Merger legistlation law

[pipe]

Oh c'mon, they saved our jobs.

Just ask any one of them.

(Except aa73. I've read his stuff on this and other boards and he's a native that seems to take a pretty rational view of things; vis-a-vis TWA.)

Yeah, they've been saving mine for a long time now. In fact, they've been saving it for six years now. I'm not exactly sure what they're saving it for though.

PIPE

 

[aa73]

A relative seniority integration with fences is what I believe to be the best methodology. AA73's career expectations were to remain at the same relative seniority that he brought at the time of the merger. I'd say he did rather well by having a large number of TWA pilots stapled behind him.

stlflyguy

That fact in itself cannot be debated. Overall, about 900 TWA pilots went ahead of me and 1200 below me, so I fell in the middle. Fact is, I was fortunate enough to keep my job BY ONE NUMBER for the nearly two years we stopped furloughing. Pure luck, not my doing, and several good TWA and native AA pilots got furloughed in my place.

As far as my own expectations go, I can't really say that they increased or decreased. In some ways, the effects of Supp CC decreased flying opportunities for natives due to the fact that DFW and ORD shrunk their lines to accomodate STL flying, and those effects tended to reverbate across the system, displacing folks from those bases to other bases. That created a little stagnation. At the same time, even though AA parked the Fokkers and 727s, they also parked all TWA 767s, some Md80s, and now, all 757s. So we are left with with an overall decreased fleet, but all the pilots (when recalled.)

From a job security point of view, I was definitely fortunate in not getting furloughed, most likely due to the 1600 pilots below me (of which 1200 were TWA and 400 natives.)

Relative seniority is usually the fairest way when DOH and ratio don't work. Stapling should generally never be considered, unless the size/expectations/company demographics are so drastically different that anything other than a staple would be an immediate windfall for the purchased carrier. (SWA-Morris, AA-Reno.)

I didn't set out to prove whether this merger was fair or unfair with this thread. I just wanted to point out that, from what I've been told, the integration was crafted along the lines a neutral arbitrator would have followed. Whether that is true or not will probably never be known.

73

 

[aa73]

Hiring trends are a component of career expectations. Prior to the merger announcment USAirways was still furloughing with no hope of recalls while AWA was hiring to accomodate firm aircraft deliveries. Nicolau was also presented with financial data. Looking back to TWA in 2001 one certainly would have seen a financially struggling yet solvent carrier. Feel free to PM me if you'd like a Word version of the Nicolau Award.

I get the general direction you're heading, but I'm not sure I understand the correlation between hiring and career expectations.

Skybus is hiring like crazy now.... if, say, DAL buys them, would you consider a ratio/rel seniority integration fair to the DAL pilots, based on the earnings/flying potential between the two carriers?

Regarding the Nicolau award... I think ratio integrations are as fair as they get between two similar size carriers. But I also see how a 1988 USAir hire (when recalled) gets a case of sour grapes when ratioed in with a 2005 AWA hire.... as I'm sure 1988 TWA pilots feel vs 2001 AA hires. The big difference is that the USAir pilot was already furloughed when the merger took place, vs a TWA pilot that was a captain, and then furloughed after the merger - a crappy deal no matter how you look at it.

73

 

[TWA Dude]

I get the general direction you're heading, but I'm not sure I understand the correlation between hiring and career expectations.

There is no definition of "career expectations". The arbitrator makes it and Nicolau correlated the two.

Skybus is hiring like crazy now.... if, say, DAL buys them, would you consider a ratio/rel seniority integration fair to the DAL pilots, based on the earnings/flying potential between the two carriers?

In a word, yes. Why should they be penalized just for being bought? That's not to say that a large pay differential is irrelevent. Nicolau concluded that the USAir guys gained more from the merger than did the AWA pilots. If Skybus were bought by DAL that would certainly work against them. The point being, every merger is different and the USAPA plan of a "one size fits all" integration is ethically wrong.

But I also see how a 1988 USAir hire (when recalled) gets a case of sour grapes when ratioed in with a 2005 AWA hire....

Absent the merger he wouldn't have been recalled at all. This was the determination of Nicolau.

as I'm sure 1988 TWA pilots feel vs 2001 AA hires. The big difference is that the USAir pilot was already furloughed when the merger took place, vs a TWA pilot that was a captain, and then furloughed after the merger - a crappy deal no matter how you look at it.

