Transfer Of Pilots With Any Asset Sales
- Thread starter birdseyeview
- Start date
"The US Airways ALPA contract states that if more than 15% of the mainline assets are sold then pilots have to transfer with those assets."
Then the problem becomes two fold.
First off, who values the 15%? What USAir mgt considers 15% is not going to be the same as what ALPA considers 15%.
Secondly, what happens if a non ALPA carrier(AA, Jet Blue, SWA) purchases the assets. They are not going to care what ALPA has to say about 5-10-15 or 20%.
Who says who goes? Ask the Pan Am 747 pilots if they thought they got a fair deal? Seniority has very little to do with it.
Then the problem becomes two fold.
First off, who values the 15%? What USAir mgt considers 15% is not going to be the same as what ALPA considers 15%.
Secondly, what happens if a non ALPA carrier(AA, Jet Blue, SWA) purchases the assets. They are not going to care what ALPA has to say about 5-10-15 or 20%.
Who says who goes? Ask the Pan Am 747 pilots if they thought they got a fair deal? Seniority has very little to do with it.
What if they just sell the routes and gates, then turn around and park aircraft and furlough. What's ALPA's legal recourse with that.
Looks to me like Bronner and Siegle are throwing another fear grenade and posturing for another round of union concessions. What you don't hear them saying is how much more they need. When you don't have a business plan, I guess you do have to balance your books on the backs of employees.
Do you think Seigle is finished packing his gold parachute yet?
Looks to me like Bronner and Siegle are throwing another fear grenade and posturing for another round of union concessions. What you don't hear them saying is how much more they need. When you don't have a business plan, I guess you do have to balance your books on the backs of employees.
Do you think Seigle is finished packing his gold parachute yet?
I don't even think it matters.G4G5 said:
If any significant asset sale must come with even the chance of employees being included, no one will have any interest in buying. Nothing even close to 15% of the assets U has, however measured, is THAT valuable that can't be obtained by other means.
A clause like this may look good on paper, but it will severely limit U's ability to sell any significant assets to raise cash, should it ever get to that point.
I disagree, the Pan Am Shuttle was sold with the 727's and flight crews. The Trump Shuttle was sold with aircraft and flight crews. If an A320 operator like Jet Blue or NWA (UAL is out of the equation) were to aquire the Shuttle my guess is that the would offer to take the/some employees. The Shuttle is it's own entity and in order to keep the customer happy, a turn key operation would be the best.
But if a non ALPA carrier like AA, with no A320's were to aquire the gates and slots. Then my guess is that the results would be different.
IMHO the third sceniro, is, if a company like CAL were to aquire it. They are ALPA and would be interested in doing what they can but they still have pilots on furlough. Then it's anyones guess.
This is all just conjecture. None of the majors have the cash to do anything. None of the major's unions are going to be willing to give back concessions to purchase assets and take the employees. The only ones with the money are the LCC.
You need to start thinking along the lines of what would the LCC's be interested in?
I could see Airtran offer to purchase some of the LGA or PIT facility. JetBlue could offer to purchase the Shuttle in an effort to secure more space. LUV could be interested in more space in the CLT or PHL facilities.
Then you need to ask, will SWA, JetBlue or Airtran be interested in taking the pilots ( associated flight crew and support).
Let's be honest here, that's where the money is. CAL, NWA and AA are doing all the can to survive and the next few months are not the time for the majors to be out looking to spend some cash. Bonner would have to be interested in taking a stock only position for the U's assests. IMHO, he would rather have the cash (LCC's)
But if a non ALPA carrier like AA, with no A320's were to aquire the gates and slots. Then my guess is that the results would be different.
IMHO the third sceniro, is, if a company like CAL were to aquire it. They are ALPA and would be interested in doing what they can but they still have pilots on furlough. Then it's anyones guess.
