Airtran goes for Midwest Airlines

[Lear70]

"........but ALPA would be eventually gone as the NPA is the union of the PURCHASING carrier. Would be the other way around if you guys were purchasing us."

Someone can 'correct' me if I am wrong (and sure they will); but I don't think this is exactly correct??

If two carriers merge and both groups are 'represented' (union), by different unions/representation; there would have to be a vote by the combined group for 'representation' by one union or the other. I believe that is what is specified by Federal Labor Law; and it does not matter who bought who??

Just my $0.02.

DA

To my understanding:

If it's a straight merger, then yes, a vote would be called.

If it's an acquisition, then no, again, a la' AA/TWA (don't recall an ALPA vote being called for representation during that whole fiasco, although they petitioned pretty hard for it during the acquisition).

Then again, I've been wrong before...

Why would their shareholders go for it? Well, they were never given the option DIRECTLY before. That's the whole POINT of a hostile takeover bid.

Previously, management made the decision FOR the shareholders, then put whatever spin on it they want after saying "No, thanks." The only way the shareholders can overrule that is for a majority of them to rise up, kick out current management, and appoint a new BOD (akin to recalling your MEC leaders and putting new MEC leadership in place).

Now, by taking the argument directly to the shareholders, you get to present YOUR side of the coin directly to the ultimate decision makers, then let THEM vote. Who knows, if the deal is sweet enough or they see better long-term gains owning AAI stock, they might go for it.

Amusing question, since Boiler posted the stock information is, since AAI is only offering a 25% premium on the stock and the stock is up 100% in 6 months, 20% in today's news. What will they do? Hmmmmm...

 

[737 Pylt]

FWIW,

If the "merger" goes through, I see the integration of seniority as a ratio.
350 pilots to 1500 = 5 to 1 roughly with a 3 year fence.

Fletch:
Can you imagine chuck/einstein/lawman/400ahole right about now???
He's probably already pooped his diapers!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Let me know how good of a gear swinger he is for ya??

737
Oh yeah, she's just a flight attendant for Skyway anyway!

 

[fletch717]

Fletch:
Can you imagine chuck/einstein/lawman/400ahole right about now???
He's probably already pooped his diapers!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Let me know how good of a gear swinger he is for ya??

737
Oh yeah, she's just a flight attendant for Skyway anyway!

I can hardly contain my excitement over that thought!!!!!!!

 

[tubelcane]

Alpa merger language doesn't mean squat. Alpa didn't help TWA /AA . Slightly different scenario with TWA bankrupt. But that's what those jagoff lawyers get paid for, to shred contracts after mergers to make them work.

When was the last time ALPA a successful integration as far as the Allegheny/Mohawk language? And don't say Allegheny/Mohawk!

 

[Lear70]

Heh heh... that's true enough.

And 5 to 1 sounds a little too generous, as it would be a windfall to the Midwest F/O's by shortening their upgrade track by 1/2 or more in some cases.

7 to 1 with a 5 year fence sounds about right to give Midwest pilots the same upgrade/career expectations as they now have. Remember, their upgrade track is running 8 years NOW, with what kind of retirements and growth currently scheduled?

Whatever the integration is, it would need to realize career expectations of two stable carriers with completely different upgrade timelines and Allegheny-Mohawk doesn't really do that. The arbitration would get pretty ugly methinks.

 

[likeitis]

5 to 1 would put the bottom FO's at Midwest behind the next 100 "AirTran" newhires and 7 to 1 would put the bottom Midwest FO's below the next 900 "AirTran" newhires. So these pilots are below people aren't even hired yet?

Try telling the 122 pilots at Midwest who were hired prior to Valujet, AirTran and Desert Sun were in existance that 5 to 1 is fair. By your idea of fairness a pilot at Midwest who was hired in 1999 should be at seniority number 1890 out of 1900 total pilots.

Lastly Midwest has about 400 pilots and the most recent upgrade has a hire date of 11/1999.

 

[fletch717]

I have been on the other side of the fence in a "merger". somebody is going to take it in the shorts. One good thing for MEH is a pay raise. I would gladly loose a little seniority for more money.

 

[Lear70]

No, it would put all newhires junior to existing Midwest F/O's. You're being overly dramatic to prove a point, and it's a poor basis for debate. You know good and well the bottom guys after the integration is done get stapled. That's how integration always works...

7:1 was based on you guys having 350 pilots as mentioned earlier, I didn't know the exact number.

And yes, 7:1 puts your most junior Captain (200 seniority approximately) about 100 numbers senior to our most junior new-hire. With a 5-year fence in place, it would assure that those new-hires who are here at airTran NOW would keep their 4 year upgrade expectancy they had when they came here.

It would ALSO ensure that your Captains remain Captains, as all the F/O's on property here would upgrade by then.

What's NOT fair is an integration where a guy who's been at Midwest for 4 years and was expecting 3 or 4 more years to upgrade now has an upgrade next year while the guy at the bottom of the AirTran list gets pushed back 4 years and now faces an 8 year upgrade track. I'd have gone to Midwest if I was interested in that...

The problem is the people in the middle. How do your senior F/O's retain their ability to upgrade while still respecting the career progression of the F/O's at AirTran?

 

[TWA Dude]

To my understanding:
If it's a straight merger, then yes, a vote would be called.
If it's an acquisition, then no, ....

ALL mergers are acquisitions. One carrier is considered the surviving one. In AWA/USAir, AWA was the aquiring carrier however the labor workgroups are being merged. I know that for the AWA bag-throwers and mechanics the Teamsters (AWA) lost and the IAM (USAir) won.

 

[Lear70]

ALL mergers are acquisitions. One carrier is considered the surviving one. In AWA/USAir, AWA was the aquiring carrier however the labor workgroups are being merged. I know that for the AWA bag-throwers and mechanics the Teamsters (AWA) lost and the IAM (USAir) won.

The difference is in how it comes about and how it's negotiated.

In your AWA/UAir comparison, the management parties both agreed for AWA Management to stay and the UAir name to stay. It was a negotiated part of the Merger.

An Acquisition can be a totally different animal. In AA/TWA, there was never any question of which was remaining.

The question is, which one will this be, since it's a hostile takeover bid?