Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN Purchase Of Airtran  
User currently offlineGizmoNC From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 309 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7772 times:

Hey all you guys out there who has a legal background. Since WN purchased AT lock stock and barrel so to speak. This is not a merger. SWA formed a LCC GHC and has put AT in that holding company. As I understand is under the process of moving assets over to SWA. So according to the Bond-McCaskill act after the TWA/AA ordeal does this fall under that law. Just courious as to what others might think. Especially if you are in the labor law field.

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4320 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First off, the IATA code for Airtran is FL (AT is Royal Air Morac) . And the code for Southwest is WN.

User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1983 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7730 times:

Quoting GizmoNC (Thread starter):
This is not a merger.

Right, it's an aquisition.



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4320 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GizmoNC (Thread starter):
Just courious as to what others might think. Especially if you are in the labor law field.

It's hard to understand what your point is. The merger -- whatever form it takes -- has passed Justice Department scrutiny.

Are trying to say they made a mistake?


User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6565 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7654 times:

TW/AA was an estate sale.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinepliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7644 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4):
TW/AA was an estate sale.

As an attorney, I advise you that you just made one of the more hysterical comments I've ever read on this site.


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5700 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7509 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 3):

It's hard to understand what your point is. The merger -- whatever form it takes -- has passed Justice Department scrutiny.

Are trying to say they made a mistake?

Unless I misunderstood, he is asking because this is not a Merger (ala DL/NW, UA/CO, F9/YX, etc) and an acquisition, and because according to him Southwest is creating a LLC, like AA/TWA, does the rule of the Bond-Mcaskill act apply here.

This is the first acquisition between two airlines since TWA/AA, so the rules and laws are being tested for the first time now I think.

No, I do not know the answer, but it does bring up a good point/question.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 731 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6787 times:

What does the Bond-McCaskill Act mean in the case of WN/FL? Is there some specific element of the Act that places a restriction or requrement on WN? The OP doesn't explain the question.

User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

If you read the B/Mc bill you will find the language that applies. It doesn't matter the structure that WN used with GHC as the intermediary. The FL pilots (I believe this is the real direction of your question) are entitled to the protections of B/Mc. There have been several disgruntled WN pilots that are grasping to the hopes that they can somehow take only FL planes without the pilots. By design this is what the bill is entitled to prevent. A shifting of assets to destroy one work group. Much like the BK rules that were in place after Frank Lorenzo did his destruction the B/Mc bill was created to prevent the type of action that AA did with TWA.

As an aside the TWA pilot group just won a lawsuit against ALPA for a DFR complaint in the merger with AA. In my opinion this is the driving factor in why FL MEC rejected the one sided agreement from SWAPA. If the FL MEC agreed to this it could potentially lead to another DFR lawsuit against ALPA. The FL pilots have nothing to lose by going to arbitration. The deal they were handed was terrible for a career.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5583 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 8):
A shifting of assets to destroy one work group. Much like the BK rules that were in place after Frank Lorenzo did his destruction the B/Mc bill was created to prevent the type of action that AA did with TWA.

Frank Lorenzo's "destruction" preserved the very existence of Continental Airlines.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6196 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 9):
Frank Lorenzo's "destruction" preserved the very existence of Continental Airlines.

You missed some history. When Lorenzo was gone CAL was in several near death episodes. Remember CALite? CAL was resurrected AFTER Lorenzo. Not because of Lorenzo!


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 10):
When Lorenzo was gone CAL was in several near death episodes. Remember CALite? CAL was resurrected AFTER Lorenzo. Not because of Lorenzo!

Yep. Good ol' Gordo pretty much straightened them out.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineGizmoNC From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

Funny how pilots who actually fly the planes are calling AIRTRAN, AT

from airlinepilotsforum.com


It's completely real.

Disclaimer: I'm a SWA FO, attempting to remove all bias from at least this post.

From what I've heard, it provides for basically total seat protection for all AT Capts anywhere in the system, regardless of their seniority. I think that's it's selling point to ALPA, just my guess.

It looks to me like the most senior AT FO's are taking the biggest hit. Zero upgrades until 2020.

ATL will probably be drawn down to a lot less pilots than it currently is, although it sounds like it will still be at least as big as any other SWA domicile. Same number or more flights, just less pilot lines originating from there.

