Will SWA and AT truly merge?

[Ty Webb]

I understand that part , however, if they do not have to join the list, is it possible for the Company to give all the growth to SWA and stop the flying for the airline that is in the holding company little by little? If SWAPA extends the 24 months would that not give SWA more time to eliminate Airtran little by little, is that a possibility?.

Nope. Can't operate an alter ego airline. Plus, ATN-ALPA and SWAPA CBA applies to the new holding company(s) and requires a merger of SLI (ATN requires within 18 months).

 

[27 driver]

I understand that part , however, if they do not have to join the list, is it possible for the Company to give all the growth to SWA and stop the flying for the airline that is in the holding company little by little? If SWAPA extends the 24 months would that not give SWA more time to eliminate Airtran little by little, is that a possibility? If it is a possibility would that not give Airtran more reason to get a SLI complete. It might not happen that way but if it is a possibility then it could happen, especially if SWA is concerned with what they call their culture.

Definitely a possibility. But once again why would the shareholders give the growth the the airline with the higher costs. I doubt GK would keep his job long if he did that. They could maximize the Airtran side with the same type of flying with lower employee costs. I dare not speculate what will happen because none of us are privy to that info. I wish all of us the best. I want what is fair for all involved and to move on with my life.

 

[funnyman12]

Wow...some of you guys seem to support taking 2 healthy airlines and following the UsAirways/Amer West approach. Im sure operating 2 separate airlines with different contracts is a great move for all our careers. Its not gonna be a staple and not 100% relative sen either. Captain i was flying with has a buddy in SWAPA and told him that they are not going to propose a staple as it would reflect very negatively if this goes to arbitration. SWAPA is doing a meet and greet with Airtran pilots in ATL on Nov 30 and it will be interesting on the info they share with us. The fact that many on this forum think a staple is fair just demonstrates the fear the 10%'ers have.

 

[Cometman]

Nope. Can't operate an alter ego airline. Plus, ATN-ALPA and SWAPA CBA applies to the new holding company(s) and requires a merger of SLI (ATN requires within 18 months).

OK. Is it possible for the holding company to sell any of the assets prior to taking them under SWA and prior to joining the seniority lists? If not then what you are saying is that SWA has to join all the Airtran Pilots prior to selling any assets, so that if they did sell, lets say the 717's and had to lay off pilots some SWAPA pilots along with some Airtran pilots would be laided off. Is that correct. I used the 717's just as an example of a group of assets.

 

[redflyer65]

I understand that part , however, if they do not have to join the list, is it possible for the Company to give all the growth to SWA and stop the flying for the airline that is in the holding company little by little?

Cometman,

You are exactly right. All you have to do is look at what happened to Tristar back in the day. They didn't want to play nice, so they were gradually shrunk until they were realistic with their expectations.

Would Bond-McSkill change any of that if Gary wanted to work that way? I don't think so.

 

[Cometman]

Definitely a possibility. But once again why would the shareholders give the growth the the airline with the higher costs. I doubt GK would keep his job long if he did that. They could maximize the Airtran side with the same type of flying with lower employee costs. I dare not speculate what will happen because none of us are privy to that info. I wish all of us the best. I want what is fair for all involved and to move on with my life.

I think you missed my point. If they have to join the lists within 24 months on the SWA side and 18 months on the Airtran side then they would have that much time to sell off some assets within the holding company(assuming they can do that and it would not violate either side about operating 2 seperate airlines). That would technically allow them to sell of the 717's prior to the merging of the lists. If that could happen, then would that eliminate half of the pilots coming into the combined list? If this is a possibility then that should give Airtran pilots an incentive to get it done fast without causing any friction.

 

[Ty Webb]

I think you missed my point. If they have to join the lists within 24 months on the SWA side and 18 months on the Airtran side then they would have that much time to sell off some assets .. . . . . That would technically allow them to sell of the 717's prior to the merging of the lists. If that could happen, then would that eliminate half of the pilots coming into the combined list? If this is a possibility then that should give Airtran pilots an incentive to get it done fast without causing any friction.

Yawn. This deal was put together because it made business sense, not to find creative ways to screw AirTran pilots out of a seat at the combined carrier.

If you think the Pilots get p.o.'d over this stuff, imagine the shareholders' and creditors' rage if SWA started dismantling what was a profitable airline.

Plus, most of the aircraft are leased, anyway. What's the benefit to dumping airplanes you're committed to paying for? No one else wants 717's right now.

Your theory is an unusually stupid and boring one, totally lacking in merit, originality or creativity.

D-

 

[Cometman]

It was not a theory but just a question. I guess the answer to the question was Yes they can do that. You apparently do not want to face that so you call me stupid. What you should have said was, yes it could happen but you do not think it would. However, as long as it is a possibility I would be concerned if I were an Airtran Pilot.
So, I will ask you again if you have the guts to answer it. Can SWA do that?

 

[En Mort Main]

Why do the pilots at southwest believe they should be given something in this deal? Don't you already have the pay and benefits that will be dispensed to the AT pilot group. So in essence you dont want the AT pilots to be your equals you want to be treated "better" than them?
There seems to be a sense from the SWA pilot group that something is getting taken away from them... I'm trying to figure out what your precieved loss is.
Do you feel that everytime your company spends money you should get something from it? I.e. company bought some new tugs... what is in it for me?.
Seems to be a bit of greed and envy in the work force....i.e. those AT pilots are getting presents for christmas, where is my present. ME ME ME.

IMHO don't even try negotiating just take it to arbitration and save months of stalemated negotiations.

En Mort Main

 

[Ty Webb]

So, I will ask you again if you have the guts to answer it. Can SWA do that?

It's not a matter of "guts", it's a matter of wasting electrons. That's like asking me if I could grab two beers from the galley, pop a slide, and make a permanent exit from aviation . . . . I could, but it would be incredibly stupid and trigger all sorts of lawsuits.

Could they sell off the 717 fleet from GH, if they really, really, really, really, really wanted to do it? Why are you asking me? If you really want to know, ask three lawyers and go with the majority opinion.

Even if they could do it, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Those planes are leased on the cheap, they make money on our routes, and no one else wants them. There's simply no point to getting rid of them.