michael707767
Senior
- Aug 21, 2002
- 332
- 0
got news for you, ALPA merger policy makes no mention of DOH. Whether or not Delta gets thrown in the mix, don't expect a DOH merger for the pilots.
LCC Proposes $8B merger with Delta
- Thread starter rf1r
- Start date
got news for you, ALPA merger policy makes no mention of DOH. Whether or not Delta gets thrown in the mix, don't expect a DOH merger for the pilots.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
We've painted 130 planes and are about to do it all again. Somebody somewhere at the top of this pyramid scheme must own a paint shop or two.
After Hours: 59.50 0.00 (0.00%)
Last Trade: 59.50
Trade Time: 4:01PM ET
Change: 8.57 (16.83%)
Prev Close: 50.93
Open: 53.50
Bid: N/A
Ask: N/A
1y Target Est: 68.00
Day's Range: 53.35 - 59.65
52wk Range: 28.30 - 56.41
Volume: 13,694,800
Avg Vol (3m): 1,619,260
Market Cap: 5.28B
P/E (ttm): 128.23
EPS (ttm): 0.46
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A)
WOW!!!
Last Trade: 59.50
Trade Time: 4:01PM ET
Change: 8.57 (16.83%)
Prev Close: 50.93
Open: 53.50
Bid: N/A
Ask: N/A
1y Target Est: 68.00
Day's Range: 53.35 - 59.65
52wk Range: 28.30 - 56.41
Volume: 13,694,800
Avg Vol (3m): 1,619,260
Market Cap: 5.28B
P/E (ttm): 128.23
EPS (ttm): 0.46
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A)
WOW!!!
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
I'm very familiar with ALPA Merger Policy. It also does not EXCLUDE DOH if it meets the other criteria.
In this case, it just might.
Having been through three previous ALPA seniority list integrations, I can assure you it never turns out the way you think it will. You simply have to live with it and move on.
When looking at the "New" US Airways paint scheme, it really looks very simple to convert the aircraft to Delta's current colors. Strip the navy on the belly to a natural metal (or on Airbus, gray), get rid of the light gray swoosh stripes on the back, change the tail and the name...voila, Delta!
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Parker is certainly implying that that is part of the plan. Increasing market share and emphasizing bigger city pairs would suggest such. Also, DL may still have some ability to reject and park RJ contracts.
michael707767
Senior
- Aug 21, 2002
- 332
- 0
no doesn't exclude it, I grant you that. But the differences in years of service between the three pilot groups make it very, very unlikely any merger would be by DOH.
USCREW
Veteran
Aren't two of the three groups very close in seniority? Does the contract say something like "what is best for the majority"?
flyingcat
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2005
- 658
- 0
US has two major RJ (ZW and RP) contracts that they could not get out of. The YV (Mesa) contract is with HP and since they did not go through bankruptcy that could not be terminated. Much of the current US ethos is to try and get rid of as many CRJs as possible and to upgauge. Republic deal helped a lot. If anything this is another stab in the heart to the regional operators who have to be freaking out about even more CRJ's being parked.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Nobody is close to U East...every other major airline has at least junior captain seniority for 1989 hires. At U East, a 1989 hire is on the street and has been on the street for several years. Ain't no way DALPA will go for DOH. I suspect this is the last thing the East negotiators needed right before the arbitration hearings begin.
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
As I said before, the PENDING DL merger will have no bearing on the US/AW seniority list integration process.
Arbitrator Nicolau is only hearing the cases presented by those parties and will rule after weighing each position. A merged list should be completed around March/April 2007.
If USAirways should merge with DL that will be another stand alone seniority list integration. Then the "New USAirways" pilots and the "Old Delta" pilots will repeat this process until a "New Delta Airways" seniority list is achieved.
I imagine that a lot of Delta Senior Management types aren't going to be sleeping well for some time to come. As Doug Parker said on CNBC a few hours ago, USAirways bid for Delta is "compelling."
By the way AquaGreenie, am I accurate as to your demographics?
JFK and PHL are 2 very different operations. JFK is primarily International for DL and PHL is primarily Domestic for US. If anyone here thinks that things would be better by moving all of the international service from PHL to JFK, they know little about JFK,
1. The gate situation at JFK is much worse than at PHL and the ATC/Weather delays are =. Adding US's PHL domestic traffic to JFK would be just about impossible.
2. Although there is some, compared to JFK there is very little overseas competition at PHL. Building up PHL internationally would potentially be the better choice.
3. US/DL will never abandon the huge O&D market at PHL - it would be financially devastating and immediately erode any economic benefit of the merger.
My guess is for 3 major hubs if the deal is consummated: ATL, PHX and PHL - the 3 best existing cities with both significant O&D and geographic connectability, with several Focus cities, such as CVG, LAS, LGA, BOS and MCO. LAS and MCO primarily for leisure O&D and not as connection cities. CLT, DCA, SLC and PIT could be a candidates for sacrifice to avoid anti-trust. More than 3 BIG hubs would be too costly to maintain. If you try and dismiss PHL because of it's current problems, you may as well apply the same to ATL. The 10% capacity reduction - as well as many projected changes in the merged network, will probably be very different after final negotiations. I'd bet the capacity reduction goes to more like 20% - with the reduced routes/cities being divested to other airlines to avoid anti-trust issues.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
The $64,000 question is Nicolau's interpretation of the ALPA merger policy. That interpretation will be formed through question and answer to both negotiation teams, input from the pilot neutrals, and you can bet your life savers from ALPA national itself. And therein lies the rub: the responses from all the above, less the U East team, will be that the ALPA merger policy in no way mandates or prefers DOH. Then the question will be posed to the unlucky East negotiator when he will be asked point blank by Nicolau: "Does the ALPA merger policy mean DOH?" And with that your poor negotiator will stammer and stumble through a resonse, trying to dodge the easy yes/no answer. But everyone in the room will know that the answer is clearly "no." This arbitration centers around a heretofor unanswered question: What is "fair and equitable" as contained in the national policy? Courts certify questions of law to other courts all the time. It's common practice for federal courts to certify questions to state courts on matters of state law. Arbitrators have far more discretion and leeway as to who they talk to and what evidence they use to base their decisions. Unlike a civil or criminal trial where the rules of procedure severely limit what evidence can be introuduced and considered, third party interests in arbitrations such as those of LCC and ALPA national are very relevant and will be heavily considered. When the question gets certified to ALPA national (or whatever the process is called in the arbitration world), you can bet that that the DALPA representative at national will have something to say. Nobody could possibly believe for a second that DALPA would be amenable to a DOH integration with USAirways. And it is completely unplausible to believe in a second that DALPA would have a passive, ho-hum interest in the outcome of this arbitration. And it won't stop there - think of the UAL, NWA, ALK reps etc. All those carriers have 1989 captains and not a single one of them would want this arbitration to cement the interpretation of "fair and equitable" to mean "DOH." Not a single one. I don't think U East has much support anywhere on this one.
