ABX Air to Acquire CHI

[penguin22]

Well, unfortunately, the scope clause may not cover this type of acquisition. In a way, ABX was also just sold/bought because it is now owned by a holding company, which also bought two more airlines.

regardless of hvy's analysis of our scope, here's the relevant paragraph:

1. Successor Transactions
a. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor, assign, assignee, transferee, administrator, executor and/or trustee (a “Successor”) of the Company resulting in any transaction that involves: (1) a transfer (in a single transaction or in related multi-step transactions) to a Successor of ownership or control of all or substantially all of the equity securities and/or assets of the Company (hereinafter “Complete Transaction”); or (2) transfer to a Successor of ownership and/or control of a portion of the
Company’s assets in a Substantial Asset Sale (hereinafter “Partial Transaction”).

(underline added)

the equity securities get transferred to ABX Holdings, so scope flows through to ABX Holdings.

 

[hvydriver]

regardless of hvy's analysis of our scope, here's the relevant paragraph:

1. Successor Transactions
a. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor, assign, assignee, transferee, administrator, executor and/or trustee (a “Successor”) of the Company resulting in any transaction that involves: (1) a transfer (in a single transaction or in related multi-step transactions) to a Successor of ownership or control of all or substantially all of the equity securities and/or assets of the Company (hereinafter “Complete Transaction”); or (2) transfer to a Successor of ownership and/or control of a portion of the
Company’s assets in a Substantial Asset Sale (hereinafter “Partial Transaction”).

(underline added)

the equity securities get transferred to ABX Holdings, so scope flows through to ABX Holdings.

Yep, we saw that before. Good luck with that. Seriously.

 

[AV8OR]

AV8OR has done a great job lately of showing us all the narrow-minded arrogance of ALPA 017.

They see the only solution to a scope grievance is to file injunctions to shut down the other airline and take their jobs. The only people on here claiming thats what we'll do is Astar pilots. Not one ABX pilot has.

Not quite true peng.....what I said was, that I have asked the question multiple times, of yall,.... if you, 1224, believed your scope clause had been violated, and, by filing a grievance and winning, it might negatively affect another pilot groups jobs, would 1224's position be to not file the grievance because the higher priority is to, in the words of one of your own a couple of posts back, "make friends"?

I haven't said yall would file a scope grievance. I just wondered, given that the position stated was that we shouldn't have filed, not because it wasn't true, but because it wasn't nice, would 1224 file one. It may end up being a moot point. Yall my all just get together famously and show us Astar boys how it's done. But since the announcements all of two days old, and there's already a pretty good discussion about your scope clause pasted by 1224 pilots on here, it ought to be interesting, if the shoe ends up on the other foot over at 1224.

So, yall let me know how that olive branch of, "we won't have to file a scope grievance, cause we're gonna let the ATI and CAC guys get to be on our seniority list" works out. More power to ya.

 

[TWA]

the equity securities get transferred to ABX Holdings, so scope flows through to ABX Holdings.

Ok, that makes sense. Here's another question though, what if ATI and CCI both have the same wording in their contracts? Who prevails?

 

[SkyMiles]

hvy "Our scope language was even tighter than yours is" I dont know if it is or not, that is why I posted "We just have to hope that the money spent on our scope attorney was worth it and somehow he managed to weave a little strength into the contract language pertaining to these matters." and got slammed/flamed by a fellow astar pilot. Quite frankly I went to the astar site and read the "entire scope provision" you have on the site and, like I said I am no lawyer, but ours does have many more provsions than your does. I dont know if what you have on your site is the entire scope I am trying to compare apples to apples. I do have a question. Why are do you and AV8 seem so against and hostile towards this? I have been at a company that had many affiliates doing the same job under different contracts. If we are the same company why is wanting to be under one set of work rules so bad? Being pro labor that is the way it should be. A company should not be able to play its own employees (the ones that actually do the work and make the company work) against each other. Contrary to to what upper management thinks, those of us on the front lines are what makes the company. What is your problem with that?

 

[SkyMiles]

TWA that is a great question

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

......... because the higher priority is to, in the words of one of your own a couple of posts back, "make friends"?............

.........I haven't said yall would file a scope grievance. I just wondered, given that the position stated was that we shouldn't have filed, not because it wasn't true, but because it wasn't nice.........

If it's me you're referencing, then it's out of context. Astar has been reduced to the level of an AMCI carrier by virtue of corporate slight of hand and filing a lawsuit to effectively shut down ABX was very short sighted to the point of being stupid - doing little to further your cause. I hope 1224 handles it better.

 

[hvydriver]

SM,

I'm not hostile toward it at all. I'm serious, I hope you guys are able to cobble together something. However, given the current political landscape in this country, I don't think you'll succeed in bringing all 3 carriers under one CBA. Hete/Fox have been very clever in their presentation of this deal so far. I'll be curious to see what Lynn has to say about this after she's had time to look it all over.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

We on this side of the cornfield also had a scope clause, like yours rendered invalid by the act of moving companies into companies. It's an unpalatable truth that you lost your scope when DHL purchased ABX and spun off the airline side of the operation. The win/win scenario isn't part of the Alpa/Astar culture is it? It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

 

[erichartmann]

Not quite true peng.....what I said was, that I have asked the question multiple times, of yall,.... if you, 1224, believed your scope clause had been violated, and, by filing a grievance and winning, it might negatively affect another pilot groups jobs, would 1224's position be to not file the grievance because the higher priority is to, in the words of one of your own a couple of posts back, "make friends"?

I haven't said yall would file a scope grievance. I just wondered, given that the position stated was that we shouldn't have filed, not because it wasn't true, but because it wasn't nice, would 1224 file one. It may end up being a moot point. Yall my all just get together famously and show us Astar boys how it's done. But since the announcements all of two days old, and there's already a pretty good discussion about your scope clause pasted by 1224 pilots on here, it ought to be interesting, if the shoe ends up on the other foot over at 1224.

So, yall let me know how that olive branch of, "we won't have to file a scope grievance, cause we're gonna let the ATI and CAC guys get to be on our seniority list" works out. More power to ya.

My position has always been your claimed scope was rendered invalid by the legal seperation (i.e. spin off as a seperate privately held company) of the former DHL Airways, now Astar, from DHL. I believe your legal analysis was faulty. Further, it was dangerous, as events have proven. I suspect you reacted emotionally rather rationally. It wan't a matter of being "nice", it was a matter of being smart. You should not have filed.