RCD73

The agreement is quite clear. The AirTran MEC has also made it quite clear that if AirTran pilots do not agree to the latest offer our future employment is very uncertain. A win in court a decade from now will not feed our families.


From the Process Agreement:

"The Parties will implement an orderly combination of the Southwest Pilots and AirTran Pilots under a single collective bargaining agreement and representation by a single collective bargaining representative within a single transportation system"

"The final award shall include the date on which the Integrated Master Seniority List will become effective"

RCD73

Nowhere in the agreement does it say 'this only applies if SWA decides to merge the operations'.

Perhaps yours is different ?

acl65pilot

It is a process agreement, not a final agreement, nor a joint contract that binds the three parties. The process agreement only binds them if they decide to integrate. The whole holding company owning ATN could be used as a large stick if they choose to. It goes back to what the SWAPA pilots want to do, help the company or help the profession.

What does bind, is your pre-merger contacts.

In SWAPA's case that is what? two years after acquisition. In ATN's case that is their section 1 in their last contract, not the one ratified after the date of constructive notice.

shoelu

M/B has absolutely nothing to do with the eventuality that SWA could legally choose to run two completely separate operations. M/B ONLY applies if you choose to integrate the two operations. The scenario indeed being discussed in this thread relates to the relevance of the 717 in the SWA fleet.

I have worked for a wholly owned subsidiary of a legacy airline. We were a completely separate operation. Separate dispatch, separate facilities, separate union etc. In effect we were in no way a single transportation system. That is exactly where AT and SWA are right now. The legacy carrier operated us as they saw fit. There was no commonality between the operations. If the legacy carrier decided to divest some of the assets (airplanes) they were completely able to do so and no legal entity could compel them not to. That is my point.

80ktsClamp

You were also allowed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of a company by the union's scope. Are you really going open up SWAPA's scope to let the camel's nose in the tent and allow 115-124 seat aircraft be outsourced??

Coming from someone who's predecessors allowed just turboprop and 50 seaters to be outsourced, I don't think you want to venture down that road just for a seniority grab...

shoelu

BINGO! However I don't agree with the "what the SWAPA pilots want to do" portion. That ball is in the companies court. SWAPA also cannot compel them to integrate. But our section one is industry leading and will need to be greatly relaxed on a one time basis if in fact the company chose to operate them separately. I'm not sure if that is a concession we would ever want to consider. Only time will tell.

shoelu

Any relaxation of section one would truly be a tough pill to swallow. I am in no way advocating that putting people on the street is a good thing, I am simply trying to stress that there is no legal maneuvering that can compel SWA to join the two separate entities. If in fact they choose to go down that road there will be one of two options for SWAPA: a cease and desist order or a huge waiver of section one scope on a one time only basis. To extract that relaxation would surely be a costly venture for SWA. I'm still hoping negotiations will produce a list that will be put to a democratic vote on both sides.

shoelu

This company does not fear litigation. They were mired in endless litigation for the first decade of their existence. I don't believe most large corporations ever truly fear litigation. They have whole teams of lawyers on retainer that fully vet all controversial decisions long before they take those actions. What corporations truly fear is losing. I can assure you SWA will take no actions in this matter that they do not believe will be fully defensible in a court of law. Are they sometimes wrong? Of course they are. I learned a long time ago that they rarely go down a road that they don't know where it will lead.

newKnow

It doesn't take long for me to have to ask a question. Sorry, but how do you know that M/B has nothing to do with the eventuality that SWA could legally choose to run completely seperate operations?

Yes. I know that was your point, but if it was in response to my post, it was off base.

DAL73n

They may decide to run separate companies BUT haven't they already started to eliminate whole departments at AT that would be needed to run the separate companies.

Also, one of the reasons companies do mergers or acquisitions is because there are valuable parts of the acquired company that will be integrated with the current company to create value. The longer and harder it is for this to happen reduces the value of the acquisition. SWA has plenty of money and resources to expand - they just don't really have anywhere to go EASILY. That is the main reason SWA bought AT - slots, airplanes and gates. Also, ATs international flying - it is not easy to start up an international op (foreign governments, ETOPs certification, etc.). If this is a long, drawn out merger the value of the merger to SWA becomes reduced. Also, saying we'll just keeping them separate if we don't like the outcome of the pilots arbitration SLI means that a lot of the other issues (combining reservation systems, eliminating unprofitable routes, keeping/selling/returning 717s, etc.) may make a separate Op difficult or impossible to re-implement. It's not as simple as you make it sound for SWA to protect SWAPA.