This is all just conjecture. None of the majors have the cash to do anything. None of the major's unions are going to be willing to give back concessions to purchase assets and take the employees. The only ones with the money are the LCC.
You need to start thinking along the lines of what would the LCC's be interested in?
I could see Airtran offer to purchase some of the LGA or PIT facility. JetBlue could offer to purchase the Shuttle in an effort to secure more space. LUV could be interested in more space in the CLT or PHL facilities.
Then you need to ask, will SWA, JetBlue or Airtran be interested in taking the pilots ( associated flight crew and support).
Let's be honest here, that's where the money is. CAL, NWA and AA are doing all the can to survive and the next few months are not the time for the majors to be out looking to spend some cash. Bonner would have to be interested in taking a stock only position for the U's assests. IMHO, he would rather have the cash (LCC's)
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
I don't think that the government would approve a sale of many assets without including the employees. If I remember correctly ALL of those instances you cited transferred employees of many categories with the assets. I don't know why people think that this would be a problem, especially with the non-union carriers. In that case, they get what they get, no questions asked. The BIG problem with selling assets is that NO assets sold alone will even come close to paying off the ATSB guaranteed loan, so the RSA wouldn't see a dime (unless they somehow jacked up the common stock price, then sold theirs). Selling assets is a very short term solution to anything, and would probably mean that the liquidation has begun. The big losers would be the employees and the RSA investors. I gotta tell ya, this threatening approach to negotiations is getting real old, not just for me, but apparently to WALL STREET as well.
Even if this language is in the contract, and assuming that the contract is not adhered to, what can the pilots do force the company to comply? The way I see it is:USA320Pilot said:The US Airways ALPA contract states that if more than 15% of the mainline assets are sold then pilots have to transfer with those assets.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
By the way...
John McCorkle wrote in his newsletter US Airways is in the process of distributing a booklet to all employees entitled "Business Conduct and Ethics Policy." I have not seen a copy of this booklet, however, McCorkle said, "Employees are banned from identifying themselves as US Airways employees online. Furthermore, employees are "prohibited from identifying yourself as a company employee when posting comments on the internet or on other online services. This rule applies even if a statement is included that clearly states the user is expressing his or her own ideas and not necessarily those of the company."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
1) They sue... But by the time it is resolved, all of the jobs created by the acquiring carrier are likely filled... Any financial settlement just gets lumped on top of US Airways other debts
2) The non-furloughed active pilots remaining after the asset sale strike (or take other work action) in order to support their brethren... Noble, but shuts the company down completely, and gives management a scape-goat.
3) Do nothing. Employee morale drops even lower. US Airways furloughs more, pushes more J4J. Mainline Labor CASM increases because the average seniority increases, thus average compensation increases.
These all sound like loser situations to me.
By the way:
US - US Airways IATA Code
A320 - Common shorthand for Airbus A320 equipment
Pilot - position, job, occupation of commanding and aircraft or seacraft.
Sounds like self identification. Do you even read what you post, or do you purposefully ignore it? It doesn't really matter to me, just seems odd you would post the rules while breaking them.
It all depends upon the asset. When Pan Am sold the Pacific, some pilots went to UAL. When Pan Am and TWA sold the LHR routes, nobody went. When Pan Am sold the Europe operation to DAL only the A310 pilots went. You never know.
Typically only the minimum number of pilots get transfered. In some situtaions only the captains quallified on the equipment that changes hands. You never know.
One thing that has been the case in recent aquisitions, the pilots aquired get merged into the seniority list at an 8:1 ratio. Starting at the equivalent type of equipment. Pan Am A310 pilots were given equal status as DAL 767 pilots. TWA 767 pilots were given equal ststus as AA 767 pilots. Then both were merged in at an 8:1 ratio. I would expect to see the same at USAir, IF a major purchases the assets. Hypotheticly CAL 737, NWA A320, AA 737 would equal a USAir 320. BUT if an LCC purchases the assets then the merger becomes extremely difficult. What does a non ALPA carrier like LUV or JetBlue, who only operates A320/737's do? Certianly not start at the top of the list, no DOH here? It's anyones guess.
