AIP2 approved by SWAPA BOD and ATN MEC
09-24-2011, 06:20 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
Everyone seems to keep looking at this transaction from the perspective of how have things been done in the past. SWA has never pigeon holed themselves into conducting themselves in a way that mirrors what others have done in the past. SWA has always marched to the beat of a different drummer.
It seems that most if not all recent mergers have been the product of neccesity. AW/USAir was a merger of neccesity. To a lesser extent UA/Cal is a merger of neccesity. To an even lesser extent NWA/Delta was a merger of neccesity. The managements of these deals felt that they needed these tie-ups to either survive or at least remain competitive. There was never a possibility, in my opinion, of a plan B in these recent merger scenarios.
In my opinion this transaction between AT/SWA was never percieved as a merger of neccessity to SWA management. SWA has always felt they have a viable business plan with or without external growth. They saw an opportunity to expand their network with valuable assets. I know many will contend that SWA had to have this transaction to remain profitable in today's market. I don't feel that SWA management, or employees, ever felt that to be the correct assesment of the situation.
This was probably always seen as a risky venture by SWA because they never wanted things to spiral out of control AW/USAir style. It is my opinion they always went in to this deal with multiple contingency plans. I think they always felt if need be they could initiate alternative plans to save the company from unwanted turmoil. They saw an oppurtunity to make this deal and weighed the possible profits to be made against the cash to be lost if they felt the need to pull the plug. They went into this deal knowing they had a possible out. Most other recent mergers were not entered into with an exit strategy.
For these reasons it is truly a unique adventure and is not nearly as similar to other ventures as others want to paint it.
SWA knows that there will be some internal strife with any merger. They have chosen on many fronts to dance with the partner that brought them this far. They would rather have the current 6000 not ready to riot and take their chance on soothing and appeasing the newcomers once they make the jump to the SWA side. They, as we all do, feel they have alot to offer the newcomers once they make the jump.
If you feel that SWA is going out of their way to protect their own, you are most probably right. That management style will not cease or diminish if this deal goes down.
This deal is nowhere close to being complete and I understand that BOTH sides have many problems with continuing forward with this deal. If it does go down I personally am ready to deal with the INDIVIDUALS involved and never take an us or them stand. I think most SWA folks are also able to make that distinction, despite what the radcal intrnet fringe state.
It seems that most if not all recent mergers have been the product of neccesity. AW/USAir was a merger of neccesity. To a lesser extent UA/Cal is a merger of neccesity. To an even lesser extent NWA/Delta was a merger of neccesity. The managements of these deals felt that they needed these tie-ups to either survive or at least remain competitive. There was never a possibility, in my opinion, of a plan B in these recent merger scenarios.
In my opinion this transaction between AT/SWA was never percieved as a merger of neccessity to SWA management. SWA has always felt they have a viable business plan with or without external growth. They saw an opportunity to expand their network with valuable assets. I know many will contend that SWA had to have this transaction to remain profitable in today's market. I don't feel that SWA management, or employees, ever felt that to be the correct assesment of the situation.
This was probably always seen as a risky venture by SWA because they never wanted things to spiral out of control AW/USAir style. It is my opinion they always went in to this deal with multiple contingency plans. I think they always felt if need be they could initiate alternative plans to save the company from unwanted turmoil. They saw an oppurtunity to make this deal and weighed the possible profits to be made against the cash to be lost if they felt the need to pull the plug. They went into this deal knowing they had a possible out. Most other recent mergers were not entered into with an exit strategy.
For these reasons it is truly a unique adventure and is not nearly as similar to other ventures as others want to paint it.
SWA knows that there will be some internal strife with any merger. They have chosen on many fronts to dance with the partner that brought them this far. They would rather have the current 6000 not ready to riot and take their chance on soothing and appeasing the newcomers once they make the jump to the SWA side. They, as we all do, feel they have alot to offer the newcomers once they make the jump.
If you feel that SWA is going out of their way to protect their own, you are most probably right. That management style will not cease or diminish if this deal goes down.
This deal is nowhere close to being complete and I understand that BOTH sides have many problems with continuing forward with this deal. If it does go down I personally am ready to deal with the INDIVIDUALS involved and never take an us or them stand. I think most SWA folks are also able to make that distinction, despite what the radcal intrnet fringe state.
Last edited by shoelu; 09-24-2011 at 06:43 PM.