717 payrates will equal 737. Also a big incentive. If sent to arbitration, 717 payrates are up for negotiation with the company. SWA (not SWAPA) is a tough negotiator.

Hard to guage the std SWAPA pilot response. Our BOD voted unanimously to approve AND recommend passage.

The typical internet-active SWA pilot seems to be more hard core than the line guy. My opinion only: the internet participators will rant against, but the avg line dudes will vote for this deal. I'd be surprised if we don't pass it.

There should be some people who are happy. I think the top half of the AT capts should be extatic. They have a huge raise, seat protection and will get to stay in ATL.

Jr AT Capt, I dunno. Big raise, seat protection, but you're going to get displaced and your seniority is going to sit at the bottom for a while.

If you're a SWA Capt, you get an 8% seniority bump and nothing else really changes.

AT senior FO. They got the worst of the deal. Big raise and you can stay in ATL but upgrade is going to be out of reach for a while.

If you're an AT new hire...well, you might be happy. Big raise and a much bigger pond to swim in. But you will be displaced and jr anywhere you go.

SWA FO....hard to say. I think the more junior you are, the more you might like this deal.

The senior SWA FO's I think will be angry no matter what happens. Unless they were all made Capts and CEO's of their own airlines I think some of those guys would be angry about it.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Good job FL pilots! The WN group appears to be very disappointed that you guys did not roll over and play dead. Best of luck in arbitration. It would seem that is a good risk to take based on the deal that was presented to you guys.

User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Seems that when you look back at history, it's often the pilots who drag out the acquisitions/integrations because everyone is so passionate about what "fair" is to themselves.... which is understandable, but nonetheless it bogs everything down because nobody is willing to actually "GIVE" anything.

The other labor groups often follow suit to what's happening with the pilots as well, the FA's end up in the mix, the ramp, etc etc etc.

I hope this isn't anything like US or DL or what will happen at UA... but it is what it is and it already looks like the employees' sense of self-value on the WN-side of things is going to create a mess.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4224 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5486 times:

It doesn't matter that it is an "acquisition." If the seniority list integration it goes to arbitration it will be treated as a standard merger.


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 15):
It doesn't matter that it is an "acquisition." If the seniority list integration it goes to arbitration it will be treated as a standard merger.

Absolutely spot on! It doesn't matter who bought who or how the deal is structured. B/Mc is designed to protect both sides. All mergers are usually an acquisition of some type on paper. DL/Western, USAir and all the other carriers they have "acquired" over the years. Those are still mergers of operations and seniority list. It just seems the arrogance of the WN pilots that they are immune to a "merged" airline is absurd. They are no better than the FL pilots.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7502 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5389 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 14):
Seems that when you look back at history, it's often the pilots who drag out the acquisitions/integrations because everyone is so passionate about what "fair" is to themselves

I would say its because they have the power to protect their interest.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 14):
The other labor groups often follow suit to what's happening with the pilots as well, the FA's end up in the mix, the ramp, etc etc etc.

Very little power so they usuallly take what they get.


User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5330 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 16):
It just seems the arrogance of the WN pilots that they are immune to a "merged" airline is absurd. They are no better than the FL pilots.

I have to agree with you, AND it's not just the pilots. Over here at WN people are incredibly stuck on this definition.. this word "acquisition"... it's part of what feeds the arrogance, which in turn is based on ignorance. A lot of WN employees seem to think that WN is "saving the day" when it comes to FL... they have no clue that FL was doing just fine, were making money etc. They also fail to see that WN NEEDS certain aspects of FL to survive... we NEED them we're not saving them from anything.

I hear a lot of "Well they should be so lucky..." "They're getting a pay raise etc.." SO? What's it to any front-line employee? We are FRONT-LINE employees... period. It's our business to do our job... not to tell some other employee what they are and aren't entitled to.

WN employees have been so sheltered from any sense of reality for so long, and now they're being thrown into a very REAL Industry-reality and they are completely misguided.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5320 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 17):
I would say its because they have the power to protect their interest.

Yes and we all see how well it turns out......



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinecubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23226 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 18):
A lot of WN employees seem to think that WN is "saving the day" when it comes to FL... they have no clue that FL was doing just fine, were making money etc.

FL was "doing just fine?" So why the money-losing MKE buildup? Why the foray into the G4 model? Why even approve the merger?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

Quoting cubsrule (Reply 20):
FL was "doing just fine?" So why the money-losing MKE buildup? Why the foray into the G4 model? Why even approve the merger?