Typically only the minimum number of pilots get transfered. In some situtaions only the captains quallified on the equipment that changes hands. You never know.
One thing that has been the case in recent aquisitions, the pilots aquired get merged into the seniority list at an 8:1 ratio. Starting at the equivalent type of equipment. Pan Am A310 pilots were given equal status as DAL 767 pilots. TWA 767 pilots were given equal ststus as AA 767 pilots. Then both were merged in at an 8:1 ratio. I would expect to see the same at USAir, IF a major purchases the assets. Hypotheticly CAL 737, NWA A320, AA 737 would equal a USAir 320. BUT if an LCC purchases the assets then the merger becomes extremely difficult. What does a non ALPA carrier like LUV or JetBlue, who only operates A320/737's do? Certianly not start at the top of the list, no DOH here? It's anyones guess.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
Obviously you're not familiar with the ALPA SCOPE language found in the Pilot and likely F/A contract as well. It spells these things out very specifically. Besides, in an effort to get a favorable decision from the government, any purchasor would likely take some employees (amount to be negotiated). These things ARE NOT done in a vacuum. Also, selling assets these days is not the same as selling routes, which was done frequently in the past but likely would not occur now, since LHR is limited to two carriers ONLY (UAL and AMR), and most other places anybody would want to go has some sort of "open skies" agreement. Generally, crews and agents go with airframes, and any sort of seniority arrangement is purely by negotiation. There is NO precedent for how to do it. Some have been done by "slotting", as you refer (like TWA/AMR, Delta/Western, etc) and others have been date-of-hire (U/PI/PSA). Language in the Pilot agreement is VERY specific about transfer rights in the event a certain portion of the company is sold or tranferred to another.G4G5 said:
Obviously you are not all that familiar with reality. All you need to do is look at AA/TWA AQUISITION to get an idea of what will happen. TWA had a very clear ALPA intergration policy and ask them how well it worked?
Not every carreir is ALPA. Now consider the fact that the odds of a non ALPA like AA, SWA, JetBlue, not sure about Airtran (but Lenord could care less about what ALPA has to say) or Virgin will be doing the buying. The ALPA majors are the miniority. CAL and NWA are all you have and their ballance sheets are not that strong (DAL doesn't need a Shuttle or a CLT base, UAL is still CH11)
You want to talk about the government ? Ask the former MO. Senator Carnahan or MO. Senator Kit Bond how well that went? The state of MO was guranteed jobs by AA for the MCI and STL bases and look what happened. The ALPA pilots had to sign away their rights and received 8:1 (these were guys who paid years and years of dues to ALPA and ALPA did NOTHING for them). All of the FA's were stapled and eventually let go. The STL base has been reduced to an RJ hub, not even AA or Eagle but AA connection. I rest my case. The gov will do what's best for jobs, they don't care whose name is on the side of the aircraft/terminal/hanger, just as long as someone is creating jobs and paying taxes. Senator Bond even tried to ride on the backs of the 9/11 victims, by trying to attach protection for the TWA employees to the 9/11 bill and look where that got them.
History has shown, on more then on occassion, the ALPA SCOPE clause you refer to is not worth the paper it's written on. It's very similar to the No Furlough protection limit of the week. DAL/Pan Am was an ALPA/ALPA merger. How did the senior 747 pilots make out? Don't let the door hit you in the AS on the way out, and these were guys who like most of the USAir pilots paid decades of dues to ALPA. What kind of intergration did the UAL pilots offer the USAir pilots? And that was when times were good and the U pilots had something to offer. Pilots will eat their young to protect their number and if you think an ALPA Scope clause will protect you, you are sadly mistaken.
