Has Midwest ALPA filed for single carrier status with the NMB?

[Beetle007]

I hear that there are lots of midwest pilots on the street. Any news on when those pilots will have jobs at Republic?

Unless the ball is already rolling, the next logical step for Midwest ALPA is to file a petition for single carrier status with the NMB. Once that is approved, the law passed in Dec 2008 (H.R. 2764) allows only 20 days of negotiations until seniority integration is sent to an arbitrator and the arbitrator must make a decision within 90 days.

This is what ATA should have done when they were bought "as a whole" (according the the bankruptcy judge) by Southwest....but ATA never even filed the petition with the NMB to start the ball rolling. I would hate to see the same thing happen to Midwest pilots.

 

[StaySeated]

Midwest doesn't need to file single carrier status because all effected parties have already agreed to participate in negotiations. In fact, Midwest has already filed for arbitration under 13(b) and filing for a single carrier test would be a step backward in the process.

Additionally, the single carrier test is a two step process and the ATA/SWA acquisition would not have satisfied either step.

 

[Beetle007]

Midwest doesn't need to file single carrier status because all effected parties have already agreed to participate in negotiations. In fact, Midwest has already filed for arbitration under 13(b) and filing for a single carrier test would be a step backward in the process.

Additionally, the single carrier test is a two step process and the ATA/SWA acquisition would not have satisfied either step.

If Republic agrees to integrate the pilots in a fair and equitable manner then it is a non-issue. However, the NMB needs to recognize them as a single carrier. Either this has already happened...or it needs to happen. So how can you say it is a step backwards?

Why do you say that the ATA/SWA acquisition would have not satisfied either step of the process? SWA purchased ATA (including operating certificate, landing slots, gates, etc). Shouldn't the ATA pilots have at least tried to obtain single carrier status with the NMB?

 

[njcapt]

If Republic agrees to integrate the pilots in a fair and equitable manner then it is a non-issue. However, the NMB needs to recognize them as a single carrier. Either this has already happened...or it needs to happen. So how can you say it is a step backwards?

Why do you say that the ATA/SWA acquisition would have not satisfied either step of the process? SWA purchased ATA (including operating certificate, landing slots, gates, etc). Shouldn't the ATA pilots have at least tried to obtain single carrier status with the NMB?

Both situations had agreements that precluded any single carrier petition. The ALPA custodian at ATA signed an agreement agreeing to waive any rights in order to speed payment of a bankruptcy award worth a few thousand dollars to each pilot on the list at the time of the shut down. It sounds like the same happened at Midwest. Case closed, unfortunately.

 

[Cardinal]

Single carrier status has very little to with seniority lists and very much to do with what entity represents the work group(s).

 

[Beetle007]

Single carrier status has very little to with seniority lists and very much to do with what entity represents the work group(s).

That might have been true in the past, but I think that all changed when H.R. 2764 was passed in December 2008.

 

[Beetle007]

It is of significant importance for the NMB to recognize that multiple carriers have combined into a single carrier to meet the legal definition of a "covered transaction".

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2764enr.txt.pdf

(4) C​

​

OVERED 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.