Comair/ASA successorship language (skywest)

[DDpaysoff]

Here is Comair language, ASA language would be appreciated.

B. Successorship.

2. .."In the event of a successorship transaction in which the successor is an air carrier or any person or entity that owns or controls or is owned or controlled by an air carrier which results in an operational merger, the Company will require the successor to agree to provide the Company's pilots with a fair and equitable seniority integration as provided in Sections 3 and 13 of the Labor Protective Provisions specified by the CAB in the Allegeny-Mohawk merger, except that such seniority integration will be governed by the Associations Merger Policy if both pilot groups are represented by the Association."

Now for some IMO, stuff:
Since, Skywest is not represented by the Association, the provisions in the Allegeny-Mohawk merger would be mandated.

There are other possibilities, skywest merely holds the equity position in ASA/Comair and keeps them as a separate entity and not an operational merger. At the conclusion of the Comair contract (ASA pending language), assets may be transferred without the pilots follwing the airplanes. Until that point, the Comair pilot group and ASA as well (if the same contractual language applies), would have tremendous leverage due to the fact that either pilot group would immediately show up on property doing almost half of the flying, that can not be taken from them until the contract expires. Remember, DAL needs the cash now, not two years from now. Skywest has some shrewd mangagers, there is no way they will take the risk of 'holding' comair's assets until the PWA expires. Risk/Reward? That could be two years of tremendous losses if a pilot group doing 50% of your flying is disgruntled. Skywest is looking to hedge its future in case other pilot groups become as cost competitive as them. Who is really buying who?

The problem with this for skywest pilots is assets may not ONLY be transferred from CMR/ASA after the contractual language expires, they may be transferred to. Hence, an intercompany bid for jobs. A true race to the bottom would then take place with no winners only non-losers that keep their jobs for a little while longer.

Skywest pilots must choose whether or not to organize for union protection, either way I don't see this as good for them. It's not good for US CMR/ASA either. Read the language above, DOH or separate entity. Again, the company (SELLER) will require the successor (buyer) to agree..... Those are the two choices, this truly has come full circle folks.

There may be a million things going on behind the scenes not just 1,000. However, it sure as heck is a lot better having a page 1-3 in your contract than not having one.

Thanks, ALPA.

Can somone contribute the ASA Successorship language? This may be a serious issue since the contract has expired. Does, ASA truly have any protection since the PWA is expired? Or, do the provisions of the previous contract still apply in the event of a transfer of ownership?

Nevertheless, regardless of which of the three you work for, now is a good time to step back and ask the question, what the he11 did I get myself into with this career? This would be a serious deal for all of us if it were to ever happen. Is this eagle all over again?

 

[shamrock]

ASA's contract didn't expire, it became amenable, I mean amendable, ah whatever, you know what I mean.

It remains in effect until a new contract is signed, or until the bankruptcy judge imposes Mesa's contract on us.

 

[FDJ2]

First paragraph, second line:

"an air carrier which results in an operational merger"


This is interesting language as it pertains to the requirement of a list integration. What if Skywest chooses not to operationally merge ASA/CMR, but rather chooses to operate them separately? Is Skywest required to merge the carriers?

 

[DDpaysoff]

QUOTE:
Is Skywest required to merge the carriers?


I don't think they have to. They can be run separate. Much like Comair and ASA are separate entities now. However, with successorship language it would be some time before Skywest could rip Comair/ASA of their assests and that 'time' might not be worth the risk for skywest. The only whipsaw protection I see is that skywest pilots become alpa and integrate the lists i.e. American Eagle. They might not do this because of DOH issues, but right now they are a deer in the headlights without contractual language that protects them. Regardless of how much capital they have, if other regional airlines reach or beat the cost structure of skywest, their future is uncertain. Comair and ASA might have a parent that is in 20 billion in debt, but who's shoes would you rather be in? A company that feeds off a bancrupt carrier and a carrier that is near 20Billion in debt with little or no long term contractual agreements, or a company that is in 20Billion in debt but your entity is an asset which can breathe on its own if it has to raise capital for parent.