The differences between TWA in 2001 and USAirways in 2005 are large. One was solvent and the other largely expected to liquidate. I have stated many times that the financial condition of the airline doesn't define the worth of its pilots. However, the financial condition certainly can have an effect on career expectations. Have you read the Nicolau Award? It's written in plain language and not legaleze. He explains his reasoning thoroughly and eloquently.

 

[stlflyguy]

That fact in itself cannot be debated. Overall, about 900 TWA pilots went ahead of me and 1200 below me, so I fell in the middle. Fact is, I was fortunate enough to keep my job BY ONE NUMBER for the nearly two years we stopped furloughing. Pure luck, not my doing, and several good TWA and native AA pilots got furloughed in my place.

Agreed.

At the same time, even though AA parked the Fokkers and 727s, they also parked all TWA 767s, some Md80s, and now, all 757s. So we are left with with an overall decreased fleet, but all the pilots (when recalled.)

The choices AA management made once they owned what was TWA isn't the fault of TWA pilots. I understand the sentiment when it comes to the extra staffing added to the mix due to the reduction of the DC9/717, but the decisions on the 757/767 and some of the -80's are solely an AMR move. It's nice to know the Fokker guys (Fukkers?) and 727 guys had a place to go...to the TWA MD80s.

From a job security point of view, I was definitely fortunate in not getting furloughed, most likely due to the 1600 pilots below me (of which 1200 were TWA and 400 natives.)

Relative seniority is usually the fairest way when DOH and ratio don't work. Stapling should generally never be considered, unless the size/expectations/company demographics are so drastically different that anything other than a staple would be an immediate windfall for the purchased carrier. (SWA-Morris, AA-Reno.)

You're getting to sound like a one-trick pony when you revisit SWA-Morris...

I didn't set out to prove whether this merger was fair or unfair with this thread. I just wanted to point out that, from what I've been told, the integration was crafted along the lines a neutral arbitrator would have followed. Whether that is true or not will probably never be known.

73

What you've been told is that the mold for apples fits the mold for oranges. Either way, it's still moldy and how it was applied are all suspect. How about a taste of the moldy orange? I thought so...

stlflyguy

 

[aa73]

The choices AA management made once they owned what was TWA isn't the fault of TWA pilots. I understand the sentiment when it comes to the extra staffing added to the mix due to the reduction of the DC9/717, but the decisions on the 757/767 and some of the -80's are solely an AMR move. It's nice to know the Fokker guys (Fukkers?) and 727 guys had a place to go...to the TWA MD80s.

I never blamed it on the TWA pilots. I blame it on AMR's "merger policy" - get rid of equipment and routes, and keep the pilots. It results in stagnation for everyone. And many, many of the F100 and 727 guys didn't "go to TWA MD80s" - they got furloughed as a result of the downsizing.

You're getting to sound like a one-trick pony when you revisit SWA-Morris...

Sorry, but it applies to the point I'm trying to make, as much as you don't like me using it, it is a reality.

What you've been told is that the mold for apples fits the mold for oranges. Either way, it's still moldy and how it was applied are all suspect. How about a taste of the moldy orange? I thought so...

Not debating as to whether it was suspect or not. I've made it very clear as to my feelings on how it was handled - crappy. You, however, seem to enjoy trying to twist my words around to make me seem ignorant or uncaring.

I know what happened, how it happened, and the results. I also know that the best way to handle a merger - or acquisition, in this case - and our way was not the best. Yet that answer never seems to satisfy you.

73
Moldy fruit for breakfast

 

[aa73]

I have stated many times that the financial condition of the airline doesn't define the worth of its pilots. However, the financial condition certainly can have an effect on career expectations. Have you read the Nicolau Award? It's written in plain language and not legaleze. He explains his reasoning thoroughly and eloquently.

TWA Dude, the highlighted print is the point I'm trying to make, and is the reason Nicolau made the choices he did. In our integration agreement, it is also explained very clearly. I never judged a TWA pilot on the basis of his company's financials - not once. I flew out of STL for three years with some of the most professional aviators out there.

