Look, I have to some what apologize about my earlier posting. I was a little rambunctious and a little under the influence simultaneously, which never ends well. I did mean what I said about the DFW guys, but I didn't need to approach it in such an abrasive manner. For that, my apologies. It's just that I've gotten the opportunity to work with some of those guys and they are good people, undeserving of what's happening to them, but they're understanding about this being a nature of the beast situation, so their humbleness instead of angry made me even angrier for them at the results of the vote. It had nothing to do with Us not having a say in the vote, it was the whole situation that was $hitty. If the tables were turned, I would have been on the fence with my vote as well, but probably would have voted yes. But, it wasn't my vote and there's nothing that can be said nor done about it now, so moving on.
I've already posted the max I'm willing to give, we get a roughly 30% increase in pay thanks to the AMFA negotiations and the company agreement, so using the law of averages and the weight bare and loss to gain benefit for the SWA guys, I will not vote in anything above 30% decrease in AT seniority, with the march 29th LOA being removed for the SWA contract and the TA amended to show pay retroed back to at least SOC, if not even sooner.
30% is the max fairest method to use instead of years. It has the impact on the AT side that AMFA wants and a least impact on the majority of the AT side. Also, it's the average pay rate advantage that we get transitioning over to SWA. So 30% or less is the number if we all agree it's a one time thing, no strings attached. (removal of the LOA's, no fence, and we get the pay in return) but the 30% hit goes back to no later than the purchase date or Date of closing. I would be a 100% yes vote to those terms.
Again, my apologizes to those I may have offended in my earlier post, it wasn't my intention.
