autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
BOS ALPA F/O Rep. Update - July 12, 2007
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Junebug172
Veteran
- Sep 26, 2002
- 629
- 1
Oooh, good one there Einstein. How long did that one take to pull out of your backside?
No wonder you east guys are working under LOA 93.
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
E
EastUS
Guest
Junebug172 date='Jul 16 2007, 09:46 PM Post #17
"I have no interest in the east's left seats. Never have."
And that fits in with: "Now gear up and shut up!" in what way exactly? Ummm....Someone is hopelessly hypocritical, or extremely cross threaded at best here. I know that I'm left confused by your postings :blink:
PS: The people I see daily in the cockpit have far, far more experience and overall judgement than your postings indicate about yourself. I fully respect them for their experience and skills. The vast majority of them flew as mainline captains before the hideous downturns in the wake of 9-11. As arrogant and unpleasant as you may well imagine me to be...I've got better sense than to ever insult them, and I'll remind you that airline "Captain" hardly constitutes any actual "Rank". I'd love to have a video made of you trying to intimidate them, or just "play Captain" with them in general. It'd be a sure fire winner on America's Funniest Home Videos.
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
Why dont you look at AWA and what kind of airline you got hired at. Started with scabs continued to scab and had the worse contract for years. You seem a bit upset and moody. Is it that time of the month sweetie?
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
Yes, but my nine years at AWA makes me senior to Chip who has 21 years. And why is that? Well, glad you asked. AWA grew tremendously before buying USAir.
USAir shrank tremendously up to their second bankruptcy.
Have a nice day!
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
Tell me again how much money AWA put towards the merger? You were days away from BK2. I think you were going to shrink " tremendously". Besides all that my airline is better than your airline crap you will not enjoy your windfall anytime soon. When you responded "yes" does that meen that it is JB time of the month? I guess you can tell by the emotional responses from her too. You hit the nail on the head, you are senior to a 21 year guy(I think he has 22) and giddy about it. That is where the problem lays Have a nice day!
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Zero. Same as USAir.
Prove it. SEC filings and industry analyst opinions will suffice. Good luck finding evidence to support your "opinion".
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
I never said we bought you. It is you Westies that think you bought us. I just responded to one of you Westies who said AWA bought US. So I guess we agree on that point. Prove that we were hours away from chapter 7, thats another statement we have to hear as well. Bottom line, it doesnt matter either way. It gets old doesnt it. You Westies can sure dish it out, cant you. Now it is the East is going to be sold off. It goes on and on. We feel we got hosed and we are trying to fix it. We feel St Nick didnt follow ALPO merger policy. It really is that simple. By the way, one of your fellow Westies flipped me the bird during my walk around, real class act the pax on board thought so as well. I bet is was JB.
E
EastUS
Guest
And 9 vs 21-22 actually makes "sense" to you, and is "fair" in which portion of Fantasyland?...or is it "I Got His!!!...MuaHaHa!" Land? No sense in really starting all this again. You simply do NOT "Get It" at any rational level. :down:
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Good. There's a lot of foolish pride on both sides and I choose not to be a part of it.
I can't and I won't try. The only fact is that USairways was in much worse financial shape than AWA. I take no credit nor any pride in that fact.
So don't let yourself be a part of it. Lots of guys just come here to vent and/or to rile-up others. Don't let them. Every airline has their instigators of trouble.
Forgive my bluntness, but you're going to lose this battle. You're free to feel the Nic Award is flawed but you need a preponderance of evidence to prove it. If the EC even suspected the Nic Award was improper it would've already acted. There's no appeal process for binding arbitration and no judge will set it aside without proof of impropriety. If it's your intention to dump ALPA for an in-house union then that's what's going to happen. I predict it will not benefit you (nor us).
You're right; it's totally unacceptable. I was at TWA during the AA stuff so I know all about emotions running high during mergers. I choose to remain a professional and not to let emotion rule my behavior. It's a shame so many pilots on both sides are unable to do so.
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
You have problems answering posts and keeping on topic (which is a pattern I noticed about a lot of you emotional easties). I explained why I am senior to Chip.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
prechilill,
You're the one that's going to need an emotional rescue. Ten years from now, as you taxi through the desert sand, you'll reminisce about what could have been. Sadly, for you, the most exciting thing in your life will be anticipating the measly monthly retirements of HP old farts. Don't worry, you'll move up in 20 years. Meanwhile the East cash cow gets all the new hires and they get to fly wide bodies to Europe. For you it's the same ole same ole: FAT,YUM,BOI.
Later,
Eye
You're the one that's going to need an emotional rescue. Ten years from now, as you taxi through the desert sand, you'll reminisce about what could have been. Sadly, for you, the most exciting thing in your life will be anticipating the measly monthly retirements of HP old farts. Don't worry, you'll move up in 20 years. Meanwhile the East cash cow gets all the new hires and they get to fly wide bodies to Europe. For you it's the same ole same ole: FAT,YUM,BOI.
Later,
Eye
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
Your scenario could be a real possibility, especially if Parker fails to merge again. Odds are that there is another merger, however, and we all may be united whether we like it or not. Unlike Parker's first acquisition, this next merger may unite a few industry leaders and regulators to demand unloading of some assets on the east coast. With a separate seniority list I would hope a resolution could be worked out between the separate MEC's to remain united. However, as they say, united we stand, divided we fall.
If a merger were to happen, the DC area could be a prime target for a sale of united proportions and serve many purposes if unloaded. Spinoff of DCA though could satisfy industry regulators, industry competitors and provide funds to finance a merger. It would be interesting to see if the sale would include airplanes and crews or if Parker would have to furlough employees. Again, until we are united we may never have the opportunity to live under a united contract and reap the benefits unity brings.
Have a nice day!
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #45
What the West pilots do not understand is that the majority of the East pilots would rather remain separate and keep their DOH seniority then negotiate a joint contract and have the Nicolau Award proceed.
Moreover, the majority of the combined operations revenue is on the East Coast and PHX/LAS are low yeild markets. In a merger there may be more concern on a PHX/LAS downsizing because other airlines have a stronger operations, which would create even larger profits when combined with US Airways' East Coast operation.
For example, at a recent Wall Street conference United indicated it wanted a merger partner "a compatible mate, with a presence in both the Northeast and the South and a yen for travel in Latin America."
See Story
I'm not sure, but that does not sound like much downsizing to me. During the failed 2000 merger the DOJ offered the parties a remedy to proceed with the merger, which did not result in a major East Coast downsizing.
Here's what happened:
On July 12 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.
On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.
Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver†versus “problem maker†and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.
During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action†letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.
Sources with knwoldege of the discussions indicated UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22â€. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.
When UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.
Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Moreover, the majority of the combined operations revenue is on the East Coast and PHX/LAS are low yeild markets. In a merger there may be more concern on a PHX/LAS downsizing because other airlines have a stronger operations, which would create even larger profits when combined with US Airways' East Coast operation.
For example, at a recent Wall Street conference United indicated it wanted a merger partner "a compatible mate, with a presence in both the Northeast and the South and a yen for travel in Latin America."
See Story
I'm not sure, but that does not sound like much downsizing to me. During the failed 2000 merger the DOJ offered the parties a remedy to proceed with the merger, which did not result in a major East Coast downsizing.
Here's what happened:
On July 12 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.
On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.
Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver†versus “problem maker†and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.
During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action†letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.
Sources with knwoldege of the discussions indicated UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22â€. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.
When UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.
Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
