Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
The AirTran Pilots' Windfall and SLI >

The AirTran Pilots' Windfall and SLI


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

The AirTran Pilots' Windfall and SLI

Old 12-13-2010 | 10:15 AM
  #31  
YXnot's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8
Advanced flame-baiting.
at least 300, maybe 400 course level!
Reply
Old 12-13-2010 | 11:12 AM
  #32  
Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Default

Deleted...........
Reply
Old 12-13-2010 | 11:40 AM
  #33  
BigGuns's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
From: 767-400
Default

Originally Posted by satchip
I ran into a SWA acquaintance the other day and he told me the talk around campus is they think that they will get around the Bond-McCaskill law. Not flaming, just reporting.
It's very easy to get around Bond-McCaskill... Just get both sides to agree!
Reply
Old 12-13-2010 | 11:55 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by mastercraft
To clarify the misconception here...Guadalupe Holdings will be merged with Airtran Holdings, which will create a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines. If Southwest choses to operate this new company as a wholly-owned, and SWAPA agrees to waive the 24-month limit on this scenario, there is nothing requiring any SLI as Bond-McCaskill would not apply.

While this is not ideal for anybody, its an excellent way to ensure the Airtran pilots' "landgrab" mentality doesn't fracture the culture that has allowed SWA to enjoy its success for so many years.

The bottom line is this- Play nice and everyone wins. Enjoy the lottery!!


Here's what Southwest says about operating AirTran as a subsidiary ie. not integrating the operations. From the SEC filing Form 10-Q on 10/22/10.

" If the acquisition is completed, any failure to effectively integrate AirTran’s business could delay or prevent Southwest’s ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of transaction."

On the other hand; perhaps they'll decide to forgo the profits and risk being sued by the shareholders .... To stop you whining.
Reply
Old 12-13-2010 | 03:18 PM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
Default

Allowing the company to run two different operations would be a huge mistake. The SWA pilots are not going to make that mistake even if they have to go to arbitration for the SLI.
Reply
Old 12-13-2010 | 03:53 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
Allowing the company to run two different operations would be a huge mistake. The SWA pilots are not going to make that mistake even if they have to go to arbitration for the SLI.
Are we saying the AAI contract allows for two separate operations?
Reply
Old 12-14-2010 | 05:48 AM
  #37  
Marvin's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
From: B-737 Right
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8
Are we saying the AAI contract allows for two separate operations?
The answer is "no".
Reply
Old 12-14-2010 | 05:49 AM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
Default

This merger will be just like the other recent mergers. SW will integrate the operations as quickly as possible. The seniority list will go to binding arbitration. End of story.
Reply
Old 12-14-2010 | 06:14 AM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Marvin
The answer is "no".
I'll assume you're correct, which makes the theory of running separate companies nothing more than a quaint fantasy. It's not easy to merge with another group, but at some point one has to get beyond anger and denial. Then you can move on to bigger and better things, like understanding the fact each side brings equity to the table. Regardless of whether the individual pilot manages to make the mental leap, the arbitrator will find a way.

My compliments to my Northwest brothers from another mother, that defended their interests as much as we defended ours, but for the most part are looking forward. It's not so bad when we're busy arguing about IT systems.

And good luck to the LUV/AAI group in finding some common ground, and moving past the "lottery" b.s.
Reply
Old 12-14-2010 | 06:14 AM
  #40  
Thread Starter
On Reserve
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: 737 FO
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8
Are we saying the AAI contract allows for two separate operations?
Its should not be relevant what the AAI contract does or doesn't allow. Particularly a contract that started as an agreement in principle in which Gary Kelly himself (at the NMB in DC) urged both sides to agree on. IF SWA were to violate the 18-month limit on seperate ops, and ATN ALPA were to seek a court injunction (as the ATN ALPA VC has said will happen), do you think a judge will enforce the language of the acquired pilot groups' brand new contract?

If the 737's (which will very soon become the property of SWA) were to come to the SWA side, AT would strictly be a 717 operator. By nature of this fact, it would be seperate in an operational sense.

While I appreciate the 400 points for advanced flaming, I'm just trying to point out some realities. Guadalupe Holdings and the structure of the acquisition seem to allow for alternate avenues should anything threaten to deteriorate the strong culture SWA is built on.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Flyguppy
United
228
10-26-2012 03:23 PM
Ravensvic
Frontier
71
10-18-2012 06:56 PM
tailwheel48
United
63
11-22-2010 02:08 PM
LuvJockey
Major
78
08-20-2009 08:03 PM
Superpilot92
Mergers and Acquisitions
122
07-21-2008 07:42 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices