Thanks for the responses (except the personal attacks). I just was wondering what the bottom line was.

Cheers...

 

I understand that you are mad, and rightfully so. However, if you have 20 years with MW then you must be atleast in your 40s if not 50s and you're talking like a 12 year old. I hope for your sake that you get into the RAH list but I feel bad for anyone of those guys that has to fly with you.

 

I feel bad for the MEH guys that will probably end up junior to the likes of you.Quite a few of those guys were flying mainline equipment at an actual airline while the RAH guys were in drivers ed. in high school.

 

Yeah, you wouldn't like me. And you are right. Why should I be bitter at someone who has come in, taken my job, put my friends on the street and given them unspeakable finacial hardships? I am sure we could get together some time and bake a cake. How about that?

 

Knowing you would be "replaced", you and your friends could have always quit as soon as this partnership-then-merger was announced. Withholding your services from that time through the end of the 717s would have created a great financial hardship for MEH and been a great way to "stick it to the Bedford man".

 

This has been covered ad nauseam all over the web, but since you asked.

Before we begin, everyone should reallize that the SWA bid was never "qualified". When RAH submitted the first proposal, they also established the rules of the game (This is based upon BK law, "white night", ect..). One of those rules stipulated that all subsequent bids could not contain restrictions or conditions that did not exist in the RAH bid. RAH did not have a clause requiring a labor agreement prior to the close of a deal, therefor SWA's bid could not have such a restriction.

The UCC informed SWA of this issue prior to any formal discussions between FAPA and SWAPA.

For the record, the SWAPA president informed FAPA on the morning the two parties were going to meet that an integration of some form or another was not a deal breaker (ie, SWAPA was not going to propose a staple).

A meeting was scheduled for Wednesday at 5pm, and the two groups were going to meet and exchange proposals for the first time. We all know that FAPA was late due to the fact that both RAH and SWA were submitting their final proposal's to the UCC in NYC. This fact has been dismissed by a majority of the SWAPA posters on another infamous board. Keep in mind, FAPA understood that if SWA didn't remove their labor contingency their bid was going to be deemed as unqualified by the BK court.

SWAPA began with their proposal, which has been posted in its entirety all over the web. Staple, pay protection, new position protection in denver, and FAPA was to remain the bargaining unit for all the FAPA furloughees.

FAPA responded with a ratio integration, and allowed SWAPA to choose the ratio. The proposal also included domicile protection, a furlough stipend, and clear recall rights for the 20% (minimum) that were going to be furloughed immediately.

SWAPA held a caucus and when they returned the FAPA proposal was discussed at length, with several points "TA'd". At approximately 1130pm SWAPA recommended that both parties reconvene the next day in Dallas.

That was the last time the two M&A Committees communicated.

On Thursday, the FAPA M&A Committee met in Denver and began preparing for what appeared to be a weekend full of spirited negotiations between the two groups.

There was ZERO attempts by SWAPA to contact FAPA on Thursday. I have no idea why they felt it was necessary to say something that is untrue, but SWAPA never called FAPA and FAPA never called SWAPA.....

The reason there was no contact on Thursday was due to the fact that SWA did not modify their bid. As long as the labor contingency remained, the bid was not going to get past the UCC (RAH was also a member of the UCC).

This is a very short version of the two days surrounding what has become a quite popular and inaccurate portrayal of a meeting between two pilot groups.

You say that FAPA made outrageous demands. Untrue. FAPA made a proposal that was negotiated. Not one demand was made. Everything was on the table and everything was negotiable.

You also describe some of the components of FAPA's first proposal, but your details are not accurate.

You also mention a "denver fence". Think about that for a second. At least 80% of FAPA pilots will remain in Denver, the other 20% actually want to be based in a different city. Had the initial SWAPA proposal existed the FAPA pilots would be at the bottom of the list, spread all over the country, on reserve. The F9/RAH/YX SLI have not even begun, and we have no idea what the landscape of DIA will look like in the future.

You also say that "your union decided" the outcome. Again, neither FAPA nor SWAPA decided the outcome. Had SWA removed the labor contingency, both pilot groups would have actually had a say in the matter. Unfortunately, we were never able to actually meet again due to the fact that the bid did not meet the requirements of the court.

You also state that FAPA "skewed representation of the facts". Everything that FAPA has communicated is 100% accurate. Everything that SWAPA has represented has been accurate except for two items. They never clearly identified why furloughed FAPA pilots were to remain FAPA members and not SWAPA members, and they never attempted to contact FAPA on Thursday.

Lastly, do not misconstrue my portrayal of events as an endorsement for RAH. That was yet another outcome in which FAPA had no control. The merger between F9/RAH/YX is going to be an ugly one. It will be more ugly for some than for others, but it will be ugly in some fashion for everyone involved.

 

They kept us going by lying to us. They told us first that only four 717's were going away. Then it was six. When it was all said and done, we had nine left. Then we were told they would be on the property until at least December of 2010 and our furloughed pilots would start training on the Jungle Jet. We were told everyone would be recalled by June of 2009. Most of us hung around ready to do whatever the company needed us to do within reason. And Republic pay rates were not "within reason". We are finished now. I just hope that the rest of you guys at the majors and even SWA protect yourself in a way where a sleeze bag operation like Republic is not able to come in and steal everything you have worked so hard to achieve and ruin you financially. The worst part has been the toll it has taken on our families. I better stop typing now. The rage is surging.

 

Hey SWA guys,

If you still want F9, go buy them. No more auction anymore. Negotiate with the unions, come up with something both side can agree with, and offer Bedford some money giving him a quick and profitable return on his investment. Just because RAH owns them doesn't mean they're not for sale. Bedford has his price. Give it to him, acquire F9, and continue your growth and success. I'm sure GK and SWAPA would still love to make this deal happen. Plus, then we wouldn't have to keep reading about these half truths anymore.

 

I disagree.

TPG bought/sold Continental and America West. This is a multi-billion dollar company. I think they found a Bedford and his cheap labor in June/July 2008 just about the time TPGs partner (Delta) was re-negotiating its RJ business with Republic. TPG merged Midwest with Republic... TPG has a sit on the Republic Board and owns part of the company.


Item 2.01 Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets.

On July 31, 2009, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 23, 2009, among Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (the “Company”), RJET Acquisition, Inc. and Midwest Air Group, Inc. (“MAG”), as amended (the “Merger Agreement”), RJET Acquisition, Inc. merged with and into MAG (the “Merger”) with MAG continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.


Give me your facts.

 

Before we begin, everyone should reallize that the SWA bid was never "qualified". When RAH submitted the first proposal, they also established the rules of the game (This is based upon BK law, "white night", ect..). One of those rules stipulated that all subsequent bids could not contain restrictions or conditions that did not exist in the RAH bid. RAH did not have a clause requiring a labor agreement prior to the close of a deal, therefor SWA's bid could not have such a restriction.

ITS ALL OVER RIGHT THERE, GARY KELLY SCREWED IT UP...SIMPLE AS THAT.

HE WAS HOPING THE F9 GUYS WOULD TAKE THE STAPLE AND FIX HIS INCOMPETENCE AND POOR PLANNING COUPLED WITH A "DO OR DIE TIMELINE"

AS SOMEONE ELSE STATED, BUY OUT BEDFORD IF YOU ARE STILL INTERESTED