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.