Originally Posted by
OscartheGrouch
newKnow,
I just spent 20+ minutes only to have what I said dumped. You and I have had some honest discussions back and forth. Since I don't wish to spend much more time this evening going over old AT/SWA news I will condense it into minimal statement.
AT was not a lesser airline, it was a younger airline that had spurts in growth with a demographic different from SWA. A relative/DOH integration was not popular at SWA. Therefore I believed retaining Captains seats was a reasonable compromise. My fellow pilots at SWA and the pilots at AT had much different ideas as to what was reasonable. Positions were made and ultimately a cost/benefit analysis was made by both sides. The vote is what it is. I am tired of the demonization of each side. I have flown with many former AT folks and have had no issues.
The future is what we decide it is.....my grandchildren kind of like me.
The Oscar
Good post, Oscar.
I think I've shown that that I'm not out to demonize any group. I this and the other SWA thread, I've mostly just stated how things would most likely be viewed from an arbitrators view and I've explained the selfish reasons I have for doing so.
My posts have supported both sides in this debate. Yes. AT captain seats would have been treated the same as SWA captain seats by an arbitrator, because after the merger, they would have been paid the same. But, an arbitrator also would have taken any unequal rates of retirements between the lists into account, too.
I just call it like I see it and from what I've seen, you guys were fighting long before I got here. But, I'm sure guys like you will eventually work things out. The above post proves it.