The bottom line is Comair and ASA have successorship language that Delta legally has to ensure before any sale talks can be taken seriously.
On a separate note: I wonder if that 5% included the fact that instead of having three managers for every position there will now be one?

In this type of environment, why wouldn't mesa be interested in purchasing one or both? Get them another revenue stream. There is definately an agenda here.
Skywest has a tremendous amount of capital and they did not attain that position by explosive growth, they acheived their position by taking advantage of calculated risks and opportunities.

Also, remember, it was the SKYWEST ceo that said, Delta has made it very clear what their interests are. That could be something as simple and horrible as the SLC ASA CR-700s going to Skywest via a sale.

If the two pilot groups could work together problems could be avoided, but how can that happen when one of the groups is not represented?

 

[DDpaysoff]

Allegeny-mohawk provisions

Section 3. Insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and the representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section 13.


Section 13. (a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settle by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.
(b.) The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selection of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all parties

 

[surplus1]

DDpaysoff,

Not debating anything you said, just want to point out a couple of things.

1) The Comair contract does NOT require a merger if Comair is purchased by another airline. Thefore, if acquired, Comair could be operated as a subsidiary of SKYW indefinitely just as it is now operated by Delta. In that case, nothing would change contractually except the owner.

The language you highlighted in the CMR successorship clause is important only if a merger is elected by the acquiring company. What is pehaps more interesting is the following language, also from the same clause.

"which results in an operational merger"

That little phrase was also in Comair's 1994 contract. It is what permitted Delta to buy Comair and not merge it with Delta. It would also permit SkyWest to buy Comair and not merge it with SkyWest. It's only six words but it has a huge impact on the future of Comair pilots.

Why do you suppose that two paragraphs respecting successorship were repeated in the recent LOA (including the one you posted)? They really had nothing to do with the wage freeze or the new aircraft. Why were they repeated then? The last sentence in paragraph 1.B.1. was added by the LOA, but it really didn't improve anything. Somebody wanted to make sure that they were not misunderstood perhaps? Why would that be important in an agreement to freeze wages? Do you think there was any reason why those six words (that I quoted) were NOT changed?

I don't know the answer but here's my best opinion. When your contract includes a proper successorship clause that mandates a merger if you are purchased by another carrier (ours does not), it ensures protection of your seniority, greatly reduces fragmentation potential, eliminates your becomeing an alter ego for the purpose of whipsaw, and ensures that you will not become anybody's "subsidiary". It also makes it more difficult to sell the company to opportunists who don't want any of the problems associated with representation, seniority integration, etc.

If we had such a clause in our old contract (1994) the chances of Delta buying Comair would have been virtually nil. If we had it today, someone like SkyWest would be far less interested. We would not be "up for grabs" by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Well, we don't have the protection, so now we are up for grabs and someone is grabbing, again.

If I were you, I don't think I would be so eager to "thank ALPA" for that. As far as I know every major has merger protection; not a single regional does. BTW, every major also excludes all regionals from it's own merger protections. You can thank ALPA for that.

2) Contracts under the RLA never "expire", they merely become amendable on a date certain. If not amended, they remain in place and full effect.

What you don't mention is also important, i.e., the status of union representation. In a merger, that would have to be determined before any contractual issues come into play. Given that the number of SKYW pilots is almost the same as the number of Comair pilots, a merger of the two would almost certainly trigger a vote to determine whether there will be a union or not. A win by the non-union faction would end the union, and with it our contract. SkyWest people aren't going to vote for a union when they could get all our 70-seaters by not doing that. How? Just ensure that they determine the seniority without our input, i.e., staple us. There is no seniority protection in a non-union operation. Allegheny-Mohawk won't be worth the paper its written on.