"No precedent"
This is where you are wrong, the aquiring union has to be able to have their intergration methold hold up in a court of law. Their is will me no merger of equals. It will be an AQUISITION, similar to the only two major pilot AQUISITION intergrations of the past 15 years. They know as sure as the sun shines that the pilots of USAir will file a law suit . So YES, their is a precedent. you will get what Pan Am and TWA got because, it's tried and tested in a court of law. No aquiring group of pilots is going to offer any more, because the legal precedent has been set, they don't have to.
Ask any TWA pilot how well his VERY specific language held up. It was the VERY first thing to go.
Not every carreir is ALPA. Now consider the fact that the odds of a non ALPA like AA, SWA, JetBlue, not sure about Airtran (but Lenord could care less about what ALPA has to say) or Virgin will be doing the buying. The ALPA majors are the miniority. CAL and NWA are all you have and their ballance sheets are not that strong (DAL doesn't need a Shuttle or a CLT base, UAL is still CH11)
You want to talk about the government ? Ask the former MO. Senator Carnahan or MO. Senator Kit Bond how well that went? The state of MO was guranteed jobs by AA for the MCI and STL bases and look what happened. The ALPA pilots had to sign away their rights and received 8:1 (these were guys who paid years and years of dues to ALPA and ALPA did NOTHING for them). All of the FA's were stapled and eventually let go. The STL base has been reduced to an RJ hub, not even AA or Eagle but AA connection. I rest my case. The gov will do what's best for jobs, they don't care whose name is on the side of the aircraft/terminal/hanger, just as long as someone is creating jobs and paying taxes. Senator Bond even tried to ride on the backs of the 9/11 victims, by trying to attach protection for the TWA employees to the 9/11 bill and look where that got them.
History has shown, on more then on occassion, the ALPA SCOPE clause you refer to is not worth the paper it's written on. It's very similar to the No Furlough protection limit of the week. DAL/Pan Am was an ALPA/ALPA merger. How did the senior 747 pilots make out? Don't let the door hit you in the AS on the way out, and these were guys who like most of the USAir pilots paid decades of dues to ALPA. What kind of intergration did the UAL pilots offer the USAir pilots? And that was when times were good and the U pilots had something to offer. Pilots will eat their young to protect their number and if you think an ALPA Scope clause will protect you, you are sadly mistaken.
"No precedent"
This is where you are wrong, the aquiring union has to be able to have their intergration methold hold up in a court of law. Their is will me no merger of equals. It will be an AQUISITION, similar to the only two major pilot AQUISITION intergrations of the past 15 years. They know as sure as the sun shines that the pilots of USAir will file a law suit . So YES, their is a precedent. you will get what Pan Am and TWA got because, it's tried and tested in a court of law. No aquiring group of pilots is going to offer any more, because the legal precedent has been set, they don't have to.
Ask any TWA pilot how well his VERY specific language held up. It was the VERY first thing to go.
Integrating parts of another company's pilot group onto a seniority list when the acquiring company has on-furlough, large numbers of its own pilots would be an absolute nightmare scenario. In the case of American, the rancor from the TWA acquisition is still fresh.
Another interesting aspect would be, how would the acquired pilots be chosen? Given the chances of long-term survival of U being questionable, and assuming that aircraft went with the deal, would it only be pilots qualified in the aircraft transferred (say 320s or 737s), or could senior pilots on other equipment trump them out. . . . . and, if so, who would pay for the retraining and lost utilization? Would there be a fight among U pilots themselves to see who gets out the escape hatch first?
Ugly, very ugly.
Another interesting aspect would be, how would the acquired pilots be chosen? Given the chances of long-term survival of U being questionable, and assuming that aircraft went with the deal, would it only be pilots qualified in the aircraft transferred (say 320s or 737s), or could senior pilots on other equipment trump them out. . . . . and, if so, who would pay for the retraining and lost utilization? Would there be a fight among U pilots themselves to see who gets out the escape hatch first?
Ugly, very ugly.