Well it's not as if they were floundering! I've heard WN employees say they were in bankruptcy!!!! It's ridiculous! They had posted a profit had they not? They're light-years ahead of say AA for example, in terms of current financial success.

Nonetheless, WN wasn't "saving the day", they were acquiring assets that couldn't otherwise be attained through organic growth. WN bought FL because they needed them, that should say a lot about FL and it should remind WN and it's employees that it's not "perfect".



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7502 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 19):
Yes and we all see how well it turns out......

Well the industry is well aware of the power of pilot groups, so yes we will see how this one turns out. WN has had good relations with their unions, so far there has been no reason for either side to draw their swords, lets hope it stays that way, but the physics at WN is the same as AA, DL, UA, US etc. the pilots as a union are usually the most united and the single group that can bring operations to a halt.

Quoting cubsrule (Reply 20):
FL was "doing just fine?" So why the money-losing MKE buildup? Why the foray into the G4 model? Why even approve the merger?

Well WN has also had routes they start and pull back, its normal in the industry, as for agreeing to the "buy out", I think WN only had to convince board members not the staff of FL, who knows what their motives were, I'm betting money, shares in WN and no stress in having to make decisions that affect the value of their shares.


User currently offlinecubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23226 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5101 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 22):
WN bought FL because they needed them, that should say a lot about FL and it should remind WN and it's employees that it's not "perfect".

I don't think it says a thing about FL beyond that FL had assets (not people) that WN needed/wanted - 717s and ATL.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5163 times:

Quoting cubsrule (Reply 24):
I don't think it says a thing about FL beyond that FL had assets (not people) that WN needed/wanted - 717s and ATL.

