Will SWA and AT truly merge?

[luv2fly]

Our scope section was Ta months ago, back in June I think.

Now that is funny:laugh:

 

[roughneck]

Our scope section was Ta months ago, back in June I think

Well, your pilot group hasn't even voted on the TA yet so I'll wager it wasn't a binding deal on Sept. 27. If it makes you feel any better about it, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Your TA language won't force a merger even if it had been in place on the 27.

 

[PapaWoody]

Our scope section was Ta months ago, back in June I think.

Until your TA becomes your CBA, its provisions and sections are not in force. And since that date will be after the CDN it will have no bearing on this transaction.

Fraternally,
PapaW

 

[FDJ2]

It seems to me, FDJ2, that since the AAI TA was completed after the Date of Constructive Notice (Sep 27) that it will not have any bearing whatsoever on the proceedings. I could be wrong, but don't think I am. So, the only merger/acquisition provisions that will come into play on their side are the ones in their current CBA. I would have thought that such a savvy meteorologist as yourself would have known that.

Fraternally,
PapaW

Not so Woody. Your confusing separate issues. I wont get into the details, you'll learn on your on.

 

[737tanker]

After all, this looks like it is not a merger.

Gary Kelly has never called it a merger. He has always said that SWA is acquiring AirTran. Looks like SWA is legally buying AirTran from Guadalupe Holdings.

 

[ivauir]

Guys,

This really is pointless.

SWAPA isn't going to kick anyone to the curb/preferential interview or whatever and ATNALPA knows they aren't going to have the same seniority at SWA that they have at Airtran.

Why not have some reasonable expectations, let the process work and welcome our new coworkers? A "fair and equitable" solution is one that lets everyone move on and get to kicking butt!

You guys are going to LUV it here!

 

[PCL_128]

GH will be the responsible party not SWA.

Actually, under our scope language, both GH and SWA will be responsible. Any company affiliated in any way with AirTran or its holding company is bound to our scope language. That's the benefit of a holding company side letter.

It seems to me, FDJ2, that since the AAI TA was completed after the Date of Constructive Notice (Sep 27) that it will not have any bearing whatsoever on the proceedings. I could be wrong, but don't think I am.

Yep, you're wrong. The CBAs in effect on the date of corporate closing are binding. Read the merger agreement between AirTran and Southwest.

Some of you guys should really call SWAPA and ask them some of this stuff before claiming some pretty ridiculous things. SWAPA is behaving very professionally throughout this process. It's a shame that so many SWA pilots here aren't following the lead of their union.

 

[luv2fly]

Actually, under our scope language, both GH and SWA will be responsible. Any company affiliated in any way with AirTran or its holding company is bound to our scope language. That's the benefit of a holding company side letter.



Yep, you're wrong. The CBAs in effect on the date of corporate closing are binding. Read the merger agreement between AirTran and Southwest.

Some of you guys should really call SWAPA and ask them some of this stuff before claiming some pretty ridiculous things. SWAPA is behaving very professionally throughout this process. It's a shame that so many SWA pilots here aren't following the lead of their union.

You are so wrong. I imagine you are holding on to the language about honoring labor contracts. The point you are failing to accept is this; this deal is set up in such a way that SWA is not a party to the purchase transaction. We may be later, but that is immaterial at this point. I agree your contract will be your contract under GH.

 

[PCL_128]

Like I said, call your SWAPA reps. I'm sure they'll set you straight.

 

[texman]

PCL 128, quick question no flame. Would Airtran pilots career expectations be in question because of the strike vote and no TA? Is the CBA something, I guess that might be needed to be in place before the closing? Can anybody chime in?

 

[waveflyer]

My vote to extend seperate ops could be bought - for a price.

Gup

My vote to extend separate ops could NOT be bought- -

 

[waveflyer]

Guys,

This really is pointless.

SWAPA isn't going to kick anyone to the curb/preferential interview or whatever and ATNALPA knows they aren't going to have the same seniority at SWA that they have at Airtran.

