Will SWA and AT truly merge?

[PCL_128]

And in your contract does it state that if sold AT can not be operated separately?

Yes, it does. I'm not going to get into a debate about SLI, or any of the other silly stuff going on around here lately, but I'll be more than happy to explain our scope language.

Our TA, which will almost certainly be ratified before the end of the month, includes a holding company side letter that binds any affiliate of the company to our scope language. That means any successor, including a holding company of a holding company, is bound to our scope language. And that scope language requires that the two operations be merged no later than 18 months after the date of corporate closing. If SWA were to attempt to operate the carriers separately for longer than 18 months (and I don't believe that they will), then it would go to expedited arbitration and an arbitrator would force SWA to merge the operations. If they still refused, a federal judge would then step in and make it even more clear to them.

None of this will happen, of course, because Gary Kelly is far smarter than a bunch of guys posting on Flightinfo, and he wouldn't be going through all of this just to create separate operations. He's looking for hundreds of millions of dollars in synergies, not angry affiliates.

I will bet that SWA does not care much about your contract.

You should probably take a look at the merger agreement, then. SWA has agreed to abide by all labor contracts in place at AirTran on the date of corporate closing. Not that they really have a choice, but it's in writing to make it abundantly clear to everyone.

 

[texman]

It would take a bunch of real brain surgeons to allow their company to operate another company that flys the same airplanes for a lot less. Standby to be bent over if you allow it.

True we might allow it only for two years per our contract, but it will allow a nice variable 3+% pay raise for us all. Bent over, never! lol

 

[seerickyfly]

It would take a bunch of real brain surgeons to allow their company to operate another company that flys the same airplanes for a lot less. Standby to be bent over if you allow it.

GK has been real protective of the culture at SWA. Just like Herb was. I think he will give himself a out and maybe even one to SWAPA. (If things goes sour.) I just dont think some people on here are very realistic. They are banking their whole career on Bond-McCaskill and arbitration. Like its a given. Relative senority or bust!!

SWA has to iron out a Acqusition agreement with SWAPA not ALPA. Airtran pilots do have their contract but SWA doesnt have to even meet with them after the purchase is final.

Trust me when I say that SWA pilots want this to be a good healthy relationship/merger. Its good for both of us. I just think some posts from Airtran pilots think they can just walk into negotiations of SLI and say "No thanks" and head directly to a arbitrator.

SWA has been giving SWAPA hints for over 2 years that a buyout might happen. They stoped growth and started hoarding cash. SWAPA has did their home work. So has SWA.

Just my opinion. Lets all just get a deal done. If everybody is pissed off it was probally fair.

 

[Lonestar]

If the 717 program is such a money maker (according to AAI), then what would keep Guadaloupe Holdings from selling it off to another buyer? (And the 737 operation for that matter.) Does AAI have seperate operating certificates for both fleets?

If Gary does, in fact, still plans to persue it, that would keep the WN acquiring percentage well below 51%. IF... he ever chooses to by the remaining 737 operation from GH.

This could be a modern twist on the Gordon Gecko-Blue Star Airlines dismemberment. An innovative, shrewd way to elliminate a competitor. Who knows...

 

[seerickyfly]

Ye128;2072258s, it does. I'm not going to get into a debate about SLI, or any of the other silly stuff going on around here lately, but I'll be more than happy to explain our scope language.

Our TA, which will almost certainly be ratified before the end of the month, includes a holding company side letter that binds any affiliate of the company to our scope language. That means any successor, including a holding company of a holding company, is bound to our scope language. And that scope language requires that the two operations be merged no later than 18 months after the date of corporate closing. If SWA were to attempt to operate the carriers separately for longer than 18 months (and I don't believe that they will), then it would go to expedited arbitration and an arbitrator would force SWA to merge the operations. If they still refused, a federal judge would then step in and make it even more clear to them.

"Nope. Scope covers when you are buying someone else. Not being purchased. The Bond law only kicks in when the two are merged. If Airtran is being run as is with no changes the feds dont care. You still got your contact and its still being paid. Nothing has changed for you."

None of this will happen, of course, because Gary Kelly is far smarter than a bunch of guys posting on Flightinfo, and he wouldn't be going through all of this just to create separate operations. He's looking for hundreds of millions of dollars in synergies, not angry affiliates.

"Correct Gary is smart. He will not let this get out of hand. I even bet he will he will lay the law down to both groups if it goes sour. He is a straight shooter and wont pull any punches."


You should probably take a look at the merger agreement, then. SWA has agreed to abide by all labor contracts in place at AirTran on the date of corporate closing. Not that they really have a choice, but it's in writing to make it abundantly clear to everyone.

SWA will abide by it. Do you have any growth guarentees? Or any Capt. upgrade promises? Nope. Neither do we, anymore. We did have growth targets in our last contract but no more.

 

[GuppyWN]

Yeah I'm totally wounded....Why would you want to create a whip saw, is all I'm saying?? Answer- Because you lack experience in the airline business. You have no idea the monster you would create. Look at Airways. Those who do not learn from past mistakes will be condemned to repeat them.

I'm on my Fourth airline and let me guess this is your first?

You can create all the ratios and alike. Won't matter if we stay separate who has the lower CASM in operations and labor? Who has the international ops? Who has the 50 plus 737s on order (-800 or -700).

And the Coup de Grace......Drum roll....Federal Law. Which means arbitration. No offense to my future brothers and sister at SWA but this is how it will most likely play out. Both sides of (pilots) have very little say in SLI and how the merger will play out. Just one man's opinion.

Corporate and 3 airlines. You just don't like what I'm saying because I'm a smartass and it cuts a little too close to home.

I'll withdraw. Really serves no purpose.

Gup

 

[Max Powers]

Corporate and 3 airlines. You just don't like what I'm saying because I'm a smartass and it cuts a little too close to home.

I'll withdraw. Really serves no purpose.

Gup

Wow - I've been out maned; you certainly took the high road. Let me reiterate You win. I cede. Dude do you ever look at the literature your union puts out to help educate folks like yourself on this acquisition. Maybe you should look into that is all I'm saying dawg.

 

[Bwipilot]

This is getting pretty good. My wife turned off her soaps to come read the thread. Shed did wonder why Max Powers was worried about having inferior hair though

 

[GuppyWN]

Shed did? Tell her to comb over hear and brush my lose folicals.

Gup

 

[Lear70]

Shed did? Tell her to comb over hear and brush my lose folicals.

Gup

Wow... and I thought I'D had a lot to drink tonight...

Can't sleep, monkeys will get me, can't sleep, monkeys will get me, can't sleep,,,