Originally Posted by
newKnow
Actually, it seems to me that the fact that you are using a technicality (if there even is one) as reason to not include them (all of them) as part of the SWA family sends a signal to them that they really aren't and seemingly can't ever be part of the family at all..
I can't tell if you are being purposefully obtuse or you just don't understand the meaning of "collective bargaining agent." The "technicality" that you refer to is federal law.
The wholly owned subsidiary, AirTran, already has union representation - ALPA. SWAPA has absolutely no authority to change the collective bargaining agent of AirTran. Only AirTran has the authority to change their collective bargaining agent. If a representation change is in fact what is desired, I would fully support that change. I think all parties involved would be better served by a single collective bargaining agent.