09-24-2011, 07:51 PM
#43
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: B737
Posts: 10
I bet SWA has a Plan A B C and D. The decision will be, Does Airtran want to be part of Plan A B C or D. I don't think anyone really wants to see Airtran pilots on the street. Just remember : The top Union Leaders SWAPA, ALPA and SWA set up SL9 and SL10. Not the Pilot's of SWA or Airtran. I do hope it works out for all of us!
09-25-2011, 03:52 AM
#44
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Everyone seems to keep looking at this transaction from the perspective of how have things been done in the past. SWA has never pigeon holed themselves into conducting themselves in a way that mirrors what others have done in the past. SWA has always marched to the beat of a different drummer.
It seems that most if not all recent mergers have been the product of neccesity. AW/USAir was a merger of neccesity. To a lesser extent UA/Cal is a merger of neccesity. To an even lesser extent NWA/Delta was a merger of neccesity. The managements of these deals felt that they needed these tie-ups to either survive or at least remain competitive. There was never a possibility, in my opinion, of a plan B in these recent merger scenarios.
In my opinion this transaction between AT/SWA was never percieved as a merger of neccessity to SWA management. SWA has always felt they have a viable business plan with or without external growth. They saw an opportunity to expand their network with valuable assets. I know many will contend that SWA had to have this transaction to remain profitable in today's market. I don't feel that SWA management, or employees, ever felt that to be the correct assesment of the situation.
This was probably always seen as a risky venture by SWA because they never wanted things to spiral out of control AW/USAir style. It is my opinion they always went in to this deal with multiple contingency plans. I think they always felt if need be they could initiate alternative plans to save the company from unwanted turmoil. They saw an oppurtunity to make this deal and weighed the possible profits to be made against the cash to be lost if they felt the need to pull the plug. They went into this deal knowing they had a possible out. Most other recent mergers were not entered into with an exit strategy.
For these reasons it is truly a unique adventure and is not nearly as similar to other ventures as others want to paint it.
SWA knows that there will be some internal strife with any merger. They have chosen on many fronts to dance with the partner that brought them this far. They would rather have the current 6000 not ready to riot and take their chance on soothing and appeasing the newcomers once they make the jump to the SWA side. They, as we all do, feel they have alot to offer the newcomers once they make the jump.
If you feel that SWA is going out of their way to protect their own, you are most probably right. That management style will not cease or diminish if this deal goes down.
This deal is nowhere close to being complete and I understand that BOTH sides have many problems with continuing forward with this deal. If it does go down I personally am ready to deal with the INDIVIDUALS involved and never take an us or them stand. I think most SWA folks are also able to make that distinction, despite what the radcal intrnet fringe state.
It seems that most if not all recent mergers have been the product of neccesity. AW/USAir was a merger of neccesity. To a lesser extent UA/Cal is a merger of neccesity. To an even lesser extent NWA/Delta was a merger of neccesity. The managements of these deals felt that they needed these tie-ups to either survive or at least remain competitive. There was never a possibility, in my opinion, of a plan B in these recent merger scenarios.
In my opinion this transaction between AT/SWA was never percieved as a merger of neccessity to SWA management. SWA has always felt they have a viable business plan with or without external growth. They saw an opportunity to expand their network with valuable assets. I know many will contend that SWA had to have this transaction to remain profitable in today's market. I don't feel that SWA management, or employees, ever felt that to be the correct assesment of the situation.
This was probably always seen as a risky venture by SWA because they never wanted things to spiral out of control AW/USAir style. It is my opinion they always went in to this deal with multiple contingency plans. I think they always felt if need be they could initiate alternative plans to save the company from unwanted turmoil. They saw an oppurtunity to make this deal and weighed the possible profits to be made against the cash to be lost if they felt the need to pull the plug. They went into this deal knowing they had a possible out. Most other recent mergers were not entered into with an exit strategy.
For these reasons it is truly a unique adventure and is not nearly as similar to other ventures as others want to paint it.
SWA knows that there will be some internal strife with any merger. They have chosen on many fronts to dance with the partner that brought them this far. They would rather have the current 6000 not ready to riot and take their chance on soothing and appeasing the newcomers once they make the jump to the SWA side. They, as we all do, feel they have alot to offer the newcomers once they make the jump.
