. The SLI committees will have to figure out if they can agree on something and if they can't, an arbitrator will have to figure out the SLI.

In any case, the starting position of AT was that relative seniority should be a slam dunk and the SWA guys said that they're smoking crack thinking the SWA guys should be happy with it. We'll spend the next two years key board wrestling over the matter until a final SLI is achieved.

Expecting anyone to take anything as truth that hasn't been said in public is a farce. Anyone smart enough realizes it's posturing hoping that the other guy will fold his hand and expect less from the outcome. That seems to be the main focus of both sides.

 

[Ty Webb]

If Guadalupe Holdings, which is a "wholly-owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines" owns AirTran, then it is a "covered transaction" and is covered by McCaskill-Bond, Allegheny-Mohawk, and, hopefully, common sense.

Anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[doh]

Sure, I'll take that bet from a guy with the acronym DOH for a screen name :}

Of course, it's like everything else on a forum, just an exercise in the ether world. We'd have to decide what outcome constitutes a ratio--is the ratio done by career earnings expectations, current payscales, current seat position, longevity. Would make for another few good pages of reading.

I am talking about a relative seniority of for example 7/2 or 3/1 or 5/2 etc.

 

[ivauir]

I'm willing to bet $100 that you will get a ratio merged seniority list. Oh, a few senior guys may start out on top, but the majority will be a ratio. There, that keeps it simple. Any takers?

That is a pretty broad prediction Nostradamus ...

If you predict where the ratio begins (i.e. how many is "a few"? We're talking about 20 years difference in DOH!) and what the ratio is (1:5900 is still a ratio - know what I mean?) then you might be making a prediction of value.

Why not leave the predictions to the soothsayers and ESPN? Our AirTran brothers and sisters are gaining considerably and no one should begrudge them that - they have been slogging in out against DAL, against an uncooperative negotiating partner, and against marginally competent management. It has been a tough road! Their gain doesn't have to be our loss - "fair and equitable" will ensure that it isn't.

Everyone chill.

 

[Sy-bill]

Bwipilot is spot on.

Ty Webb still does not get that A/M and M/B only apply IF they decide to merge the two lists and if they do, will ONLY make it harder to staple to the bottom.

If you are using the recent history of mergers and think that an acquisition will certainly be approached the same by arbitration then that is some wishful thinking the Ty Webb refers.

I think it possible that if AT does not agree to what SWAPA finds fair they will go to GK and give their analysis before they go to arbitration. GK's first interest is with his own pilots of which unlike AT, there is a good relationship, for the most part. He will not compromise that.

It would be in the best interests for the AT union to negotiate realistically with SWAPA.

And for the current communication between the two unions. I will guarantee, with experience, that neither are showing their hands. So that is all dust blowing in the wind.

 

[kwick]

Bwipilot is spot on.

Ty Webb still does not get that A/M and M/B only apply IF they decide to merge the two lists and if they do, will ONLY make it harder to staple to the bottom.

If you are using the recent history of mergers and think that an acquisition will certainly be approached the same by arbitration then that is some wishful thinking the Ty Webb refers.

I think it possible that if AT does not agree to what SWAPA finds fair they will go to GK and give their analysis before they go to arbitration. GK's first interest is with his own pilots of which unlike AT, there is a good relationship, for the most part. He will not compromise that.

It would be in the best interests for the AT union to negotiate realistically with SWAPA.

And for the current communication between the two unions. I will guarantee, with experience, that neither are showing their hands. So that is all dust blowing in the wind.

Dude, It's gonna go to arbitration and it's gonna end up a lot like
Delta-Northwest. A ratio.

Yes, Sw's present contract is superior to At's, but UAL's contract 2000
was way better than CAL's, but history has shown that pay rates change.

AT flys bigger planes, does international flying, and has much faster up-
grades. An argument can be made that their career expectations are
indeed better.

If the AT pilots shut down the whole operation, how long do the gate and
routes stay with GH, and would any airline be able to pick up those assets.?