Big meeting: Skywest, ASA/XJet, Alpa, SAPA

[ASA_Aviator]

"Rehired employees returning less than one year from their termination date will have their last hire date reinstated. The pay anniversary date will be adjusted to account for termination time. Rehires will not have a benefits waiting period if returning within one year."

There's no way this applies to pilots....?

It applies to everyone, but likely does not apply to your seniority number. It means you get your original hire date for travel bennies, so you can still get on after everyone else.

 

[Nevets]

Who do you think is Chairman of the Board? Jerry Atkin

Who owns the controlling interest of company stock? The Atkin Family

Good luck, Nevets.

Anyway, now you have me curious. Please post a link that shows how many of these controlling shares the Atkin family owns. I'd be surprised if its close to 15% but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

So I was finally bored enough to look this up since you didn't post it. On page 45 of the proxy statement for the annual meeting of shareholders of SkyWest Inc (page 156 of the document below), it says that the "Atkin family" own about 5% of the stock as of 3/2/12. So I guess I'm not surprised since its less than 15%. Unless you have something else that says they own more?

https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/830879/20120302/CMBO_119921/document.pdf

 

[Formula 1]

ASA ALPA proposed combining all SkyWest Inc. pilots on to one list, one company.

SkyWest Inc. management said (no suprise) NFW.

I believe ALPA is asking nicely, SAPA you better have a plan, because this will be challenged under the McCaskill-Bond statute.

ALPA has a merger policy and SkyWest bought an ALPA carrier knowing this.

Federal Prosecutors will challenge SkyWest to merging the lists.

Good Luck!

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...ity+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

 

[Ops check good]

Dont get your hopes up. Skywest INC is the holding company of both airlines, not Skywest airlines. No reason that INC needs to do anything towards one list. They are two separate airlines owned by one company and that is the way it will stay.

 

[Formula 1]

Dont get your hopes up. Skywest INC is the holding company of both airlines, not Skywest airlines. No reason that INC needs to do anything towards one list. They are two separate airlines owned by one company and that is the way it will stay.

No, it sounds like you have your hopes up. That is exactly what is being challenged under the McCaskill Bond statute.

Good Luck.

 

[dojetdriver]

I believe ALPA is asking nicely, SAPA you better have a plan, because this will be challenged under the McCaskill-Bond statute.

ALPA has a merger policy and SkyWest bought an ALPA carrier knowing this.

Federal Prosecutors will challenge SkyWest to merging the lists.

Good Luck!

A whole crap-ton of assumptions are being made. IF it did come to one list and ALL THREE groups found it to be palatable/agreed to the result, there is NO need for McCaskill.

Dont get your hopes up. Skywest INC is the holding company of both airlines, not Skywest airlines. No reason that INC needs to do anything towards one list. They are two separate airlines owned by one company and that is the way it will stay.

For ANYBODY that actually contacted a rep, whether ALPA or SAPA as to what REALLY went on in Denver, the above is pretty much it.

 

[Formula 1]

LABOR INTEGRATION
Pub. L. 110-161, div. K, title I, Sec. 117, Dec. 26, 2007, 121
Stat. 2382, provided that:
"(a) Labor Integration. - With respect to any covered transaction
involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the
combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway
Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor
protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the
Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply
to the integration of covered employees of the covered air
carriers; except that -
"(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the
combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers,
that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede
the requirements of this section; and
"(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement
that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving
covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected
by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered
by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk
provisions.
"(b) Definitions. - In this section, the following definitions
apply:
"(1) Air carrier. - The term 'air carrier' means an air carrier
that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49,
United States Code.
"(2) Covered air carrier. - The term 'covered air carrier'
means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
"(3) Covered employee. - The term 'covered employee' means an
employee who -
"(A) is not a temporary employee; and
"(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the
Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
"(4) Covered transaction. - The term 'covered transaction'
means -
"(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air
carriers into a single air carrier; and which
"(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of -
"(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as
defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an
air carrier; or
"(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the
air carrier.
"(c) Application. - This section shall not apply to any covered
transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before
the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2007].
"(d) Effectiveness of Provision. - This section shall become
effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue
in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008."

McCaskill Bond requires you to merge under the Railway Labor Act under the provisions of sections 3 and 13 of Allegheny-Mohawk.

Read it for yourself!

Good Luck!

 

[dojetdriver]

Read it for yourself!

Good Luck!

So is it your understanding that McCaskill has to used no matter what?

 

[Formula 1]

So is it your understanding that McCaskill has to used no matter what?

Yes and No. If the company that was purchased is viable than yes you have to merge. If the company was purchased and went out of business than no in the case of Republic bought Midwest:

The court also initially rejected the IBT's argument that the transaction did not come under the coverage of McCaskill-Bond because Midwest ceased operating after the acquisition and the Midwest flight attendants became unemployed. "The logic of the Teamsters' position is flawed because it suggests that an employer could avoid McCaskill-Bond simply by refusing to employ a group of employees from the merging air carrier." Id. at *6. The court held that the law applied if "the purpose of the RAH-MAG transaction was to combine multiple air carriers into a single air carrier." Id. (emphasis added). The court then went on to determine the question of the intent of the transaction as to combining carrier operations was one of fact that would require discovery and possible trial. Id.

Your meeting was for the intent of Discovery.

Good Luck!

 

[Jon Rivoli]

McCaskill Bond requires you to merge under the Railway Labor Act under the provisions of sections 3 and 13 of Allegheny-Mohawk.

Read it for yourself!

Good Luck!

[QUOTE(a) Labor Integration. - With respect to any covered transaction
involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the
combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway
Labor Act ][/QUOTE]

There you go, from your own link. As this is neither a covered transaction, nor does it result in a combination, it doesn't apply. Now go jump in a lake, or off of a bridge. In any case, just go away.