UA/US Seniority, what if

[MCI transplant]

:down: Be careful folks! Look to TWA/AA for an example of what could happen! When AA bought TWA, there were aprox. 20,000+TWA employees! Today, there are aprox. 7,000 and more expected to go out the door! What did AA promise Congres to get it's OK to buy? Oh yea! To treat us fairlly!!!!! :angry:

 

[trollydolly]

MCI Transplant;
The difference between the AA/TWA merger, and UAL/US is that they are both under the housing of the same union. In the Unions (AFA) Constitutional and By-Laws, it clearly states that any AFA members airline being bought out by another AFA members airline would keep and maintain their full senority. That's right, 100%. It all goes back to other mergers that have happened in the past and was designed to protect the senority of smaller carriers being gobbled up by larger ones. The issue between UA/US is that they are a fairly senior group, and larger than what this claus in the by-laws was set up for.
I look at it this way. If my carrier was being bought out by another carrier, what would I consider fair. It is a question that I really have thought about. Fair to me, is not 100% bidding seniorty. Fair to me, is 50% of bidding/company senority but 100% vacation and pass travel. Think about it, 100% senority across the board. If there was to be another furlough, and or people were being let go due to an overage, do you think it really fair to the flight atendants who chose to be with UA and not US? Is that really fair to the flight attendants whose company is buying the other one out? I must honestly say, not at all. If someone does not agree with this, then you are one of those me me me me type of people that firstamendment was referring to. Same thing, different situation. If this merger does happen, and nothing has been done to protect the flight attendants at UA, then I can only speculate that it will be very ugly for both flight attendant groups, and I mean both, because there will be a clear distinction between the two in regards to the kind file numbers they will have. h34r:

 

[atabuy]

My opinion about this whole matter of merging seniority has been stated before and when U & Ual were in the process of combining I thought it was a bad idea frome the standpoint of moral and attitudes.
I saw what happened with the Ual / Capital merger and would not want to see something like it again.
Just because different airlines have the same labor unions does not entitle them to merge seniority if one airline is buying another.


If employees worked out of a labor pool and worked all airlines, I could see it. However, when joining the same union as other airline groups, unless you are given a universal seniority number for mergers and acqusitions you should have no rights to merge seniority with another carrier.

To really be fair about this whole thing, all labor unions should vote on how they want seniority to work while no one is trying to buy anyone else.

I would think it would be about self protection and all would say no to integration.
Then everyone could live with the fact that they might have chosen the wrong airline to work for.

If airlines that are bought out have 2 different unions for the same group, how does seniority work then?

If an airline goes out of business, do the employees of the same union have bumping rights to another airline. Of course not. So I think the employees should be hired but not merged in seniority unless that union has a pre-existing rule to allow it.

Just an opinion here, like everyone else.
Good luck to all.

 

[TransWorldONE]

As a victim of the dAArk side, and the worst "integration" ie: "inialation" in airline history I wish both sides luck. Memories are long in the airline buisness. I hope if a merger between UA and US were to happen that it is handled with more dignity and fairness than was givin to us. People are not numbers...or at least they shouldn't be. What's wrong with both parties winning? A cival work environment is a win.

 

[Fly]

Memories are long in the airline business

That is the most accurate statement I think I've ever seen here.

 

[atabuy]

As a victim of the dAArk side, and the worst "integration" ie: "inialation" in airline history I wish both sides luck. Memories are long in the airline buisness. I hope if a merger between UA and US were to happen that it is handled with more dignity and fairness than was givin to us. People are not numbers...or at least they shouldn't be. What's wrong with both parties winning? A cival work environment is a win.

Nothing!
Look at your situation. Without AA buying you guys you were on the path to no job at all. This would have meant going to another airline and starting at the bottom.
At least by your group going to the bottom of AA's seniority list you still had your old seniority status between your peers. Why should AA employees suffer any loss when you chose who you wanted to work for way back when. It could have been Eal.

Look at the situation at Ual buying U for 60 a share.
Employees at Ual gave up wages for 6 years, could not invest in a 401k and gave up work rules so Ual could build a huge profit, which then was going to purchase U and screw Ual employees out of seniority. I don't think so. U employees think we were not being fair. I would have said this: If all U employees gave Ual employees the 60,000 each, they had invested in ESOP stock, you could all intrergrate into the seniority list.
I think there would have been a lot more squealing then.

As I said before, you choose the company, not the union.
Looks like the luckiest employees hired on with Luv.

 

[Bear96]

Looks like the luckiest employees hired on with Luv.

Well I don't know about that. Quite honestly I would not like to work for WN. No offense to them; they certainly have a good thing going over there and seem to enjoy it; but they just don't offer the type of flying I enjoy doing. If it would come down to that being the only thing available to me, I would not be a F/A any more. But to each his own.

