jimntx
Veteran
There you go again...trying to apply a law to the AA-TWA combo that did not even exist until AFTER the purchase/merger/peanut butter sandwich was complete.
Did US (HP) acquire AMR, was it a merger or what ?
- Thread starter Barfbag
- Start date
There you go again...trying to apply a law to the AA-TWA combo that did not even exist until AFTER the purchase/merger/peanut butter sandwich was complete.
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
I remember Carty announcing we had purchased "Substantially all of the assets of TWA".
It wasn't a merger,it was a section 363 asset sale resulting in the formation of TWA airlines LLC.
It wasn't a merger,it was a section 363 asset sale resulting in the formation of TWA airlines LLC.
The rampers represented by the IAM at AT and the rampers represented by the TWU did go to arbitration over this.
http://www.iamdl142.org/Bulletins/2012/WN%202012-23.pdf
These two groups did not go DOH.
Read the award here.
http://twu555.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=MsY5B8Eg6v8%3d&tabid=423
jimntx
Veteran
Ah, Veritas, I do so hope it was you that gave me the negative vote. It again brings the lie to your handle. You don't actually seem to like having the TRUTH brought into the discussion when you are trying to make an anti-AMR point.
According to the NMB: 19.1 Merger
Merger is a consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating contract,
acquisition of control, or similar transaction of two or more business
entities. Same as defined by AA Senior Management, Congress, McCaskill-Bond and everyone else but some AA union workers afraid to do what was right.
Merger is a consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating contract,
acquisition of control, or similar transaction of two or more business
entities. Same as defined by AA Senior Management, Congress, McCaskill-Bond and everyone else but some AA union workers afraid to do what was right.
jimntx
Veteran
What possible difference does it make for any of us? Are we going to have a childish and endless back and forth such as has occurred between the US East and US West pilots for the next 10 years of "we bought you;" "no, we merged with you;" "We saved you;" "You wouldn't be in business today if it weren't for us??????"
It is what it is, and our well-being or careers was NOT taken into account in the decisions that were (and are) being made. If majority rules, then more than likely the AA unions will be the surviving entities. (And, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying necessarily that is the better outcome. It's just the probability.) We can make ourselves just about as miserable or happy over this as we choose. If you want to be miserable, or feel cheated out of something (like seniority) for the next 15 or 20 years, or argue that if they had just listened to you things would be better today, or repeatedly state your interpretation of U.S. labor law as it applied in the Jones vs. Smith case of 1893 and how it applies in this situation...KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT. See how much you change the outcome.
It is what it is, and our well-being or careers was NOT taken into account in the decisions that were (and are) being made. If majority rules, then more than likely the AA unions will be the surviving entities. (And, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying necessarily that is the better outcome. It's just the probability.) We can make ourselves just about as miserable or happy over this as we choose. If you want to be miserable, or feel cheated out of something (like seniority) for the next 15 or 20 years, or argue that if they had just listened to you things would be better today, or repeatedly state your interpretation of U.S. labor law as it applied in the Jones vs. Smith case of 1893 and how it applies in this situation...KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT. See how much you change the outcome.
In the US-HP merger they tried best practices which sounds fine but the underestimated push back and training curves from workers generally reluctant to change.
What I like about the new transition they say identiy weaknessess (I.E. an outdated AA system or procedure, but you will still merge US into the old AA system. Then after integration a reassement of the legecy AA systems. The end result may be a bunch of new technology 4-5 years down the road, that you would never have seen with a "best Practices" approach or no merger at all.
What I like about the new transition they say identiy weaknessess (I.E. an outdated AA system or procedure, but you will still merge US into the old AA system. Then after integration a reassement of the legecy AA systems. The end result may be a bunch of new technology 4-5 years down the road, that you would never have seen with a "best Practices" approach or no merger at all.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
I've been thru a few mergers over the years, and have never played into the who bought who mindset. I can say that some of the stuff that US trashed when they merged with PI was a huge mistake. Instead of evaluating what were the better items from either side, US mgmt. dumped just about everything PI did, and went with their "Mirror Image" ways. Famous saying of that's what we do in PIT didn't go to far, and it became very evident within 2 years following the merger when the decade long string if losses began. On a side note, one of thier discarded items was a guy named Gordon Bethune.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Oh, please. We've already had 12 years of that over the TWA deal... what's another decade?...
I wouldn't predict that the AA incumbent unions wind up as the surviving entities, particularly where ramp and wrenches are concerned. In principle, you're correct that the AA employees are going to disproportionately drive the outcome. But depending on how deep some of the splits are within workgroups, it's not a given.
Example... there are some likely scenarios by which ALPA could be voted in. If 100% of the HP pilots, and a fair number of the US pilots were to decide that USAPA has been a mistake, and ~40% of the AA pilots came to the conclusion that APA has been a liability, you could see ALPA winning a majority if not a plurality. It may require a runoff to determine the victor, but it's quite possible.
Same thing could happen with APFA...
jimntx
Veteran
Well, if you know so much more than the Federal courts and the Federal agencies, why are you on here? Shouldn't you be counting your millions? Whether the AA-TWA combo was done rightly or wrongly, it was done and it is over with. Before long the AA-LCC combo will be done. As I said, no one cares (or should), because the outcome is in no way up to us. Threaten all the lawsuits you wish. And, I'm willing to bet that any future lawsuits will be just about as successful as the past ones. If the Federal agencies give their blessing to this combo--not anti-trust, not anti-competitive--more than likely, so will the courts. Deal with it.
Everybody needs a hobby. And, just so that the record is complete and accurate, there was never a ruling on the merits, only on jurisdictional and procedural grounds (so-called technicalities).
I am.
I believe that the only reason this is a question is because Parker will be running the company.
Did US buy AA...no.
Did US save AA...no.
Was AA desperate to merger...no
If Horton would have been running the new company...I think there'd be no question that this was an acquisition of US by AA.
And I believe the only reason he's not running the new company is that the unions made a big enough stink that, that the "powers-that-be" decided there would be a better chance of success with Parker. I think this was a very short-sighted decision on everyone's part...but that's the way we're going, so I hope the unions are smarter than everyone thinks they are.
Did US buy AA...no.
Did US save AA...no.
Was AA desperate to merger...no
If Horton would have been running the new company...I think there'd be no question that this was an acquisition of US by AA.
And I believe the only reason he's not running the new company is that the unions made a big enough stink that, that the "powers-that-be" decided there would be a better chance of success with Parker. I think this was a very short-sighted decision on everyone's part...but that's the way we're going, so I hope the unions are smarter than everyone thinks they are.
The LLPs and the definition of airline mergers, which I posted above, date back to the fifties and sixties and was formally adopted by the CAB in the Allegheny-Mohawk case, 59 C.A.B. 45 in 1972.
Ford Harrison Legal Alert:
Specifically, the amendment (proposed by Senator McCaskill from Missouri) amends § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 156, by providing that "with respect to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the [RLA], the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB] in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the covered employees of the covered air carrier." The amendment also provides that any individual, including a labor organization representing the individual, claiming to be aggrieved as a result of a violation of the LPPs may file suit in federal court.
The LPPs referred to in the amendment were established by the CAB in 1972. The CAB routinely imposed LPPs in the 1950s and 60s in airline mergers and, in its 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk decision, formalized a standard set of LPPs granting specific forms of financial aid and other rights to employees affected by a CAB-approved merger.
[font=Helvetica Neue']
[/font][/font]
Sorry to disappoint you. I was off these boards between Saturday night and Monday morning. You are the one who is posting lies and making false allegations.