If both CMR and ASA are acquired, both are represented by the same union. In that case, there would be no vote, since the number of union pilots would be much higher than the number of non-union pilots. Union certification would be a done deal. I hardly think SkyWest will let that happen if they don't have to.

However, if either CMR or ASA or both, are acquired but operated as subsidiaries, they would both stay union and SkyWest would stay non-union. The respective contracts at ASA and CMR would remain unchanged. Since ASA is already in negotiations, those negotiations would simply continue with SKYW as the key player instead of Delta. The Comiar contract, which is not in Section 6, would remain in effect until its amendable date (now 2007) and until one of the parties (management or the union) files an official Section 6 notice to amend.

While either CMR or ASA remain as subsidiaries of SKYW, either or both of them would be subject to fragmentation by SKYW just as they are now subject to fragmentation by Delta. Neither original contract contains anything to prevent that.

However, the CMR contract was just amended by the LOA. The terms of the LOA would prevent fragmentation of CMR as long as it is in place. The solution to that is pretty simple. SkyWest could simply refuse to make the agreed deliveries of new aircraft provided by the LOA. In that case the contract would snap-back to its original form and the fragmentation could begin immediately.

Comair aircraft could then be transferred to non-union SkyWest or to union ASA. The same thing could be done with ASA aircraft, which could go to SkyWest or to CMR. I don't think you have to do much guessing about where they would go. We could protest all we want but we would have no legal means to prevent it.

IMO, if this purchase takes place there will be no merger. The buyer will operate us as a subsidiary until they can move the equipment where they want it. The 5% they believe they could save is no mystery. That's the difference between our 50-seat rates and 70-seat rates minus our higher benefits. SkyWest has no such difference. They fly 50-99 seats for the same pay rate.

They'll renege on the LOA and let the contract snap-back to its original terms. Then the fragmentation will begin. They'll have to pay the 6/22/05 raise, but they'll save more than that by switching the 70-seat aircraft to SkyWest's lower rates. The "new" aircraft will still come but they come to the new owners (SKYW), not to Comair.

It's going to get a lot more interesting before it gets boring. JMO

 

[DDpaysoff]

Surplus: Awesome points. I have some comments to add later.

right now, let me just be sarcastic for a second.

So basically, what you are saying in a few less words, is the only thing the pay freeze ensured is a/c deliveries to skywest if they buy us and zero, zip, zilch job protection for comair pilots?

 

[DDpaysoff]

[QUOTE=surplus1]


That little phrase was also in Comair's 1994 contract. It is what permitted Delta to buy Comair and not merge it with Delta. It would also permit SkyWest to buy Comair and not merge it with SkyWest. It's only six words but it has a huge impact on the future of Comair pilots.

I spoke about this in later posts you might not have read yet. I agree with you here. However, it looks worse on the surface than it really is. Here is what I said in a previous post:
They can be run separate. Much like Comair and ASA are separate entities now. However, with successorship language it would be some time before Skywest could rip Comair/ASA of their assests and that 'time' might not be worth the risk for skywest. The only whipsaw protection I see is that skywest pilots become alpa and integrate the lists i.e. American Eagle. They might not do this because of DOH issues, but right now they are a deer in the headlights without contractual language that protects them. Regardless of how much capital they have, if other regional airlines reach or beat the cost structure of skywest, their future is uncertain.

Surplus, I think skywest is looking to use some of the 500 million in capital to create hedges for it's future. Delta has some leverage here. They might be selling the house, but it is not being foreclosed on yet.


QUOTE Surplus1
Why do you suppose that two paragraphs respecting successorship were repeated in the recent LOA (including the one you posted)? They really had nothing to do with the wage freeze or the new aircraft. Why were they repeated then? The last sentence in paragraph 1.B.1. was added by the LOA, but it really didn't improve anything. Somebody wanted to make sure that they were not misunderstood perhaps? Why would that be important in an agreement to freeze wages? Do you think there was any reason why those six words (that I quoted) were NOT changed?