If you feel that SWA is going out of their way to protect their own, you are most probably right. That management style will not cease or diminish if this deal goes down.
This deal is nowhere close to being complete and I understand that BOTH sides have many problems with continuing forward with this deal. If it does go down I personally am ready to deal with the INDIVIDUALS involved and never take an us or them stand. I think most SWA folks are also able to make that distinction, despite what the radcal intrnet fringe state.
Fact is other airline merging results in their costs dropping. That will make them more competitive, & combined with capacity discipline it will allow ticket prices to remain up. Since SWA's CASM is rising & they aren't charging for bags they may start to fall behind a little. I have no doubt that SWA can survive on it's own, but NWA, DAL, UAL, & CAL would have too. My point is that while SWA doesn't need the merger to survive, not merging will hurt.
09-25-2011, 07:48 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,236
A couple of more comments here:
1. If the airtran contract has any legally enforceable clause to protect pilots in the merger, vote no. Arbitrate. Sending it to memrat is an abdication by ALPA.
2. Its a no brainer no vote for anyone of 717 seniority. SWA has already shown their hand with respect to the future of that plane on the property.
3. There does not appear to even be an attempt to play fair on the side of SWA mgmt.
4. I know guys at both companies, I just cant believe how harsh this whole thing is shelling out.
1. If the airtran contract has any legally enforceable clause to protect pilots in the merger, vote no. Arbitrate. Sending it to memrat is an abdication by ALPA.
2. Its a no brainer no vote for anyone of 717 seniority. SWA has already shown their hand with respect to the future of that plane on the property.
3. There does not appear to even be an attempt to play fair on the side of SWA mgmt.
4. I know guys at both companies, I just cant believe how harsh this whole thing is shelling out.
You're right on. This comes down to the competency of ALPA and all of the experts at national. I'm sure all the agreements are iron clad tight with the high paid talent at ALPA! There is no way AirTran should send this out for memrat--it's a disgrace!
09-25-2011, 08:55 AM
#46
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 32
I know this sounds naive but how cool would it be if these two pilot groups both put their personal seniority windfalls aside and both said "NO" to SWA management. It's sad how little unity there is in this profession. Someday, some group will have to be the trailblazers and try to do it the right way.
Until then Airline managements will play golf together and laugh at all of the white collar ditch diggers pilots. I know there will be pain for that first pilot group but this is something that would be a lot more fun to watch vs the infighting that always comes in this profession.
Cheers
Until then Airline managements will play golf together and laugh at all of the white collar ditch diggers pilots. I know there will be pain for that first pilot group but this is something that would be a lot more fun to watch vs the infighting that always comes in this profession.
Cheers
09-25-2011, 09:10 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,353
Voted down AIP1 - (or SL9, whatever), and then criticized for not sending out to memrat...
Voted for AIP2 - (SL10???), criticized for sending it to memrat...
what'll ya have? what'll ya have??
09-25-2011, 09:35 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,236
Now we have gotcha's, threats, loopholes.....
This is where ALPA failed. There should be no "hammer" in the event this goes to arbritration. Maybe there isn't, but the SWA folks are throwing out threats as if there is. Maybe some clear direction from national will put some of this to rest.
09-25-2011, 10:28 AM
#49
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 175
I know this sounds naive but how cool would it be if these two pilot groups both put their personal seniority windfalls aside and both said "NO" to SWA management. It's sad how little unity there is in this profession. Someday, some group will have to be the trailblazers and try to do it the right way.
Until then Airline managements will play golf together and laugh at all of the white collar ditch diggers pilots. I know there will be pain for that first pilot group but this is something that would be a lot more fun to watch vs the infighting that always comes in this profession.
Cheers
Until then Airline managements will play golf together and laugh at all of the white collar ditch diggers pilots. I know there will be pain for that first pilot group but this is something that would be a lot more fun to watch vs the infighting that always comes in this profession.
Cheers
Then there would be no use for message boards such as this. Think of all the forum employees you would put out of work by airline pilot unity.
09-25-2011, 10:56 AM
#50
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm on the sidelines, so my opinion has zero weight, let's get that part out of the way.
Is there or is there not a process agreement?
Is there or is there not ALPA written scope/merger/fragmentation language in the Air Tran contract?
Is the process agreement being followed? My sense is that the answer is no.
Where is ALPA?
Is it every man for himself?
I dont understand your confusion.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
