Hold on tight

[Propilot77]

Insert...horse before the cart here. This is a wait and see game. Cooler heads will prevail. Three common analogies in that one!

Always a man of wisdom! Great to hear from you again, "Eh"!

 

[Cavpilot]

Praetorian, you flat out wrong. An Arbitrator would decide what is fair and equitable in the event that CS decertifies. It's spelled out in black and white in the McCaskill-Bond statue. The Teamsters would argue for DOH but there is no way an arbitrator is going to place over 80 percent of the CS pilots on the bottom 20 percent of the seniority list, period.


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 part for adjustment in accordance with section 13.

Allegheny-Mohawk, 59 C.A.B. at 45.

Section 13 mandated arbitration of disputes with employees that arose in this process or under any of the other provisions of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs.2 Section 13 provides:

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 settled 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 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.

You have left out one of the key factors an arbitrator would use to determine a seniority list integration, that is career expectation. Based on the path that CS/CA has been on for the last few years, I think that it's safe to say that an arbitrator would weigh heavily toward the Flops pilot group.

Look, I'm a NetJets guy and don't have a horse in this race. However, I'm very interested to see the outcome of this issue. But then again, this supposed merger is still all hearsay, innuendo, rumor and gossip. One last thing; here is a down and dirty legal view of seniority list integration:


http://afaonevoice.org/images/McCaskill Amendment explanation FINAL for WEB.pdf

 

[outerfix]

"Career expectations" was the old ALPA merger policy and is one of many methods to determine a fair integration and usually does not include the health of the carrier. Do you think the American pilots should be stapled because they are in bankruptcy? And nobody knows how CS is doing as the books are sealed. I believe the Midwest/Republic integration is in arbitration now. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

Republic and the Teamsters argued that the transaction was not a merger. Instead of acquiring an air carrier, Republic had rather acquired some assets related to air transportation, they argued. Soon after the purchase, Republic returned Midwest's nine leased planes to Boeing and abandoned Midwest's flying certificate from federal regulators. Republic did, however, take over Midwest's air routes.

A district court ruled in favor of Republic and the Teamsters, concluding that the federal law was never meant to protect the employees of an air carrier that "simply goes out of business." But the 7th Circuit disagreed.

"One cannot remove bankrupt and soon-to-disappear carriers from the statute's coverage, as the Teamsters propose, without simultaneously circumventing the statutory text and frustrating the design behind it," Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the three-judge panel.

The court noted that the federal law requiring seniority integration itself grew out of American Airlines' acquisition of Trans World Airlines, which was bankrupt and on the brink of closing down.

Marianne Robbins, a lawyer for Republic and the Teamsters, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republic and the Teamsters' Airline Division did not immediately return calls for comment.

Edward Gilmartin, general counsel for the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and a lawyer for the Midwest flight attendants, said the 7th Circuit was the first appellate court to address the issue. The court "firmly established that once two carriers merge, there must be a fair and equitable seniority integration for the workers," he said.

 

[outerfix]

Insert...horse before the cart here. This is a wait and see game. Cooler heads will prevail. Three common analogies in that one!

I have some as well, It's complicated, you wouldn't understand. Run along and let the big boys conduct business. Don't worry, we have your best interests at heart.

 

[Praetorian]

Hey guys. Methinks this fella ^^^^^^ has shown his hand.

What do you think?

 

[outerfix]

What hand is that? I'm just beating the drum as loud as I can for a fair integration, if there is an integration.

 

[jetwash]

What hand is that? I'm just beating the drum as loud as I can for a fair integration, if there is an integration.

Why do I have a feeling that if there is an integration, no matter what happens you will be unhappy

Ask the guys from Avantair if they would want to be in your position and ask yourself if you would want to be in theirs.

 

[dime line]

What hand is that? I'm just beating the drum as loud as I can for a fair integration, if there is an integration.

ahhhhh the sky is falling.........STAPLE.........ahhhhh sht

Ps, I'm posting this on behalf of B19

 

[JokerFuel]

I have some as well, It's complicated, you wouldn't understand. Run along and let the big boys conduct business. Don't worry, we have your best interests at heart.

And there it is...all of it. It's conjecture until the "Leaders" have lead. Otherwise this is a waste of time and effort. Good luck to the little guy. Bottom line.....it's about the outside not the inside. House, wife (if you have one), and the kids. The rest is ********************e! Good luck to us all.

 

[outerfix]

Why do I have a feeling that if there is an integration, no matter what happens you will be unhappy

Ask the guys from Avantair if they would want to be in your position and ask yourself if you would want to be in theirs.

Thanks for caring about my happiness. I appreciate it.

