Will SWA and AT truly merge?

[Cometman]

So SWA has said they intend to keep the operations separate? And SWAPA is content to have an alter ego who flies the same equipment for a lower rate? Maybe you are right.

As long as they cannot grow it would give SWA a chance to grow. Little by little you would be eliminated. Apparently SWA can extend the 2 year fence around Airtran until they are eliminated.

 

[737tanker]

SWAPA is content to have an alter ego who flies the same equipment for a lower rate?

In the SL that SWAPA is voting on is a clause that states that the ratio of SWA aircraft to AirTran aircraft will be 3.61 to 1. So that means that as long as AirTran is separate if they add 1 aircraft then SWA must add 4.

 

[ivauir]

This is some really dark stuff ...

I'm sure cooler heads will prevail and we'll get something that benefits us all and lets us move forward as one group.

 

[Sy-bill]

Well, you seem bitter enough and self rightous to be part of AA.

I'm bitter? You just don't like my truth in the message. And I don't blame you. Your labeling of self rightous is pointed at the one who brings about real possibilities that you deny to yourself. I am actually trying to help you. But you are unable to see this because of your myopic hope that your seniority is a separate issue from the extreme gains you will be experiencing. Either your big payday is going to lower your seniority or your seniority is going to go away. I only see who has the power in this transaction and it is certainly not with the Airtran pilots. Once again, blame who sold you out. Not me or anyone or anything else.

And by the way, you have won the airline lottery. Congratulations! Now don't blow it.

I can accept that we have a difference of opinion. Can you? Apparently not because you are afraid I speak the truth. And you should be. I say if this goes to arbitration you will likely have less than SWAPA will present. I really hope the best for all pilots.

I'll ask again, why are you so interested in a issue that doesn't concern you?

Is one required to be concerned to be interested?

 

[shootr]

The side letter will likely pass. AT has no such clause to stop SWA from growing while AT stagnates. Again, as I've said before, I do not want it to go down like this...but I hope our NC and SWA are in cahoots. The final SLI should be fair and relative/DOH is not the compromise I'm looking for.

shootr

 

[doh]

If this is what your AT negotiating team encounters at the bargaining table, I recommend you ask for arbitration right away.

 

[GuppyWN]

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.

How does DOH improve Craigs seniority? That's a one size fits all that doesn't fit all.

Gup

 

[shootr]

If this is what your AT negotiating team encounters at the bargaining table, I recommend you ask for arbitration right away.

There's no arbitration to ask for if something as nefarious as this occurs. Binding arbitration is only mandated if the lists are combined. There is no arbitration to force integration. Once again, I hope our NC's find common ground and can work something out (maybe with SWA's help like Delta did) that's agreeable to the AT MEC and SWAPA membership (SWAPA has to send the agreement to membership for ratification while the AT MEC can vote directly, I believe). I hope we can find a way to make as many pilots as possible happy rather that as many as possible PO'd.

Cautiously pessimistic,
shootr

 

[doh]

As of October 28, SWA was saying they are active observers of the seniority integration. So they have not indicated that they will be operating as separate companies. Arbitration is something Bond/McCaskill allows since SWA is intending to run as one operation.

 

[kwick]

There's no arbitration to ask for if something as nefarious as this occurs. Binding arbitration is only mandated if the lists are combined. There is no arbitration to force integration. Once again, I hope our NC's find common ground and can work something out (maybe with SWA's help like Delta did) that's agreeable to the AT MEC and SWAPA membership (SWAPA has to send the agreement to membership for ratification while the AT MEC can vote directly, I believe). I hope we can find a way to make as many pilots as possible happy rather that as many as possible PO'd.

Cautiously pessimistic,
shootr

Better read your own Company's web site. They will combine operations.

It will probably go to arbitration.

And, Yes if you are a First Officer now you will most likely remain one.

You have nothing to gripe about.

 

[Whataburger]

In the SL that SWAPA is voting on is a clause that states that the ratio of SWA aircraft to AirTran aircraft will be 3.61 to 1. So that means that as long as AirTran is separate if they add 1 aircraft then SWA must add 4.

I ain't real bright, but I believe that if AirTran adds 1 aircraft, we only have to add 3.61. Not 4.

 

[737tanker]

I ain't real bright, but I believe that if AirTran adds 1 aircraft, we only have to add 3.61. Not 4.

I'm not that bright either because I don't know how Boeing would build only .61 of an aircraft so I rounded it to four as that is what SWA would have to buy to stay within the SLI.

