cltrat
Veteran
- Aug 29, 2007
- 5,481
- 3,051
United, Continental resume merger talks
- Thread starter Fly
- Start date
- Status
crossfeed
Member
- Aug 21, 2002
- 75
- 1
Let's see, the pilots are for the merge, on both sides, mechanics are from the same union, the stock holders I assume are for it, the administration is for it, I recall DOJ or DOT stating during the time Continental was joining the star alliance that a merger would be easier to approve, and the only one against the merge, maybe, is the Continental CEO and he is a Harvard lawyer. They are both great companies, personally I would like things to stay the same, but that is not likely to happen.
Mr Eagle
Senior
April 22, 2010
Dear Fellow Employees:
As you know, there has been much recent speculation about our airline and a potential merger with United Airlines. Today we publicly issued a statement saying our Board of Directors has decided to discontinue those discussions, and I wanted to let you know where we are at this point.
Most of you know that I view consolidation as a positive for our industry. There are simply too many airlines chasing market share and this fragmentation causes our industry to struggle mightily. We continuously consider strategic options for our airline, and over the past several months, we have studied a transaction with United. However, those talks have not progressed to a merger agreement, and for the foreseeable future we intend to remain a standalone carrier.
Whether we participate in a merger or not, consolidation will create a more efficient domestic industry that can better withstand economic volatility, global competition and the cyclical nature of our industry as a whole. As I have said many times, it is not necessary for us to be direct participants in a merger because the entire industry benefits when consolidation occurs.
I am sure some “industry experts” will suggest that US Airways will be strategically harmed if United now chooses to merge with Continental. They will be wrong. Thanks to all that we have done together over the past two years – capacity rationalization, a la carte revenue programs, cost control and our commitment to operating efficiently and reliably – we have a strong and viable standalone airline that is producing industry-leading results. Should our competitors choose to merge and help create a more stable airline industry, our independent airline will only become stronger.
The busy summer travel months are ahead and we enter them with positive momentum and well-positioned to take advantage of the improving economic environment. Please keep up the great work. We're running one of the best airlines in the country and our customers are noticing. Thank you for your continued commitment to our passengers and to US Airways – I’m looking forward to continuing to see our name in the sky and working with the great people who make it happen.
Doug
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
Like him or not, Parker has tried to do what he can with what he has. We all know that the last few years have been Hell for all of the Airlines, and I give him credit for keeping the doors open thru these tough times. US was headed down the wrong path since way back in the early 90's following the PI/PS mergers. Colodny wasn't at all interested in the International markets, and that put US at a disadvantage from the start. US had piss poor management for a long time before Parker even came along with the HP merger 5 years ago. Trying to fix nearly 20 years of corporate blunders, can't be done as easily as most think. Has he done everything perfectly? No, but just about every other Airline out there has issues with their CEO's as well. Delta went thru years of poor management, but they were fortunate enough to have more of a global presence to see them thru it. While those of us at US would have liked to merge with UA in order to secure a larger more solid company for our futures, it's not the end of the world. US has survived many bad times thru the years, and I'm sure they will be able to stay afloat without this merger. Good luck to all involved at
UA & CO......
UA & CO......
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
UA CO talks quicken
Looks like things could be on the fast track. We might even hear something by the end of the week.
I for one am very optimistic if this comes to pass. I believe a merger would produce a "power house" to be reckoned with in the industry, and most importantly bring stability, better contracts, and future expansion to our combined companies.
I will also not debate things like "who saved who" and which name survives, or even pettier topics like whose uniform or which call sign to use. Call the place Continental. Call it United. Give us ugly brown uniforms for all I care! I just doesn't matter. After years of BK era wages and work rules, and the decline of our industry since September 2001, I look forward to working with our CO counterparts, and new management to go kick some butt.
As far as pilot integration, I hope it does not go DOH since I believe this would be an unfair advantage to the UA pilots. I know CO & UA ALPA have worked together closely on this in 2008. I want to reassure any CO pilots out there that may have fears of our pilot group, that from what I've seen a majority of UA pilots are not interested in anything but a fair relative seniority list that protect the jobs we bring and the jobs you bring. If we follow the example of the DL/NW pilots it will be a big win for everyone. It is my understanding that DL already has "mixed crews" flying the line.
