newKnow

If you can admit that its the company's money for this, why can you admit that increased pay for the AT pilots come from the company and should have no bearing on where they fall in an integrated seniority list?

shoelu

There is a process agreement on the table that walks this deal through the steps to either reach a negotiated seniority list or an arbitrated one. These are steps required by B/M when two airlines merge and become one entity. The only missing piece in the process agreement is the one that compells the two lists to be combined. The list does not have to be used if the airlines are not combined, plain and simple.

It was originally my thought that this was the road we would all go down to merge both companies. As time goes on and this deal becomes more dysfunctional I am hearing things that lead me to believe GK may be choosing "other options" to still get what he wants, synergy, without a combination of the lists.

I used to work for a company that was a "wholy owned subsidiary" of a legacy airline. We were completely seperate as far as contracts, wages, and CBA's but were still flying the same passengers in the system.

If GK truly wanted to operate AT as a seperate entity, there are no legal hurdles to jump over. He could get the synergies he is after through a simple code share agreement. He still has the power to run AT as he wishes and call the shots operationaly because they are still a wholly owned subsidiary. The only hurdle in the way would be SWAPA's section 1 scope that in no way allows this. When an arbitrated list is finally out, I am guessing SWAPA could convince its pilots to vote for a one time scope waiver if they feel it is in their best interest on the seniority front.

Gary still gets the profits he has been looking for through synergy and he still rakes in profit from both sides of the aisle as he tweaks both the At and SWA sides of the equation to maximize profits.

Since side letter 9 is now defunct, we would revert back to side letter 8, the transistion agreement between SWAPA and SWA. This document is very favorable to SWAPA and has SWAPA furlough protection, all fleet numbers stay the same on the SWA side, all future aircraft deliveries go to SWA etc.

I am in no way suggesting this is truly the way this deal will go, but merely pointing out that it could be a possibility. Everyone keeps stating that the lists must combine or Gary will lose millions. There are many scenarios out there that could or could not play out. Please don't state I am fear mongering, as I am only trying to point out what is a potential legal code share agreement between a parent company and a wholly owned subsidiary.

I personally would like to reach a negotiated settlement, since that is the only way both sides get a vote in this deal. GK approached the AT MEC about extending the time frame for mediation by 6 months before both sides enter arbitration in hopes that a negotiated settlement could be forthcoming. That suggestion was denied by the AT MEC. So now it looks like it will mostl likely go to arbitration. What happens after that is anyones guess.

80ktsClamp

This coming from someone who turned down the call from WN, but I left my regional carrier because of a lot more money, yes... but also vastly better QOL that would very likely be increasing considerably in coming years (no one has answered why you SWAPA lapdogs arent asking for more money for helping out in this merger), and a wide variety of aircraft and worldwide detinations.

80ktsClamp

So you're telling me that your CBA's scope sucks bad enough to have an equal type operation carrier to be operating Southwest's code?

You guys need to get your heads out of the sand and realize that you've either got to give the AT guy a better deal in a quick negotiated SLI or prepare for arbitration.

shoelu

Actually, our scope is industry leading, I don't where you have been hiding, I thought that was pretty well known.

What I was stating was that SWAPA might be willing to accept this one time waiver because there is nothing to lose. All AT profits are by default SWA profits. There can be no growth of AT or shrinkage of SWAPA per side letter 8 which locks in fleet totals on our side. All future growth is only on the SWA side. Gary gets the synergy he is looking for and we get no threat of any additional growth on the AT side since fleet numbers on our side cannot go down and all future deliveries must go to SWA per side letter 8.

There are many possible scenarios out there.

newKnow

Shoe,

From a financial perspective, why would GK care how the lists were merged? First the deal with Frontier falls through, now you suggest there is a possibility that the AT and SWA operations will be kept separate.

For some reason, you guys don't seem to be agreeable to reasonable SLI integrations. As a result, you guys seem to be hurting the very company you love so much.

80ktsClamp

Ah yes.... let the scope camel's nose in the tent this one time (it is for the profitability of southwest, of course. no one has tried that before). Enjoy!


Back in reality. Let me reiterate what has been stated. The process has started and the clock is ticking. There will be no subsidiary carrier. You will be arbitrated if you don't come to an agreement. You can either go the NW/DL way and make more money from it all around or wallow in hell like US/AW.

I would suggest getting more money for yourself, personally. Your seniority will do fine in by an arbiter anyways. Why not pursue a mutual JCBA, deal with the arbitration and get more money for everyone. Put a clause in that AT guys have to buy the beers on layovers for the next 10 years. Do you not want more money?

newKnow

Here is where the rubber meets the road, shoe.

Let's say AT is kept as a separate company and later their pilot group decides to strike, I get the feeling that SWAPA would have no problem taking over the AT routes. Hell, I get the feeling that you guys would do it even if AT didn't go on strike.

Is that what you want?

shoelu

No, that is not what I want. As I have stated I prefer a negotiated settlement that allows both sides a vote.

newKnow

But, what if you can't come to a negotiated agreement? If it comes down to arbitration and the SWAPA doesn't like the results handed down by a neutral party, they could....

Really? Would you vote for that?