As to the seniority issue, Trollydolly is correct. The way the AFA rules are right now, if two AFA carriers merge, everyone keeps their original inflight senoirity date-- there is little question about that, unless that language changes, which is unlikely. However the question that may be more relevant is what happens if one airline is NOT AFA-- what is the best way to handle seniority then? Because there are rumblings at UA about getting out of AFA. Whether anything concrete comes out of the "runblings," who knows and history suggests it won't.

Personally I don't like the AFA language as it is currently. But I am also against a "staple" job as APFA did to TW F/As. I think several principles should be respected... off the top of my head: fences so no one gets forced out of their base by someone from the other airline; "career expectations" like ALPA has; and keeping everyone's RELATIVE seniority as intact as possible-- for example, if you are senior to X percent of people at your airline before the integration, afterwards you should still be senior to the same X percent on the combined seniority list.

 

[Light Years]

Another topic about the bankrupt airline buying the out-of-bankrupcy-but-still-not-doing-so-great-airline thread....?

I'm mystified as to how people dont understand the simple and fair rules put forth by the AFA. FAs at both carriers should be thankful for that. As for the AA/TWA comments, reading someone applaud what happened to them makes me feel ill, just as it does when people hope for other carriers to go under.

There is no "decent trip" worth hoping someone lose thier career. And you'd be surprised at what you think is a decent trip compared to what others do- I know many flight attendants who dont want to be on a plane for more than three hours or have to walk up and down the aisle on anything longer than a 737. I also know flight attendants who only like international, or First Class, or Shuttle, or Metrojet what have you. Some like to be away alot, some like to be within a four hour drive of thier kids at all times.

My idea of a "decent trip" a year ago was a nice crew with good comraderie and offering a service and product to be proud of. Now, my idea of a decent trip would be getting called back from furlough and have one to go on at all.

Theres plenty of union busters and corporate raiders running the places that are trying to get us. Lets not be so out to get one another.

 

[Bizman]

Where is Chip when we need a "good" perspective on this topic?java script:emoticon('')

 

[LavMan]

In the mechanic and related contract we have Alleghany Mohawk LPPs, but during AMFA last unsuccesful raid at UAL they told the mechanics that they would staple the US employees to the bottom and not dovetail.

 

[TVLOOPS]

What about the old Wall Street real merger plan? Not a buy-out but an exchange of stock. Once UAL is out of Ch 11 an exchange of stock could be done with no money changing hands (except to lawyers). Could be one share of new UAL stock equals 0.4 share of USALA stock. This is what used to happen years ago..

Without a buy out, how would the seniority lists be merged?

 

[Pacemaker]

If we assume some date a few years in the future when UAL is out of BK and supposedly in a position to do this then it would also follow that U would be on it's last legs and we would probably have another AA/TW scenario; i. e. "I've got a buyer guys but it's a staple job; take it or leave it you have 24 hours to decide and then we liquidate."

As a pilot on an entry-level jet (737) for a regional airline (US Airways) I don't expect my 16+ years would count for much and I would be looking at permanent narrowbody f/o and furlough if the going gets rough.

IOW about what I have to look forward to without the merger.

 

[ua767fo]

Paraphrasing Paul Whiteford's words to an audience in DEN yesterday....."neither USAirways or us have the money to buy anyone. Merger is not part of the business plan"

Perhaps this fantasy will just die off.

DENVER, CO

 

[767jetz]

Why is everyone talking like this merger idea is happening?

First of all, I am the first to admit that a UA/US merger has been on the radar for many years. And anything is possible. And I'm sure there are plenty of possible scenarios being tossed around.

That being said, a deal at this time is NOT part of UA's plan. Plain and simple. If it ever happens in the future, you can rest assured that there is no seniority solution that will make everyone happy. The only solution where everyone is treated the same, is one where NO ONE is happy. Otherwise there would be winners and losers. Some would be better off, some would be about the same, and some would be worse off. That's just the nature of the game. Who ever ends up at the bottom will feel unjustly treated.

And keep in mind that seniority affects different groups differently. For example, flight attendant's seniority affects the type of trips they fly, while pilot's seniority affect the type of airplanes and our payscale. I can't speak for other groups, but ALPA policy no longer has any reference to date-of-hire. It does take into consideration career expectations. And this can be a VERY subjective decision.

IMO, this whole conversation is pretty pointless at this time. We all have more important things to focus our attention on.

 

[atabuy]

IMO, this whole conversation is pretty pointless at this time. We all have more important things to focus our attention on.

I think it is better to act on this before push comes to shove.
If, once and for all, union members could vote their preference before someones self interest changed because of a merger, it could be cut and dried for all concerned.

Should a company buying another airline give the same integration as a merger?
Should the intergration be the same even if the unions are different? Should it be by date of hire?