I don't know the answer but here's my best opinion. When your contract includes a proper successorship clause that mandates a merger if you are purchased by another carrier (ours does not), it ensures protection of your seniority, greatly reduces fragmentation potential, eliminates your becomeing an alter ego for the purpose of whipsaw, and ensures that you will not become anybody's "subsidiary". It also makes it more difficult to sell the company to opportunists who don't want any of the problems associated with representation, seniority integration, etc.

If we had such a clause in our old contract (1994) the chances of Delta buying Comair would have been virtually nil. If we had it today, someone like SkyWest would be far less interested. We would not be "up for grabs" by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Well, we don't have the protection, so now we are up for grabs and someone is grabbing, again.

If I were you, I don't think I would be so eager to "thank ALPA" for that. As far as I know every major has merger protection; not a single regional does. BTW, every major also excludes all regionals from it's own merger protections. You can thank ALPA for that.



I agree it's not perfect, but it is something. That is more than skywest pilots can say. But, then again, why have something in writing when your managment would never think about screwing their beloved pilots

QUOTE surplus1
2) Contracts under the RLA never "expire", they merely become amendable on a date certain. If not amended, they remain in place and full effect.

Thanks, even under a transfer of ownership. Got it.

QUOTE surplus1
What you don't mention is also important, i.e., the status of union representation. In a merger, that would have to be determined before any contractual issues come into play. Given that the number of SKYW pilots is almost the same as the number of Comair pilots, a merger of the two would almost certainly trigger a vote to determine whether there will be a union or not. A win by the non-union faction would end the union, and with it our contract. SkyWest people aren't going to vote for a union when they could get all our 70-seaters by not doing that. How? Just ensure that they determine the seniority without our input, i.e., staple us. There is no seniority protection in a non-union operation. Allegheny-Mohawk won't be worth the paper its written on.

If both CMR and ASA are acquired, both are represented by the same union. In that case, there would be no vote, since the number of union pilots would be much higher than the number of non-union pilots. Union certification would be a done deal. I hardly think SkyWest will let that happen if they don't have to.

However, if either CMR or ASA or both, are acquired but operated as subsidiaries, they would both stay union and SkyWest would stay non-union. The respective contracts at ASA and CMR would remain unchanged. Since ASA is already in negotiations, those negotiations would simply continue with SKYW as the key player instead of Delta. The Comiar contract, which is not in Section 6, would remain in effect until its amendable date (now 2007) and until one of the parties (management or the union) files an official Section 6 notice to amend.

While either CMR or ASA remain as subsidiaries of SKYW, either or both of them would be subject to fragmentation by SKYW just as they are now subject to fragmentation by Delta. Neither original contract contains anything to prevent that.

However, the CMR contract was just amended by the LOA. The terms of the LOA would prevent fragmentation of CMR as long as it is in place. The solution to that is pretty simple. SkyWest could simply refuse to make the agreed deliveries of new aircraft provided by the LOA. In that case the contract would snap-back to its original form and the fragmentation could begin immediately.

Comair aircraft could then be transferred to non-union SkyWest or to union ASA. The same thing could be done with ASA aircraft, which could go to SkyWest or to CMR. I don't think you have to do much guessing about where they would go. We could protest all we want but we would have no legal means to prevent it.


The fact that skywest is not represented by alpa or any labor organization worries me as much or more than it does them. With regard to fragmentation beginning immediately. Are you saying, that is for the 164 a/c that comair has on the property right now or simply the future orders resulting from the pay freeze LOA.

QUOTE surplus1
It's going to get a lot more interesting before it gets boring.
Heard. I'm not surprised, I have said in the past comair would probably be divested as a result of this freeze. I am, however, surprised, the skywest CEO would leak out such detailed information. He could have merely stated, that skywest is in continuing discussions with Delta to secure future opportunities and long term stability as a delta connection carrier. Enough information for the analysts without stirring up labor groups. I know he is not that stupid, therfore, I belive there is an agenda here. Sh11t goes, around! We just got ours. Now, it sounds like delta is picking on ASA. Just my O.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus:
So basically, what you are saying in a few less words, is the only thing the pay freeze ensured is a/c deliveries to skywest if they buy us and zero, zip, zilch job protection for comair pilots?