Looks like things could be on the fast track. We might even hear something by the end of the week.
I for one am very optimistic if this comes to pass. I believe a merger would produce a "power house" to be reckoned with in the industry, and most importantly bring stability, better contracts, and future expansion to our combined companies.
I will also not debate things like "who saved who" and which name survives, or even pettier topics like whose uniform or which call sign to use. Call the place Continental. Call it United. Give us ugly brown uniforms for all I care! I just doesn't matter. After years of BK era wages and work rules, and the decline of our industry since September 2001, I look forward to working with our CO counterparts, and new management to go kick some butt.
As far as pilot integration, I hope it does not go DOH since I believe this would be an unfair advantage to the UA pilots. I know CO & UA ALPA have worked together closely on this in 2008. I want to reassure any CO pilots out there that may have fears of our pilot group, that from what I've seen a majority of UA pilots are not interested in anything but a fair relative seniority list that protect the jobs we bring and the jobs you bring. If we follow the example of the DL/NW pilots it will be a big win for everyone. It is my understanding that DL already has "mixed crews" flying the line.
Not being a pilot at brand C I'm not sure about how the seniority issue will pan out in your employee group. Hopefully well for the pilots and all represented employees. I am curious though about some of the scope issues particularly the use of regional aircraft. It is my understanding that the CAL pilots have a much lower certified seating capacity limit than the UAL side. The reason I mention this is that not only the CAL pilots have this included in their contracts, MX does as well. If management wants to operate them in the system, great, but that work needs to come in house. I would not particularly like to see these scope clauses disappear from either contract for the sake of expediency to complete a deal.
I believe it is 50 seats for the pilots and 60 for mx at cal
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Even better! We should have never let them outsource the "over 50 seat" stuff. But in reality, if CO has a 50 seat limit and UA doesn't, it will probably end up being a 70 seat limit, or UA will be able to keep the 70 exemption on the current number of airframes and no more.
Either way, it's time for scope concessions to end and scope rules strengthened. More importantly than the small jets is the scope that protects international flying as this is probably where the bulk of any future opportunities lies. The current arrangement with Air Lingus that ALPA is fight very hard against, must end. UA should only be allowed to share revenue with a foreign carrier to the percentage that UA has metal in the market. If UA wants 1/2 of the revenue from an international code share route, then 50% of those flights must be UA aircraft with UA F/A's and pilots. Period. There is legislation currently being sponsored in congress to pass such a law, and it is incumbent on all labor employees to write their congressmen and urge them to support H.R. 4788.
I understand the argument about third party international flying and agree that it should be stopped. There is another issue that also needs to be addressed, particularly the foreign outsourcing of aircraft maintenance. I'm sure the folks currently in UAL's MX department can attest to the problems involved with this, particularly those in SFO. At CO we have been working towards bringing more work in house. A lot of his is due to strengthening of scope clauses, and yes there still is more to do. Either way this merger shakes out, considering the latest " Snag in the merger" news, it will be interesting considering virtually all employee groups are in contract negotiations.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Don't get me started on outsourced mx. I can't even stand the work done by Timco in SC, let alone foreign mx. United planes should be serviced by United mechanics. Period.
It's all about scope. I think this administration is more receptive to pressuring companies to keep jobs in this country at least.
I think CAL knows if they back away from UAL then LCC will have a merger deal with UAL before the end of May. If you think LCC is done talking to UAL then you are only kidding yourself.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
I think it would be VERY unusual for 2 companies to get this close and then let it fall apart over valuation. How far apart can they be?
It's my understanding that since the talks resumed, CO's stock price has risen more slowly than UA's, putting UA's stock price higher since news leaked out about the US merger talks. It's understandable that CO would want to use the valuation of UA before it was effected by speculation of a merger that should not have been released in the first place. On the other hand it is understandable that UAL would want to have the highest valuation possible before a deal.
If you look at the stock prices today, CO is up and UAL is down. If they keep talking for a few more days and investors think the deal is stalled, before you know it the stock values will equalize again.
IMO there will be a compromise by the end of the week.
- Status
Similar threads
