Originally Posted by tsquare

Seems to me you are arguing a technicality, because AAI had it rammed down their throats via a not so veiled threat of their employment. Yeah.. theoretically if they could have said no and asked for arbitration, and management could have chosen to retain a separate operating certificate and dismantled AAI. I think that threat was loud and clear, and I do not blame the MEC for voting the way they did.. in either offer. They thought that management was going to play by established rules. oops.

Originally Posted by Liv2soar

And, then the CEO of Southwest told them: "Vote no to this, and you'll be voting yourself out of a job."

Originally Posted by lake alice

I'm not knocking those airlines and the fact you treated them as careers. My point was they were never intended to be a legacy. If you were fine with that then that was a personal choice. As an slp you have little or no say in th contracts signed between your management and the legacy management. Because of this you were always going to be limited with how much you could earn. Too many pilots blame the union for this when in reality that was clearly not the case. Could ALPA have done some things better I'm sure the could have. My issue is claiming the union screwed you because aca, Indy, comair etc, didn't provide you with legacy style pay and benefits. That part is simply economics.

As for JetBlue being a career it wasn't for me but after everything happened post 9-11 I've been trying to make it. Educating the ranks has been difficult.

For the record I like Jetblue. I hold a great schedule and rarely fly if I don't want to. The folks I fly with a great and my direct CP is a decent guy. I don't fall for the cost creep emails when JetBlues is looking into purchasing stake in another airline. I don't buy any of the Industry standard rhetoric when there are gaping holes in our compensation.

I still do announcement from the front, time permitting, and try my best to help the fa's whether its a food run or a row or two. I'm more frustrated with this place then most but I still do the job as was asked of me from day one. I volunteer and I make my voice heard.

Originally Posted by CRJAV8OR

What you fail to realize is the fact that SWA did in fact play by the established rules. The M/B legislation specifically states that the law only applies if the the two groups are actually merged. There is no portion of the law that could ever or would ever FORCE the acquiring entity to in fact merge the operations without a major revamp of current US law. You may think the law was circumvented, but it was in fact followed as written. You just don't care for the outcome because it is quite evident you have an aversion to all things Southwest, which of course is your prerogative. Here is the relevant portion of the legislation.

(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier;

Originally Posted by GuppyPuppy

You may think that the law wasn't circumvented (which it wasn't), but I believe the intent of the law was circumvented.

But, intent and four dollars will buy you a fancy cup of coffee.

GP

GP

Originally Posted by Southerner

Hearing anything about a San Juan base? Would it go junior or senior if it happens?

Originally Posted by Southerner

Hearing anything about a San Juan base? Would it go junior or senior if it happens?