Not exactly. The LOA really has nothing to do with a sale.

In an IPO, the LOA would remain in place, thus providing the guarantees that it includes. Same is true if Delta does NOT divest of Comair.

In a sale, the new owner has the same way out of the LOA that Delta has. They just cancel the "new" aircraft deliveries and let the contract go back to where it was before the LOA. Nothing prevents Delta from doing that very thing.

In a sale, a "no" vote on the LOA would not have guaranteed us any more than the "yes" vote does.

The "problem" with our contract is not the LOA, it is the absence of a proper Successorship clause. As long as you can be "bought" without a merger, it really doesn't matter who does the buying. You have no guarantees. That's what happend when we were "bought" by Delta and it will happen again if we are "bought" by somebody else. Being a "subsidiary" sucks no matter who owns you.

 

[DDpaysoff]

Interesting stuff. On the lighter side, anybody care to guess the new pilot and flight attendant domiciles announced tomorrow at comair.

 

[surplus1]

BOS and/or GSO?

 

[DDpaysoff]

Let me see if I can figure out how to start up a poll. Well, forget that. I have to go. If it is BOS, there will be a lot of people stuck up there celebrating. I heard Logan was closed for snow and vis. We'll see. After many years of rumors, tomorrow may very well be the day we break up the family of 2800 in one small trailer park. I heard two bases, announcement tomorrow...GO source.

Everything else from me regarding this is just O, but put me down for MCO and BOS or MCO and GSO. Other rumors I have heard RDU, JFK/LGA, CAE, TYS DCA/IAD also. I hope Fred does the right thing and reopens MCO.

 

[~~~^~~~]

First paragraph, second line:

"an air carrier which results in an operational merger"

This is interesting language as it pertains to the requirement of a list integration. What if Skywest chooses not to operationally merge ASA/CMR, but rather chooses to operate them separately? Is Skywest required to merge the carriers?

You mean if they like pulled the crap the Delta MEC did at the 2,000 BOD meeting?

I can almost guarantee ALPA would file a single carrier petition for ASA / Comair / Skywest because ALPA would net the Skywest pilots and there would be no golden child mainline pilots that would object.

 

[surplus1]

] [/b] With regard to fragmentation beginning immediately. Are you saying, that is for the 164 a/c that comair has on the property right now or simply the future orders resulting from the pay freeze LOA.

I mean all. The 164 a/c that we have now plus the 35 provided by the LOA.

The only protection we have from fragmentation results from the LOA. That was my reason for supporting a "yes" vote. It's the job security that interests me, not the growth. IF the LOA is implemented, we have protection through the fleet size guarantee in the LOA. In my thinking, that's worth its weight in gold.

Try to look at it objectively. Let's say the proposal was never made and we never voted on any LOA or, if you don't like that, we voted "no". What would happen if tomorrow Delta decided that all the CR7's should be in the same place and assigns them to ASA? Answer = 270 CMR pilots would be downgraded back to the CR2 and 270 pilots would be furloughed.

OK so that didn't happen, we voted "yes". Now, Delta decides NOT to buy any more airplanes for CMR. What happens? Answer = the LOA is null and void and we go back to square one. Thereafter, the above paragraph can be done.

Without the LOA there is absolutely nothing to prevent Delta from moving one (1) or all of the aircraft assigned to CMR to a different carrier. ASA would be the easiest only because Delta also owns ASA so nobody over there has to agree to anything, they just do it. Delta could do the same to ASA and give their airplanes to CMR. It's harder with the other two because they aren't owned and they'd have to agree to accept the aircraft and pay for them. Between ASA/CMR is just and exercise in paperwork.