Had out integration been decided by an arbitrator instead of by the APA, I suspect it would have been absorbed a little differently. Do you agree?

73

 

[TWA Dude]

Had out integration been decided by an arbitrator instead of by the APA, I suspect it would have been absorbed a little differently. Do you agree?

Of course I do. And I know you would've supported an arbitrated solution so this isn't an adversarial discussion. The only people truly dissappointed by the new law are those who feel they'd lose in future arbitrated integrations, ie, APA and USAPA.

I blame it on AMR's "merger policy" - get rid of equipment and routes, and keep the pilots.

First of all, AA kept most of TWA's airplanes and dumped most of the pilots. Next, keep in mind that this wasn't AA's intention when they bought TWA. In fact, much to my joy, there was even talk of buying more 717s! 9/11 is what changed their plans. The APA claims to be prescient by predicting what would happen are specious.

 

[aa73]

Well, they dumped the pilots through furloughs - that affected both pilot groups - but a furlough is temporary (albeit a long "temporary" for many.) However, parking jets is for good. When the deal was announced, before y'all got on the property, most of us AA pilots saw the writing on the wall and knew that eventually they would park most if not all of the acquired jets. Bingo. It's just AMR's MO in any merger, and it blows chunks.

Back to the topic - this new legislation can be good OR bad, depending on your opinion of government involvement. If they are stepping in to rectify a situation in which one pilot group is calling all the shots, good. But I wonder if they will use this new law to fulfill some kind of political agenda in preventing some of our bargaining tactics.

In any case, arbitrators need to give TWA pilots at the bottom of the list their original TWA DOH if we merge with someone in the future... otherwise, they could end up with a double whammy.

73

 

[TWA Dude]

When the deal was announced, before y'all got on the property, most of us AA pilots saw the writing on the wall and knew that eventually they would park most if not all of the acquired jets.

Unless you forsaw 9/11 I don't know how you can say this. I highly doubt there was any plan to dump any large number of TWA planes.

Back to the topic - this new legislation can be good OR bad, depending on your opinion of government involvement.

Fair is fair no matter the source.

In any case, arbitrators need to give TWA pilots at the bottom of the list their original TWA DOH if we merge with someone in the future... otherwise, they could end up with a double whammy.

Based on what I learned from Nicolau I'd say no future arbitrator will rectify the ex-TWA pilots' position on the AA list. They prefer to keep things simple. So this law is truly of no use to the TWA pilots even though it was concocted with us in mind. Nevertheless, it's the right thing.

 

[aa73]

Unless you forsaw 9/11 I don't know how you can say this. I highly doubt there was any plan to dump any large number of TWA planes.

No need to have foreseen 9/11: just take a look at AA's past mergers/acquisitions. ALL aircraft from every merger were subsequently dumped, along with most of the routes, over time. The fact that we even still have some TWA 80s still amazes me.

Regarding the new legislation: Don't get me wrong, I do believe that neutral 3rd party is always the fairest way. I just don't want the gov't to screw our chances for, say, a strike, using this new legislation as a "Trojan horse" during some kind of merger.

 

[TWA Dude]

No need to have foreseen 9/11: just take a look at AA's past mergers/acquisitions. ALL aircraft from every merger were subsequently dumped, along with most of the routes, over time.

I'm aware of that but I'm telling you that absent 9/11 there's no logical reason to believe the same thing would've occured. Carty's stated reasons for buying TWA was to relieve the ORD and DFW hubs. The non-stated but obvious reasons were for an enhanced Carribean presence and the ego trip of being the world's largest carrier. 9/11 eliminated the need for the STL hub. Crandall wasn't the same as Carty who wasn't the same as Arpey.

I'll even put it another way: had TWALPA and APA appeared in front of an arbitrator and APA made that "but they've always done it before" argument he would've ignored it. Past precedent is not always indicitive of future behavior because eash merger is different. TWA was not AirCal or Reno.

 

[aa73]

We'll just have to leave it at a difference of opinion...

Thanks for a good discussion.

73

 

[Flopgut]

It's kind of interesting that the merger legislation was passed to avoid windfalls and preclude seniority aggression, and the age 65 rule was done to enable that exact behavior?! Forget which side of the issue you're on...65 screwed a lot of pilots. Probably more (and more total dollars) than any single merger.