EXACTLY, which means WN wasn't "saving" FL from some demise... they're not the knight on the white horse, WN needed FL's assets. As for it's people, WN has already stated that not only do we NEED the FL employees to continue running the operation, but with WN's increased efficiencies per employee they'll need to continue hiring well after the integration is complete... so I'm not sure what you mean by "not people".... can you imagine, in theory, the administrative costs associated with RE-interviewing and RE-hiring, fully training (transitional training is cheaper) another 4,000 people???.... all while trying to integrate two companies. That would negate the synergy costs of the integration itself.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
25 cubsrule : That makes no sense. If WN is more efficient per employee than FL, WN ought to need fewer people, not more. To your first point, what you are missing
26 par13del : In all cases, the only item FL has that's unique is the 717, which they can park immediately if they want to. FL is a company with assets which inclu
27 kcrwflyer : Because you can't do the exact same thing forever and expect it not to come back to bite you. Successful businesses have to change and adapt with tim
28 cubsrule : To be clear, I'm not suggesting that WN should get rid of FL staff, though I agree that it's doable. But it's silly to pretend that WN bought FL beca
29 par13del : It will be interesting to see what WN does with them, it has the potential to derail their efforts in ATL for a few years. ATL was huge for FL, one w
30 YXwatcherMKE : FL was doing ok in MKE prior to WN arrival in MKE. F9 was also doing better in MKE after the YX merger and Had WN stayed out of MKE there would not h
31 kcrwflyer : My two cents... I feel like MKE could be a great focus city for ONE airline but has become a fight over something nobody wants in it's current state.
32 par13del : Key reason why the other airlines are in trouble, if your cost base cannot support the fare sale price don't match the fare sale, simple economics, t
33 cubsrule : What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
34 Revelation : Ok, if FL was such a basket case, why did WN offer a significant premium over market to buy them? All they had to do was just get 51% at market price
35 cubsrule : They wanted in to ATL. I can buy "doing OK." FL had a significant revenue problem, and you can't keep your costs bottom of the barrel forever. Sooner
36 WNCrew : ...and as hard as it is for many MANY of my coworkers to comprehend, the employees of WN are no different, myself included. I am a flight attendant a
37 Revelation : Ok, then, how much time and money would it take you to screen through the 5x applicants (hopefully enough in each domicile), screen out the ones who
38 wjcandee : Same arrogant crap many AA-ers threw at the TWA folks, many of whom were stellar and frankly people that I much preferred to fly with. It allowed the
39 cubsrule : But when did I say that? Many - probably most - frontline employees in the industry (all carriers) are equally replaceable. By what metric? You are c
40 SPREE34 : And promptly begin losing money on the leases, not to mention reduced revenue from closed cities and traffic lost to other carriers. The 717 is good
41 DCA-ROCguy : Regarding the "AllegianTran" operation, IMO it was likely a defensive move. Allegiant has been very successful, in part, by flying to one of AirTran'
42 wjcandee : It's not doable because the owners wouldn't sell the physical assets alone because they are worth more as part of a going concern. WN, as a public co
43 cubsrule : Precisely. You are making my point in to something it isn't and never was.
44 Post contains links LoneStarMike : From the Dallas Morning News: Gary Kelly talks about AirTran pilot leaders turning down seniority integration agreement LoneStarMike
45 par13del : The only problem that I have with the process is that 4 parties are not involved in the negotiations, the boards of both companies started this proces
46 SPREE34 : That's how the law says it works. By law, they can't be abrogated. Thet are required to follow legal precedent and laws in renegotiating a new CBA. A
47 WWTRAVELER99 : Ok so WN cannot simply shift assets, from what I am reading of your post. Now what if they were to simply park the aircraft and replace that with a n
48 par13del : I know, just venting / complaining, thanks. Th situation at US Airways should have spurred something, similar to what resulted from AA / TWA and the
49 rumorboy : M/B does NOT prevent any type of downsizing. All that M/B law does is provide a "fair and equitable list" when it comes to merging two separate lists
50 SPREE34 : I'm quoted here, but didn't make the statement.
51 WWTRAVELER99 : What if they do not merge the two companies? From the article LoneStarMike posted: "So at this point we'll move forward. There is a process agreement
52 par13del : If both companies are operated seperately, what would have been the point of the purchase there would be no economies of scale. Start stripping asset
53 WWTRAVELER99 : Not sure what the point would be but as you can see that is apparently what WN is thinking about doing. WW
54 ChicagoFlyer : Very confused by what you guys mean. "Operating separately" does not mean that management is not integrated. WN now has more planes to schedule and l
55 WWTRAVELER99 : Yes they are the same company. As far as "operating seperately", that would mean that there is still an AirTran and a Southwest flying with each havi
56 wjcandee : I think there's some confusion. There is no chance that WN will operate FL separately and that's not what Kelly is saying. What he is saying is that t
57 WWTRAVELER99 : I think these two statments by Kelly mean that someway somehow FL will be disolved if SLI interfers with WN's culture and morle. WW
58 wjcandee : It's sabre-rattling. And to some extent it's kissing the collective butts of the incumbent unions. Also, I would take all statements from Kelly about
59 WWTRAVELER99 : I do not completely disagree with you, it very well could be just sabre-rattling. At this point I would say it is just a threat. But no one knows for
60 wjcandee : If he affirmatively acts to screw the Aitran folks, he will necessarily change the culture of the airline forever, because it will be forever infecte
61 WNCrew : I was thinking the same thing! I also wonder, were the WN pilots in the same boat, how would they view the agreement from the other side? I don't kno
62 WWTRAVELER99 : I have heard that there were many, probably a minority, WN not happy about the agreement. Not sure of the issues on that side. WW
63 grain : i have a feeling that what gary kelly is trying to say is that the FL pilots are giving up a sure thing for something that may or may not be better th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fate Of AirTran's 717s In Any Merger Situation? posted Sat Mar 13 2010 19:21:02 by 1337Delta764
Couple Of AirTran Questions (Reg & A+) And B6? posted Thu Oct 29 2009 14:50:38 by JetBlueGuy2006
WN Buyout Of F9 Beneficial For UA In DEN posted Tue Aug 11 2009 11:41:22 by N104UA
BA Completes Purchase Of L'Avion posted Sat Jul 26 2008 07:16:44 by VV701
Cnac May Block SQ's Proposed Purchase Of MU posted Wed Dec 12 2007 02:16:45 by Cloudyapple
Bob Fornaro Appointed New CEO Of AirTran posted Wed Oct 31 2007 16:53:51 by AirTran737
Possibility Of AirTran At FWA? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 03:12:44 by FWAERJ
LH Purchase Of IB posted Wed May 9 2007 22:27:50 by Qazar
YVR Finalised The Purchase Of Remaing YHM Shares. posted Thu Mar 15 2007 16:45:37 by RickYHM
Judge Approves NWA's Purchase Of Mesaba posted Wed Feb 28 2007 00:16:11 by KarlB737