If we were bought by SkyWest or anyone else, all they would have to do is not take delivery of the LOA aircraft. That has the effect of canceling the LOA and returning to the prior contract; trigger the snap-back. At that point, there is nothing to prevent fragmentation in whole or in part. One (1) or all of the CMR airplanes could be transfered from CMR to SKYW. All of the 70's could be moved to SKYW, leaving CMR the equivalent of PCL. It could be done gradually (most likely). Transfer 10 at a time, furlough 100 at CMR. Keep doing it until there is nothing left. I have no idea if that is probable, but it is dam-ed sure possible. I don't like those kinds of odds.

If Comair is spun-off through an IPO that is very different from being acquired. In that case the contract, including the LOA, remains in place and we have the protection. However, nothing is perfect. The new and independent CMR would still have the option of NOT taking delivery of the LOA aircraft. I think that is far less likely. There would be no logical reason to shrink a newly formed independent Comair unless Delta didn't want to contract for those services. In that case, other contracts would be available.

However, if it did happen, that would cancel the LOA and return to the original contract. However, as an independent airline, no longer owned by Delta or anybody else, Comair would not have anyone to transfer its aircraft to. It could sell them of course, but that's not nearly as easy and it would make no sense.

If there is going to be a divestiture and separation from Delta, the IPO is the most favorable situation for Comair employees, including pilots. In my opinion it is considerably better than being owned by Delta (because of the fragmentation and the whipsaw), unless of course you think Delta pass benefits are the most important thing in life. For a few they might well be, but for the majority I don't think they are. Jumpseats and interline agreements would still be available to all active pilots. We managed to live with that before we became a Delta subsidiary and I think we could again. Only our retired people would take it in the shorts.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone care to define "fair and equitable?" DOH? 3 to 1? 5 to 1?

 

[General Lee]

Interesting stuff. On the lighter side, anybody care to guess the new pilot and flight attendant domiciles announced tomorrow at comair.

It ain't gonna be Helena, MT----that's for sure.......


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JI Gone OH]

Interesting stuff. On the lighter side, anybody care to guess the new pilot and flight attendant domiciles announced tomorrow at comair.

GSO and JFK.... You can mark my words on those two!

MCO/TPA as a combined base is in the works, but most likely won't be announced until a later time if at all!!

 

[N813CA]

What are the travel benifits at Skywest?

 

[cl65capt]

It ain't gonna be Helena, MT----that's for sure.......


Bye Bye--General Lee

General, you sure seem to have a thing with Comair and Helena, whats up with that?

 

[General Lee]

General, you sure seem to have a thing with Comair and Helena, whats up with that?

Ah, I am just kidding. I saw way back when that you guys got some weird layovers when you flew through SLC, and one was Helena. That was the only MT layover and I thought that was strange. Now I harp on it, and it makes me laugh. I haven't ever been to Helena, so I don't know if it is nice or not.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[BluDevAv8r]

If I were you, I don't think I would be so eager to "thank ALPA" for that. As far as I know every major has merger protection; not a single regional does. BTW, every major also excludes all regionals from it's own merger protections. You can thank ALPA for that.

I think you ought to recheck your facts Surplus. Go read Letter 1 of the the XJT contract that I sent you. That letter was negotiated on a Saturday where we flew an ALPA attorney (a very good one I might add...who is also well known on the CMR property) down from DC at the crack of dawn. That letter is also what was the final issue to be negotiated which wrapped up our contract negotiations. That was the very last day of negotiations. Bash ALPA all you want but on that day, I was very glad that we had a very competent attorney/negotiator at the table with us. If you'd like me to go over that letter with you in further detail, let me know.

-Neal

 

[737 Pylt]

You mean if they like pulled the crap the Delta MEC did at the 2,000 BOD meeting?

I can almost guarantee ALPA would file a single carrier petition for ASA / Comair / Skywest because ALPA would net the Skywest pilots and there would be no golden child mainline pilots that would object.

