I think its safe to say that asking what the AirTran folks think of SL10 is like asking a fire hydrant what it thinks of dogs.

Okay the more I think about this, and I'm completely trusting you on this btw, the more I have a problem wrapping around the idea that the next thing that would happen if FL pilots voted NO is liquidation.

Because SWA would've acquired FL only to get rid of all of it including the 737s, gates and slots.

Is that right? The main fear for a FL pilot is if they vote NO they'll lose their job.

That's an empty threat. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.

It looks like the AT pilot group will probably vote yes on this. It's sad but as I read somewhere, SW dragging "Herbs desiccated corpse "out to threaten the AT pilot group seems to have had the desired effect. Now everything depends upon the economy. I suspect were in for more hard times and there will probably be contraction amongst various carriers. Market share for SW is shrinking simply due to a smaller market caused by economic circumstances and more competition by other low cost carriers. If, and when SW is forced to contract or furlough as a result the lid may come off of that steaming labor kettle.

Isn't that all the more reason to go to arbitration? AT guys will be on the bottom if they take this deal, going to an arbitrator will probably net them a better result towards the "furlough fodder" that will be at the bottom of the combined list.

What if they decide they only want 49% of the assets?

Or if they do not combine into a single carrier? B-M requires both to be in effect. No SOC, no B-M.

The trannies can vote this down and possibly go to arbitration but we don't know what Herb threatened them with. And while Bond-McCaskill might apply, I don't know if it does. I expect ALPA,s legal dept covered this with the MEC.

ALPA Lawyers: Does M-B apply?



Now I throw a lot of stones and boulders at ALPA and the legal department but I wouldn't be surprised if the question of whether M-B applies is as clear cut as ruling any law is unconstitutional which is a long drawn out process with lots of people on both sides thinking sure as hell they're right and they take it to court. But from a way outside perspective I also still think the kicking this out to a vote is not necessarily indicative of whether the FL MEC approves of this or believes liquidation is legal and will happen and so they hope it passes. They're doing what people seemingly demanded, and probably GK for sure, and saying let the people vote.

I know of one FL Captain who is irate the last thingy wasn't put out for a pilot vote because he'd voted it in. Now he's going to lose his Captain's seat and be locked out for a while. Which ironic, he is okay if the other pilots were locked out of upgrades but once it hit him... which is a different subject. Seems to be the bottom of the FL list is unaffected, the middle was the only one affected last time, now both the top and middle are. And yet it seems as if it will pass from those I talk to BECAUSE OF the threat of losing their jobs.

AS to M-B maybe it is clear cut and it doesn't apply or it does, but the eyeball test would say it does after a cursory review. According to a 2008 article on the recently passed M-B amendment it says the law goes back to 1972 worker-protection policies and "provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner' and that disputes over seniority be submitted to binding arbitration.

The threat of liquidation doesn't seem to be a fair and equitable manner.

Ask newk for legal advice, me, I'm posting on the internet.

[QUOTE=forgot to bid;1061129]
AS to M-B maybe it is clear cut and it doesn't apply or it does, but the eyeball test would say it does after a cursory review. According to a 2008 article on the recently passed M-B amendment it says the law goes back to 1972 worker-protection policies and "provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner' and that disputes over seniority be submitted to binding arbitration.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, that of course is a decision that would most likely made in a court of law. Here is the relevant passage from B/M concerning covered transaction.

(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier;
and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of
title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.