acl65pilot

Your section one is clear, they are to merge them, but you can choose a concession for that, as 80 indicated may work in your favor over the short run, but in the long run may be very dangerous. Losing a few numbers of seniority versus that option is really the right way to go. Scope is number one, and yes, I love your section one, but I believe that it will be a huge fight for the same language for international ops.

What makes this case very interesting for all airline pilots, is that you both fly the 737-700 yet, to date the methods of integration do not fall along those lines. In the end what is done here will effect all future SLI's and therefore the impact on fellow pilots is very important.

flysail

another thing that I have not seen on here is that If and its a BIG IF the company (SW) kills this now they don't have to deal with all the other groups F/a Mechs etc how much will that Save!!!

shoelu

I think the applicability is very well spelled out in the amendment. Specifically the covered transactions summary.

(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.

Don't combine and it is not covered. Involves the transfer or control of less than 50% of the assets (by value) and it is not covered.

RCD73

18 months is the limitation. In fact, it's one of the sticking points that will be negotiated this week. SWA needs it waived and the clock started on the date of corporate closure. Why are they negotiating a waiver of a a limitation contained in a contract that you believe doesn't apply ?

You either have poor information or you disagree with the legal opinion of ALPA's 'crack legal team'. Even SWA's COO disagrees with you. In writing.

Both you and Slow are painfully ignorant about the entire process.

newKnow

Thanks. I've read M/B and know that section is the sticking point. But, how do you know how a judge will rule?

You know, we probably have about 25-40 pages of discussion of what a single air carrier is on the Delta thread. Transfer 50% or more of equity securities, or assets? How is a judge going to rule if those assets or securities are placed in a holding company? I have no idea. How do you know?

To sum it up, I'm wondering how do you, or anyone else at SWA, know how a federal judge will rule if presented with the facts of your situation with Air Tran? Or, are you just puffing things up to make it seem like you know for sure what will happen, so you can use leverage against a group so they will make an uninformed decision?

shoelu

As I have said before, I don't even know what Southwest management has in mind. I can assure you though that if in fact this is a path that THEY choose to go down, they will only do so if they feel they have a 100% defensible position in a court of law. What a judge may or may not rule is completely a wild card and is in fact the million dollar question.

acl65pilot

First, I am glad that SWA agreed in writing to honor your current contract, after all they are the ones that told ATN's management to agree to it. I did not know that, and honestly have not followed the whole process. I choose to chime in because I do not like seeing a CEO do the SLI bidding for one of the two pilot groups involved. They have to accept the result, not be a part of the process.

Second, I though the limit in the SWAPA contract was two years to integrate a group. It is the limit I am referring to. A process agreement is that, an agreement to the process, not an agreement to an endgame. It has been a few years since I read their contract. If the SWAPA pilots are willing to help the company at your detriment, it will give short term gains for them in exchange for a life time of strife with your group. In DALPA and NWALPA's case we had a joint contract and a process agreement that were agreed to before a SLI. It made all of it binding. As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, you have a process agreement, not a joint contract nor a SLI.

To be honest, it is not prejudice at all. My point with SWAPA is that they do what is good for them in the short term, it has effected the piloting profession as a whole. It allowed their company to be ruthless with competition, which is good for them, but now when the scores have been settled with the legacies, we all suffer. Rates are lower, and we are now using their compensation as the bar to reach for. Nothing miraculous has happened in their contracts, it has been slow and steady, but even that is waning as they face the headwinds they helped create. That is my issue.

Part of their strategy is great, but in the long term, collective cooperation results in better gains for all. I would have the same issue if a legacy pilot group allowed their company to make the cost of admission a type rating. I have issues with our scope concessions. I look at the explosion of the LCC phenomenon and its timing, and then look at when RJ's took off. They were LUV's best years, and the majors dropped the ball and misjudged the whole lot. I saw the SWAPA pilots only to happy to help their company not only undercut other airlines, but other pilots and the profession for many years to come. My vision of history is a lot longer than the last few years. I do not share the rosy perspective of SWAPA for the reasons listed above. Great culture, and great people, it works for their company but as we are seeing they and the whole sector and now feeling the effects of the down-bidding that has occurred over the last decade.

If a ALPA pilot group did the same thing, I would have the same issues.

shiznit

I would like to know why the SLI proposal offered by "SWA management" is so lopsided.

What would the motivation be for SWA mgt. to carry SWAPA's water?

Why would an effective and strong leader want to deliberately p!ss off 25% of his new and larger employee group in one fell swoop?

Lastly, what is the rationale behind getting so indignant that someone else gets a gain, even though it does not decrease your QOL or pay at all? (and actually offers a stronger future for your earnings, QOL and stability)

newKnow

Oh. Ok. That's not what I thought you were saying.

moosedawg

SWA management IS NOT doing the SLI bidding for SWAPA. SWA management is doing the SLI bidding for SWA. They want both pilot groups to know that, ultimately, they are in charge. I know it's hard for the outside observers to believe, but the SWAPA NC has not worked with SWA management on either proposal.