Man alive, your posts just get bitter with age! You should be concerned about your staple job you are about to get from Skywest. Now the bottom of the DAL mainline seniority list doesn't look so bad does it??
Its just too bad you and your rjdc pals won't have anything else to blame on DAL mainline any more after this is all said and done!
AMF
737

 

[172driver]

Ah, I am just kidding. I saw way back when that you guys got some weird layovers when you flew through SLC, and one was Helena. That was the only MT layover and I thought that was strange. Now I harp on it, and it makes me laugh. I haven't ever been to Helena, so I don't know if it is nice or not.

It was actually a very nice layover. Excellent steakhouse downstairs and a microbrewery right next door to the hotel. Mt. Helena was close, a good hike with beautiful views. Even a casino in town, if that's your thing. Beautiful country for sure.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Great overnight, nice people

Helena is what Jackson Hole must have been like 50 years ago. I was sorry to see that we were not going there anymore.

 

[DDpaysoff]

uh, oh. GSO, JFK/LGA. Say it ain't so.

 

[DDpaysoff]

Dude hit it on the head. 30 crews for MCO/TPA. Good news for some people. 70 crews in GSO and JFK. JFK opens this fall, others in summer.

 

[surplus1]

I think you ought to recheck your facts Surplus. Go read Letter 1 of the the XJT contract that I sent you. That letter was negotiated on a Saturday where we flew an ALPA attorney (a very good one I might add...who is also well known on the CMR property) down from DC at the crack of dawn. That letter is also what was the final issue to be negotiated which wrapped up our contract negotiations. That was the very last day of negotiations. Bash ALPA all you want but on that day, I was very glad that we had a very competent attorney/negotiator at the table with us. If you'd like me to go over that letter with you in further detail, let me know.
-Neal

Neal,

You are correct in that I should have listed XJT as the "exception to the rule". In my opinion, Section 1 of your contract is the best in the "regional" industry. I envy it and wish that we had its equivalent at Comair; we do not.

Having said that, it is also my opinion that your principle protection is not in Letter 1 which you reference, but in Section 1. D., and I say again, it is as good as any.

Letter 1, as you know, outlines the obligations of your holding company, which recognizes your contract and must continue to do so if "Holdings" is acquired by a third party. It goes to great lengths outlining what "Holdings" must to if it acquires another carrier. But, properly, says very little if anything about the details of what another carrier must do if it should become the successor of Holdings. However, you are fully coverd by the provisions of Section 1, which do specify in sufficient detail what should happen if another entity acquires and succeeds XJT. Since "Holdings" must honor the XJT contract terms, it follows that a successor to "Holdings" must do the same. You're covered either way.

This part of your contract is superior to the Comair contract in every respect. While I don't personally like the arbitration provisions, I understand why they are there. Everything has a price and that was a small one.

I know you're very sensitive about your contract and you have a right to be. As I have told you before, I think it's an excellent piece of work. You already know that once I saw it, all of my questions about the TA were put to rest. It is a good contract.

In my opinion, your Section 1 by itself, is worth the differences in our pay scales and then some. Many at my airline would probably not agree with that. If these rumored transactions with SKYW come to pass, they will quickly discover why I think as I do. It has long been my opinion that when Section 1 of the Agreement is inadequate, the rest of it isn't worth very much. Recent events at my company have not changed that opinion.

Thanks for pointing out that you are the exception to what I said. You are free to credit whomever you want for the results. Personally, I would much rather credit you than I would the folks in Virginia. I also credit your management for agreeing to those terms, without which you would not have them, unless you walked, and then you might still not have them. Sometimes folks "walk" for the wrong reasons.

Do not overlook that your situation was the reverse of ours. Your company gained its "independence" during your negotiations or just before. My company lost its independence during our negotiations. It is one thing to get XJT management to sign such an agreement. It's an entirely different thing to get Delta to sign it, when they have already acquired your company without it. The time for us to negotiate that was in '94 not '01. At the time the majority wanted money more than language. Everyone knows the result of that. It was proven beyond any doubt when our airline was swallowed. It will be proven again if we are "acquired" rather than spun off in an IPO. There's nothing quite like being a day late and a dollar short.

