America West Pilots Seek Pay For Efforts Toward

[jimntx]

Actually, I have my doubts that the corporate merger will go forward without cooperation from the unions. I don't think a prudent investor would leave their money on the table if it looked like the new entity was going to risk labor strife 2-3 years down the road. Would you? It would be interesting to know if some of the new investor agreements had "back out" clauses in the fine print. You know, the "in the event that union issues are not settled prior to the merger date, our investment will be reduced by some percentage (to be determined) up to and including 100%" type of thing.

And, both companies need the new outside investors to finance the corporate transaction.

 

[firstamendment]

Actually, I have my doubts that the corporate merger will go forward without cooperation from the unions. I don't think a prudent investor would leave their money on the table if it looked like the new entity was going to risk labor strife 2-3 years down the road. Would you? It would be interesting to know if some of the new investor agreements had "back out" clauses in the fine print. You know, the "in the event that union issues are not settled prior to the merger date, our investment will be reduced by some percentage (to be determined) up to and including 100%" type of thing.

And, both companies need the new outside investors to finance the corporate transaction.

[post="278282"][/post]​

Hey Jim

Everyone is off topic. The AWA Alpa is having to flip the bill for their merger negotiating committee. In the past. the companies paid for the merger committees at US. Since AWA hasn't been through a merger, they are seeking what others, imparticularly US, have had. If AWA and US managements want to merge contracts, they can't expect the unions to pay for something THEY want. After 4 mergers at US, all of a sudden our management wants to do the same.

Where did you guys stir this to a potential pissing match? There was nothing to suggest that a battle was brewing between the work groups. As usual, the headlines and post are twisted to cause trouble.

As I stated in an earlier post, AFA is sitting back and telling the company that when you are willing to pay, we will be willing to move forward. I'm sure the AWA f/a's feel the same way.

Not to aim this at you, Jim, but would you all kindly read the post before causing trouble? It behooves the management teams to start out on the right foot where merger the labor groups together. This is NOT an AWA vs. US issue. Please don't make it what it isn't.

 

[BoeingBoy]

jimntx,

You mean something like this:

Absence of Changes. From the date of this Agreement through the Closing Date, there shall not have occurred any change, event, occurrence, condition or development that has or could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, assets, liabilities, business or results of operations of the Company or West or that would prevent, materially delay or materially impair the ability of the Company, West or Investor to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

First (may I call you First? ), I didn't say that there was a problem between the respective unions. I was responding to a poster who asked why the company should care whether or not the unions got along. If the company can speed up the process by picking up the (relatively) small bills for the merger committees, why would they not be willing to do so? As an investor, I would want to be assured that the unions AND the company had done everything possible to assure that, barring unforeseen circumstances, labor problems would be the least of my worries for the next few years.

It's one thing to say that everyone is embracing and calling each other 'thou' right now. It's another to say that everyone has signed on to a new contract and seniority list.

And, yes, BoeingBoy that is precisely what I meant. Evidently, such clauses do exist.

 

[firstamendment]

I didn't say that there was a problem between the respective unions.  I was responding to a poster who asked why the company should care whether or not the unions got along.  If the company can speed up the process by picking up the (relatively) small bills for the merger committees, why would they not be willing to do so?  As an investor, I would want to be assured that the unions AND the company had done everything possible to assure that, barring unforeseen circumstances, labor problems would be the least of my worries for the next few years. 

It's one thing to say that everyone is embracing and calling each other 'thou' right now.  It's another to say that everyone has signed on to a new contract and seniority list.

[post="278294"][/post]​

Yes you may call me first..better than second.
Sorry if I am defensive, but there always seems to be an underlying attempt to push a negative spin on this merger and inparticularly towards US Airways. Yes, it would be behoove the company to speed along the process. It would be great if most of the unions could be in advances negotiating stages by the time the coorperate merger takes place this fall. Frankly, I think it will.

 

[openview]

If AWA and US managements want to merge contracts, they can't expect the unions to pay for something THEY want.

The AW/US merger(or most any merger) wants economies of scale and the "worst" of the two labor contracts if it has to have any at all. The companies don't need discussions, negotiations or to pay money to know that.

Even as an employee you'd be, in a sense, getting hit twice with the bill of less co profits and union dues.

 

[Bear96]

Bear,

Not to put words in jimntx's mouth, but I think "merger" can mean two different things - the corporate merger and the operational merger.

The corporate merger could go forward without an operational merger, which is what is apparently going to happen since it's said we'll operate separately for 2-3 years.

The operational merger can't go forward until the integration issues have been resolved.

