FAPA, please explain...
10-02-2009 | 09:04 AM
#61
Don't want to participate
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
From: 737 Left Seat
A buyout?? Nope - like I said, we're happy to just watch this from the sidelines. There won't be an outright buyout. The buyout offer is now just "what could have been." Going forward, that offer is clearly the ultimate basis at which the RAH deal will be judged by F9 employees, and I wouldn't necessarily expect them to discuss it here.
Zoo - that was a well written post. I don't agree with your facts, but well written and reasoned either way.
Zoo - that was a well written post. I don't agree with your facts, but well written and reasoned either way.
Last edited by LuvJockey; 10-02-2009 at 09:16 AM.
10-02-2009 | 09:13 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
I'd love to fly with you someday so I can tell you to your face that you act like a donkey and that you were wrong on sooo many fronts. And then have a beer.
10-02-2009 | 09:25 AM
#64
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
10-02-2009 | 09:34 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
RAH costs are lower than SWA. Airline seats are a commodity, very little loyalty left in the industry. So you are saying an airline with higher costs is going to have its way with an airline with lower costs? I don't even know how to respond to that kind of ignorant comment. Two words for you...Slow leak.
10-02-2009 | 09:43 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: sitting at computer keyboard
Last I checked the SWA/Frontier acquisition thingy was over. Done. Let Gary Kelly decide if he wants to pursue it again. Until then, this SWAPA guy believes we need to focus on our own operations!
--------------------------------
Vote "YES" ... Move Forward!
--------------------------------
Vote "YES" ... Move Forward!
10-02-2009 | 09:43 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: 88B - Loud Pipes Save Lives
In la la land, we also see SWA (an 800 pound gorilla) with billions in equity taking on the 80 pound adolescent. SWA has succeeded against the ire of every legacy carrier. RAH is directly tied to the legacies and its futures as a standalone are iffy at best. Does RAH have its own reservations, marketing, are all planes flown by RAH owned by them or others? You may have slightly lower costs but its because carriers like DAL have bankrolled some of them for you. If that ends, I guarantee you your costs will be higher. Also, the lost revenue would be a killer to you. SWA could by RAH many times over. That doesn't spell instant success.
10-02-2009 | 12:09 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Wrong on what front? That RAH came in and undercut my company and gave my job to pilots who earn almost a third of what I make, soon to be made? Please tell me where I am wrong and I will show you a little "Connect" symbol painted on the side of your toy jets put there to take my job.
10-02-2009 | 09:26 PM
#69
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
From: 737/FO
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.
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.
Thanks for the response, from your perspective, without attacking.
I disagree with some things but that's fine.
I think the negotiations were hijacked by FAPA and the senior pilots who threw the FOs under the bus. They knew that they would get to stay in DEN and any dislocation would only affect FOs. They knew any furloughs due to an aquisition (yes, Frontier was BK) would only affect FOs. RAH offered a tiny raise and they jumped on it knowing it would put Midwest guys on the street. I hope they get what they deserve.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nicale
Career Questions
8
09-14-2008 06:46 AM
DANCRJ
Compass Airlines
19
08-13-2008 04:30 PM
