US Airways Makes Case for Merger With American

[AAviator]

It isn't about synergies, it's about "rationalizing" the industry. A merger eliminates a competitor, that alone is worth a ton of cash.

Phewww, this is getting confusing.

I thought the thinking was AA+LCC was a great deal because there was little overlap. You know, east coast presence, CLT, blah blah blah.

I'm starting to see the world through some LCC coated glasses.... Take two high cost, low/no profit airlines, put them together, get out some paint and 'viola! DAL+1% ! 🙄

 

[767one]

Phewww, this is getting confusing.

I thought the thinking was AA+LCC was a great deal because there was little overlap. You know, east coast presence, CLT, blah blah blah.

I'm starting to see the world through some LCC coated glasses.... Take two high cost, low/no profit airlines, put them together, get out some paint and 'viola! DAL+1% ! 🙄

You left out the part where some folks run off with a lot of money and then leave the employees to clean up the mess.......again. I'm sure you understand by now that airlines are not in business to make money for the airline it's all about those who pull the strings getting the money.

 

[spike99]

What's wrong Spike - a few too many tonight? If you'd actually read my post I mentioned "the law" 2 or 3 times...

Jim

No Jim I read your post, you mentioned "the Law" exactly twice. The first instance does not apply to McCaskill - Bond, while the second might in regards to the arbitration. Of course, it might also be in regards to current ALPA merger policy.

Spike

 

[spike99]

Exactly, Spike's wishful thinking not withstanding. The NMB ruled that UA/CO was a single transportation system in April, 2011, long before a single ops certificate was issued by the FAA or a combined seniority list/contract existed. An NMB ruling that a single transportation system exists triggers the representational election process, of course.

Jim

First UA/CO does not fall under the purview of McCaskill - Bond. It only applies to airlines represented by different unions, but of course you know that. The results of any representational election will not effect the administration of the Federal Law, designed exactly for this situation. Unless you are implying the NMB can disregard Federal Law. If you are indeed trying to imply this, please reference the applicable Federal Statutes.

Spike

 

[BoeingBoy]

No Jim I read your post, you mentioned "the Law" exactly twice. The first instance does not apply to McCaskill - Bond, while the second might in regards to the arbitration. Of course, it might also be in regards to current ALPA merger policy.

Aw, come on Spike - you have to be smarter than that. What other law applies to merging employee groups in airline mergers than M-B? I may have phrased it badly, but in a merger with AA APA would have the same DFR responsibilities and M-B requires the same negotiate/mediate/arbitrate process as ALPA policy did - the majority doesn't have unbridled freedom unlike what USAPA supporters have claimed.

The second usage of "law" - "It would be up to what the sides negotiated or what an arbitrator ruled, which is current law." Isn't that exactly what M-B says? If the sides couldn't reach a consensual agreement an arbitrator would decide how the lists would be integrated?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

First UA/CO does not fall under the purview of McCaskill - Bond. It only applies to airlines represented by different unions, but of course you know that. The results of any representational election will not effect the administration of the Federal Law, designed exactly for this situation. Unless you are implying the NMB can disregard Federal Law. If you are indeed trying to imply this, please reference the applicable Federal Statutes.

Well, maybe you aren't smarter than that...

Talking about single carrier status has nothing to do with M-B, which is only about integrating employee groups. The UA/CO example was used to illustrate that single carrier status can be granted by the NMB long before there's a single ops certificate, combined seniority list, or combined contract. Nothing in M-B changes that. So APA could request a single carrier status ruling from the NMB prior to seniority integration and such a ruling would trigger a representational election. Assuming APA would win that election by virtue of having the numbers on it's side, then it would be in control of the seniority integration process (within it DFR responsibilities and M-B ).

You're mixing up two different things, or are just mixed up. One is which union would represent the combined group and when they could become the sole representative - that's the NMB's responsibility. The other is seniority integration, which would fall under M-B - the NMB could care less about that.

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Well, maybe you aren't smarter than that...

Talking about single carrier status has nothing to do with M-B, which is only about integrating employee groups. The UA/CO example was used to illustrate that single carrier status can be granted by the NMB long before there's a single ops certificate, combined seniority list, or combined contract. Nothing in M-B changes that. So APA could request a single carrier status ruling from the NMB prior to seniority integration and such a ruling would trigger a representational election. Assuming APA would win that election by virtue of having the numbers on it's side, then it would be in control of the seniority integration process (within it DFR responsibilities and M-B ).

You're mixing up two different things, or are just mixed up. One is which union would represent the combined group and when they could become the sole representative - that's the NMB's responsibility. The other is seniority integration, which would fall under M-B - the NMB could care less about that.

Jim

Reading his previous posts he sounds like someone off the street trying to jump into the middle of the thread. Some of his posts are extremely rudimentary which leads me to believe he doesn't work here.

 

[cltrat]

I am curious, in the unlikely event of an US/AA merger, what makes any of you think that APA would want to use anything other than DOH as a seniority intergration?

 

[fodase]

I am curious, in the unlikely event of an US/AA merger, what makes any of you think that APA would want to use anything other than DOH as a seniority intergration?

How do you do a doh integration when usair's list is not doh?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I am curious, in the unlikely event of an US/AA merger, what makes any of you think that APA would want to use anything other than DOH as a seniority intergration?

Maybe because it would be a less drastic version of a US/HP DOH integration - About 2900 east pilots have hire dates of 1990 and earlier, which would put a lot of east FO's ahead of at least some AA captains.

Jim

 

[AAviator]

If a merger should occur, I think it should be done by hourly pay rate, like DAL did with Western. At the top would be all the AA 777CA guys, followed by the AA 767/757CA guys, then the AA 737CA guys, then the AA MD80CA guys, then the US A330CA guys, followed by the AA 777 F/O's followed by AWA A320CA guys, followed by the AA 757/767 FO's followed by the US A320CA guys.. and so on.

No financial hardships and everyones happy!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Which interestingly is the way old "US" pilots (east now) wanted to integrate the Shuttle pilots so they shouldn't have a problem with it...

Jim

 

[fodase]

If a merger should occur, I think it should be done by hourly pay rate, like DAL did with Western. At the top would be all the AA 777CA guys, followed by the AA 767/757CA guys, then the AA 737CA guys, then the AA MD80CA guys, then the US A330CA guys, followed by the AA 777 F/O's followed by AWA A320CA guys, followed by the AA 757/767 FO's followed by the US A320CA guys.. and so on.

No financial hardships and everyones happy!

And just think, according to the east scabs, majority gets to decide seniority so they should have no problem with that.

 

[Move2CLT]

I am curious, in the unlikely event of an US/AA merger, what makes any of you think that APA would want to use anything other than DOH as a seniority intergration?

You obviously don't know AAs demographic.

 

[AAviator]

Hey, add some "list correction" language so that any furoughs come from the LCC side for a 10 year period, and I'm in!

Where do I sign?

😀