 

[waveflyer]

Hold on hold on- my buddy Wang Chung has crazy math skills and he says that Boeing can't build .61 of an aircraft, but they can build 9... and then jaime told me 2+7=9.
Crazy, I know.




(thought I'd up the intellectual value of this thread a tad)

 

[shootr]

Better read your own Company's web site. They will combine operations.
It will probably go to arbitration.
And, Yes if you are a First Officer now you will most likely remain one.
You have nothing to gripe about.

If you think our management is beyond saying one thing and doing another, you don't understand our management. They will do what makes the best business sense AT THE TIME. Intentions are not actions. They are much smarter than our pilot group and they play us all the time. They would not hesitate to play you if it makes sense to do it. I have heard from buddies that there are many at AT that are worried your MEC might muck this up for all. You should listen to them.

I am a fairly senior FO and I do expect to be an FO right after the SLI. If you're a mid to junior CA at AT, you shouldn't be shocked if you're not a CA shortly after the SLI (after the short fences come down).

shootr

 

[SWA/FO]

that there are many at AT that are worried your MEC might muck this up for all.

Ask for too much? Get too much?

 

[The Prussian]

I'm not that bright either because I don't know how Boeing would build only .61 of an aircraft so I rounded it to four as that is what SWA would have to buy to stay within the SLI.

You guys don't know how to read the stitches on a fast ball. It just so happens that a B717 is .61 times the size of a B737-800.

 

[StaySeated]

You walked away with Republic instead of SWA. That's how.

Oh, "we walked away with Republic". Right.

I am sure there is an Unsecured Creditors transcript with FAPA concluding the meeting with "thanks, but we are going to walk away with Republic".

No one chose Republic over anybody, but I won't let the facts get in the way of an arrogant attitude, this being FI and all...

best of luck to the airtran gents, thankfully most of the real Swa guys are good stuff. You just need to ignore the loud ones on this board.

 

[PCL_128]

PS PCL128, I doubt if there is a "merger agreement" between SWA and AAI since this is an acquisition not a merger.

You should probably go over to Yahoo Finance or another online finance site to read the 8-K filed with the SEC by LUV and AAI on the 27th of September, then. You know, the document that refers to itself as the "merger agreement."

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.

You should really stop doubting things until you get some actual facts from your union reps, because you're starting to make a fool of yourself. SWA is bound to the contract that we have in place on the date of corporate closing. Sorry, that's just a fact.

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.

Management has no choice but to merge the operations within 18 months of the date of corporate closing. If they don't, then they are required to divest themselves of AirTran. Our TA does not allow separate operations.

 

[Sy-bill]

Management has no choice but to merge the operations within 18 months of the date of corporate closing. If they don't, then they are required to divest themselves of AirTran. Our TA does not allow separate operations.

And do you really think your entire company will be riding on this part of your contract? Do you really think that Southwest would not press to test, in court, the power of this requirement?

Are you absolutely certain that there are no end arounds with your contract? No contract is absolutely solid. And that part of your contract may very well not hold up in court.

You may be in for a rude awakening. Southwest has only shown intent. They have made no promises.

 

[PCL_128]

Sy-bill, SWA management could certainly go to court if they would like (I don't think that's what they're after, though). However, the language was written by an attorney whose holding company language has already been court tested, and it held up even in a bankruptcy situation. I'm not too worried about it.

Besides that, SWA management would be exposing themselves to some serious legal problems from shareholders of both companies, as all of their SEC filings and public statements have clearly indicated that they are merging operations and have no desire to keep things separate. Separate operations destroys shareholder value and deprives them of $400+ million per year in corporate synergies (according to your management), so I don't think Gary and friends are too interested in fighting off all of those lawsuits. No, it's quite clear that these operations will be merged, regardless of Sy-bill's personal opinion of the SLI end result. You and I are just the little people in a $3+ billion corporate transaction. Our little seniority dispute is nothing in the grand scheme of things to SWA management. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[N2264J]

I also know that the AAI pilots have good representation and access to more experience on mergers and acquisitions than most could ever shake a stick at...

As I recall, it's the same representation Comair and ASA had when Delta bought them.

You know, all these managements go to the same seminars and what's rich about this latest corporate shell game is that PCL_128, who maintains to this day that the Delta/Comair/ASA PID filed in 2000 was a just seniority grab by greedy "regional" pilots, may well live to see the disaster that ALPA/DALPA's myopic decision had on this profession.