Bottom line is Comair does not have the protection and we are exposed. It's a gaping hole in our contract. I doubt that anyone who buys us will miss it.

 

[surplus1]

Anybody want to take bets on a bidding war between SKYW, CHQ and MESA?

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

Source: Aviation Daily 3.8.05

SkyWest CEO Jerry Atkin yesterday sought to cool widespread speculation that the carrier is considering buying Delta's regional subsidiaries, Atlantic Southeast (ASA) and Comair.

Atkin told The DAILY at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., that recent press reports about purchase negotiations with Delta were a stretch. "We've had solicited and unsolicited discussions with every network carrier in America -- anything beyond that is speculation," Atkin said. He later echoed that point in a presentation, saying, "There are some opportunities out there, and when we get beyond the exploratory phase, we'll talk about it."

SkyWest in the past two years has been open about its desire to use its robust balance sheet -- now at about $500 million in cash and marketable securities -- for acquisitions. It's not the first time SkyWest has eyed buying another regional carrier. The airline considered buying ExpressJet before Continental decided to spin off its regional arm.

Speculation about the Delta subsidiaries stemmed from comments by SkyWest CFO Bradford Rich at the Raymond James investor conference in Orlando on Monday. Rich said SkyWest has "had some discussions with Delta about [the sale]." He noted that Delta "has expressed their desire pretty specifically to us...We are aware of their interest, and we are looking at this."

Rich also said, however, that SkyWest is "not interested in growth for growth's sake" and that the carrier would move very carefully if it decided to pursue the Delta acquisition. "A number of issues would have to be worked out and dealt with," Rich said. Because of its strong cash position, SkyWest is "in the best position of anyone to take advantage" of this type of opportunity.

Analyst Robert Mann, of RW Mann and Co., told The DAILY that "it is easy to understand Delta's desire to monetize the regional carrier assets...to raise cash and offload debt and obligations." But he noted that Comair and ASA are among the highest-cost regional carriers in the industry, "and thus will not fetch the sort of financial multiples that ExpressJet, Pinnacle and Republic Airline Holdings have achieved."

This might result in a low purchase price and the appearance of a good deal for SkyWest or another buyer, although the subsidiaries would come with a significant "fix-up" price tag and high labor costs, Mann said. Delta would also face the issue of losing control of its regional flying.

Also at the ISTAT conference, Atkin said he finds Bombardier's proposed C- Series plane intriguing, and believes the unit costs of the 110- to 130-seat aircraft family could be attractive if the Canadian airframer launches the larger jets.

Atkin said SkyWest has looked at the plane and found its unit costs were "below anything out there in that size." He noted it's not clear how SkyWest might use the aircraft in today's marketplace but "we have a couple years to figure that out." Bombardier's board this month is scheduled to decide whether to launch the plane.

One of the many options SkyWest has considered for the future is operating planes up to 150 seats as a low-cost operator. It also looked at opportunities to partner with existing low-cost airlines. Like the scenario at many regional carriers, SkyWest's deliveries are murky beyond 2005. The carrier has no firm deliveries planned after June, but Atkin said there's been a lot discussion with his carrier's major partners and other carriers about future growth.

 

[CF34-3B1]

Source: Aviation Daily 3.8.0

Analyst Robert Mann, of RW Mann and Co., told The DAILY that "it is easy to understand Delta's desire to monetize the regional carrier assets...to raise cash and offload debt and obligations." But he noted that Comair and ASA are among the highest-cost regional carriers in the industry, "and thus will not fetch the sort of financial multiples that ExpressJet, Pinnacle and Republic Airline Holdings have achieved."

Geeez,

Maybe I should have some "Analyst" business cards made up and start spewing false facts to the press. Seems to be working for this guy.