Jim

[post="278275"][/post]​

I took jimntx's comments to be in reference to the operational merger. I am wondering what in the current HP pilot's contract stands in the way of an operational merger.

 

[firstamendment]

I took jimntx's comments to be in reference to the operational merger. I am wondering what in the current HP pilot's contract stands in the way of an operational merger.

[post="278333"][/post]​

Hey Bear

I could be wrong, but I do believe the gov't requires a certain amount of time to transition both carriers into one certifcate.

Not to start a debate on the TWA/AA merger, but did you guys ever operationally merge where all bases were open (-contractual fences) and all aircraft were operated under one certificate. Seems I remember the 2 merged companies not being able to fly each others ac..Step in here as I am unsure on this one.

Again, I do NOT seek a debate between AA/TWA..Just a merger related queri.
Thanks, Bear

 

[Bear96]

Hey Bear

I could be wrong, but I do believe the gov't requires a certain amount of time to transition both carriers into one certifcate.

I understand the regulatory hurdles to merging the fleets, etc. But I am asking what in the pilot's contract would have to be changed before an operational merger can take place. What in the HP pilot contract as written would hold it up?

For example, if HP management wants to play hardball with their pilots, what is stopping them from saying, "In our view, we do not have to change a thing in your contract to proceed with this merger, and any objections you may have are irrelevant. We can combine the U pilots and equipment without violating your contract as it is today." And I know someone will say "seniority" and "training" but what specific language is the obstacle (if anyone here knows)? It seems to me that it would be nice for HP management to agree to some procedural details with their pilots (and also smart because who wants pissed off pilots?), but I don't think it is required. Could be wrong though.

Not to start a debate on the TWA/AA merger, but did you guys ever operationally merge where all bases were open (-contractual fences) and all aircraft were operated under one certificate. Seems I remember the 2 merged companies not being able to fly each others ac..Step in here as I am unsure on this one.

Again, I do NOT seek a debate between AA/TWA..Just a merger related queri.
Thanks, Bear

[post="278349"][/post]​

I with UA, not AA, so sorry but I can't answer your question.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I see what you're saying, Bear. The answer is probably nothing, as long as they wanted to operate an integrated airline with effectively two sets of pilots - each having their own seniority list, scheduling, etc., since those are covered by the contract.

In fact, the only thing I can think of that could possibly come into play is scope, but I have no idea what scope provisions are in the HP contract.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

Hey Bear
Not to start a debate on the TWA/AA merger, but did you guys ever operationally merge where all bases were open (-contractual fences) and all aircraft were operated under one certificate. Seems I remember the 2 merged companies not being able to fly each others ac..Step in here as I am unsure on this one.
.
Thanks, Bear

[post="278349"][/post]​

The TW certificate was surrendered to the government in September of last year or thereabouts. AFAIK, the only "fence" was the fence around STL for the flight attendants. Through some machinations of the company and the APFA, the fence was taken down in Spring, 2003, and all the remaining former TW flight attendants were furloughed on 02JUL2003.

 

[firstamendment]

Thanks, Jim.

I think there is alot to look at and two years should be enough to to intergrate. There is much to be done. An operational merger has alot of decisions to make the airline one..i.e.computer systems, policies and prcedures from customer service to safety. Hell, a decision has to be made on costly issues like aircraft livery and uniforms. We do need to look uniform. While I originally liked our paint job at US, the top of the planes look bad and. I have a feeling a modified paint job will be needed. Anyway, our aircraft tops are peeling and looking very worn. And, we have been in our uniforms for 20 years and I am not too impresses on AWA uniforms. Let's hope investors have this in mind with their figures.

 

[firstamendment]

I with UA, not AA, so sorry but I can't answer your question.

[post="278361"][/post]​

Oops, sorry...I forgot.

 

[PITbull]

With a reduction in workforce and pay, union budgets are under pressure and it is difficult for unions to pay their expenses. The America West ALPA MEC is trying to get management to pay their "flight pay loss" to perform union duties by using the news media as a third party influence versus assessing the membership.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="278040"][/post]​

AFA is trying to do the same thing for the same reasons cited above, but the co. has not put anything in writing yet.

 

[ringmaruf]

The TW certificate was surrendered to the government in September of last year or thereabouts. AFAIK, the only "fence" was the fence around STL for the flight attendants. Through some machinations of the company and the APFA, the fence was taken down in Spring, 2003, and all the remaining former TW flight attendants were furloughed on 02JUL2003.

[post="278368"][/post]​

I could be mistaken since I don't generally pay a whole lot of attention to AA, but I thought the TWA mechanics had fences of some sort at STL and MCI.