ALPA showed all their cards to every management in 2000 and it looks like management took the hint.

 

[PCL_128]

N2264J, can you show everyone the contractual provision that you had in 2000 that required the merger of CMR or ASA with Delta?

 

[Sy-bill]

Our little seniority dispute is nothing in the grand scheme of things to SWA management.

You are grossly under estimating the value SWA puts on its culture. And will protect that at all costs. It is what makes their wheel spin. 15000 disgruntled pilots and flight attendants will be more than worth fighting for in my opinion.

Sorry to disappoint you.

You have nothing to apologize for. This is very interesting for me to sit back and watch pilots potentially cut their noses off despite their faces. If any AT group plays hard for seniority issues that the SWA leadership think to be unfair, you will see them feverishly protect their core employees. Not their adopted ones.

I say again, arbitration is not your solution, but your problem.

 

[PapaWoody]

You should probably go over to Yahoo Finance or another online finance site to read the 8-K filed with the SEC by LUV and AAI on the 27th of September, then. You know, the document that refers to itself as the "merger agreement."

Ok, I will capitulate that there is a "merger agreement" relating to this buyout. I would like to point out, though, that it is an acquisition and not a merger, since LUV stockholders are getting nothing out of this (except maybe more valuation) whereas the AAI stockholders are getting a premium for their AAI stock, which will cease to exist.

You should really stop doubting things until you get some actual facts from your union reps, because you're starting to make a fool of yourself. SWA is bound to the contract that we have in place on the date of corporate closing. Sorry, that's just a fact.

I highly doubt if SWA is bound to a contract that comes into place after the CDN, unless they want to be. However, since GK has indicated that his intention is for the two operations to merge eventually, he will probably have no problem indicating that he will abide by the scope provisions of your new contract. Of course, if he changes his mind, there may be nothing you can do about it. After all, he is buying you so I'm sure he gets to determine what 11th hour provisions he will abide by.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is a different story. Any substantive changes that you have made in your new TA will have no bearing on the (probably) inevitable arbitration. (e.g. the pay rates in your new TA will not be considered as relevant, since they were not in place prior to the CDN. Ours may be, though, since they were retroactive to Sep 1st and were established by an existing contingency in our current contract)

Fraternally,
PapaW

 

[PCL_128]

Sy-bill, we'll see who's right in the end. But I think you'll find in a couple of years that we're one big, happy airline, with maybe a few people not happy with the seniority integration, but everyone moving forward and producing a great product. It's disappointing to see the confrontational attitude by so many SWA pilots on FI, but message boards always attract the radical fringe from every pilot group.

 

[PCL_128]

PapaW, just read the merger agreement. You'll learn a lot.

 

[Sy-bill]

It's disappointing to see the confrontational attitude by so many SWA pilots on FI,

From my view point I see more that AT pilots trying to deny this as SWA acquiring and integrating AT. AT wants to think this as a merger which is not the case. And that changes the playing field with arbitration that AT pilots seem to accept as a benefit to them. And it likely is not.

but message boards always attract the radical fringe from every pilot group.

That I totally agree with.

 

[SWA/FO]

You are grossly under estimating the value SWA puts on its culture. And will protect that at all costs.

This might sum it all up.

Da Tranny dudes Christmas list appears to be growing, by the day. In fact, every ********************ing day a friend of mine at Tranny calls to "go over scenarios". If y'all need input call his a$$, he has all the answers. Thank God for caller ID.

 

[Ty Webb]

I am a fairly senior FO and I do expect to be an FO right after the SLI. If you're a mid to junior CA at AT, you shouldn't be shocked if you're not a CA shortly after the SLI (after the short fences come down).

shootr

We're merging two profitable carriers and combining the seniority lists. Taking Captain seats from one and giving them to the pilots of the other would be a textbook example of a windfall, and is not likely to happen, except in your very lively imagination.

 

[PCL_128]

From my view point I see more that AT pilots trying to deny this as SWA acquiring and integrating AT.

I don't think anyone is denying that this is an acquisition. That much is obvious. What they're denying is that that has any bearing on how our contracts and the law are applied. Is it something that an arbitrator may take into account? Possibly. Each arbitrator is different, and they all make decisions differently. Anyone who has spent a lot of time dealing with arbitration can tell you that. But that's true on both sides of the aisle, because an arbitrator is just as likely to do something that you don't like as he is to do something that we don't like. Don't get too overconfident in how an arbitrator will rule. I've seen some crazy arbitration decisions.