Why not have some reasonable expectations, let the process work and welcome our new coworkers? A "fair and equitable" solution is one that lets everyone move on and get to kicking butt!

You guys are going to LUV it here!

Word.

But this site is for the 10%ers... Most of us are right online with you

 

[doh]

Someone finally gets that this is a purchase of assets. Not a merging of companies. SWA has the right to decide what to do with these assets. And the culture at SWA has been and always will be a major concern for leadership.

Apparently the SWA training department has the ability to train 700 new pilots a year. You do the math.

Just being real about this transaction. And so should the pilots of both Airtran and Southwest.

Bond/McCaskill. But hey, your reality doesn't have to reflect reality if you don't want it to! It's your world baby! We're just passing through...:laugh:

 

[PapaWoody]

Not so Woody. Your confusing separate issues. I wont get into the details, you'll learn on your on.

Dude, you are absolutely and irrevocably wrong on this. If what you are proposing is the case, what would prevent SWAPA from proposing a side letter that states that we get to staple the AAI guys to our list? The fact is, the "snapshot" took place on Sep 27th and neither party can make substantial changes to the rules of engagement after that date. Period. End of story. Keep talking, cause that will just cement your ignorance as to this process/situation. How's about you head on back to the Delta threads and butt the f- out of this, since it doesn't concern you, and your presence here is only a misguided attempt to assuage your own ego. Thanks for your input though, it has been less than informative.

Fraternally,
PapaW

PS PCL128, I doubt if there is a "merger agreement" between SWA and AAI since this is an acquisition not a merger. As to the CBA's that are "in effect", I highly doubt if the "date of corporate closing" has anything to do with it, since if that were the case, then SWAPA could implement any BS that we wanted prior to that. September 27th is the date, hope you guys were prepared then; if not, so solly, cholly.

 

[WNC Flyer]

Guys,

This really is pointless.

SWAPA isn't going to kick anyone to the curb/preferential interview or whatever and ATNALPA knows they aren't going to have the same seniority at SWA that they have at Airtran.

Why not have some reasonable expectations, let the process work and welcome our new coworkers? A "fair and equitable" solution is one that lets everyone move on and get to kicking butt!

You guys are going to LUV it here!

Nice try to inject some sanity into this conversation, but I'm afraid these guys are having too much fun bickering to listen.

 

[seerickyfly]

Congratulations, you know far less than you realize and now we all know it.

FDJ2 please quit your job and become "Master know it all" consultant. Your infinite knowledge is to valuable to be wasted as a pilot. I will print you up some cards.

If AAI CBA was binding then why is SWA negotiating a aquisition agreement with SWAPA? Hell just go to Atlanta and have AAI pilots tell us whats gonna happen. Save everybody the trouble. SWAPA's 24 month max fence clause is whats controling as so far as time Airtran can be operated seperatley. And that clock starts as soon as purchase is complete and SWA SWAPA have a aqusition agreement.

 

[ChoadSnazz]

As I recall, the temporary holding company DAL formed for this purpose was called "Newco".

Well, you recall incorrectly. NEWCO was NWA's name during Section 6 negotiations for what ultimately became Compass Airlines. It had nothing to do with Delta.

 

[Kharma Police]

From what I'm reading, MENSA has some competition......

 

[Sy-bill]

Bond/McCaskill. But hey, your reality doesn't have to reflect reality if you don't want it to! It's your world baby!

Bond/McCaskill has to do only with seniority integration. It does not require airlines to merge their seniority lists if operated separately.

The reality is this. If the SWA leadership discovers that the employees of Airtran will damage the culture at SWA, they will take measures to prevent that from happening.

This came from the McCaskill web site:

"This provision would make it harder for one airline or union to add the employees of another airline or union to the bottom of the seniority list."

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=289277

This is the reality. Call it mine if you will but should be for all parties involved.

 

[GuppyWN]

Honest question.....

IF A/M and B/M REQUIRE two lists to be merged........... how come USAir and Cactus are still seperate ops?

Aren't they not only seperate ops but seperate contracts and payscales too?

Gup