That's like asking an innocent man if he would rather have ten years or the death penalty. If there is going to be an integration, I want it to be fair. If I am going to end up on the street, as aero boy seems to think, I'll deal with it. Do you think that someone who does this much research does not have a back up plan or two?

Praetorian, please stop with the cryptic innuendos, if you have something to say, say it.

Joker, engaging you would be like beating up Buddha. Peace out my brother.

 

[Fresh Air]

And what if Aero Boy is correct again?

Thought I was done with this thread, but there's one more point that needs to be discussed.

If Aero Boy's info is correct again, Ricci's plan is to put the CS pilots out on the street.

The "evil" Teamsters lawyers have stated that buying over 50 percent of CS assets would constitute buying that carrier, and M-B would be in effect, meaning that your pilots would have to be integrated rather than fired.

CS aircraft and accounts receivable would certainly amount to more than 50% of CS assets.

If the CS pilots are represented, and Ricci fires you all, guess who will be fighting Flight Options in court to keep your jobs secure? That's right, those "evil" Teamsters that Outerfix wants to kick out the door. That's me, my 300 colleagues at FO, and millions of Teamsters around the country, paying dues to hire lawyers to fight for your jobs.

If you follow the lead of those who want to decertify your Union, and Ricci fires you, then who will be fighting Flight Options? A small group of unemployed pilots.

No doubt Outerfix and whoever else is on the decertification band wagon are only doing what they think is best, from their point of view. Of course, since this is an anonymous message board, who knows what that point of view is? CS pilot? Paid Union buster? FO manager? Who really knows?

Point is, intentional or not, some folks are trying to drive off a cliff, and encouraging the CS pilot group to follow.

 

[OHGOON]

Outerfix,

It's been said here more than once. It will be DOH and fences with the Teamsters and it will be something similar to that without them. What you have not answered is how you are going to represent yourself in front of the inevitable arbitrator? Who is going to pay for the lawyers you are going to need? Who is going to come up with a common strategy to present your case? WHO IS GOING TO PAY?

What if Ricci decides to "violate" the M-B amendment or try to ignore it? WHO IS GOING TO PAY to take him to court? Are you going to pay all that while on the street collecting unemployment and looking for your next gig?

Arbitration and lawsuits take time and are very expensive...how are you as an unrepresented single individual better off in these scenarios?

 

[AeroBoy]

You all are assuming that Directional is "buying" CitationAir.

 

[Praetorian]

Thought I was done with this thread, but there's one more point that needs to be discussed.

If Aero Boy's info is correct again, Ricci's plan is to put the CS pilots out on the street.

The "evil" Teamsters lawyers have stated that buying over 50 percent of CS assets would constitute buying that carrier, and M-B would be in effect, meaning that your pilots would have to be integrated rather than fired.

CS aircraft and accounts receivable would certainly amount to more than 50% of CS assets.

If the CS pilots are represented, and Ricci fires you all, guess who will be fighting Flight Options in court to keep your jobs secure? That's right, those "evil" Teamsters that Outerfix wants to kick out the door. That's me, my 300 colleagues at FO, and millions of Teamsters around the country, paying dues to hire lawyers to fight for your jobs.

If you follow the lead of those who want to decertify your Union, and Ricci fires you, then who will be fighting Flight Options? A small group of unemployed pilots.

No doubt Outerfix and whoever else is on the decertification band wagon are only doing what they think is best, from their point of view. Of course, since this is an anonymous message board, who knows what that point of view is? CS pilot? Paid Union buster? FO manager? Who really knows?

Point is, intentional or not, some folks are trying to drive off a cliff, and encouraging the CS pilot group to follow.

Well said brother!

 

[jetwash]

You all are assuming that Directional is "buying" CitationAir.

Can you expand on this?

Seeing as you have been proven to have the best info on this topic can you look into the crystal ball and let us know what is up in more detail?

 

[outerfix]

Wow, a lot of ground to cover. First off, It's not the Teamsters saying that buying 50% of the assets would trigger a pilot transfer, it's McCaskill-Bond as I stated at least a week ago.

I never said the Teamsters were evil. Our MEC has a lot of blood sweat and tears into getting this union together and they stuck their necks way out. Our MEC union to the core and is buying everything that the 1108 is selling them. I don't think any independent research has been done on a seniority list integration with the exception of consulting the 1108, which is Option's pilots.

OHGOON, It's been said more then once because you keep saying it. The 1108 is saying things that are flat out false. If we were not Teamsters, we would follow the procedures of Allegany-Mohawk as outlined in McCaskill-Bond. As much as they would like to hope, the Teamsters would not control the process, we would not follow Teamsters merger policy and we would expect a much different outcome then if we were Teamsters.

Aero, An airline has a route structure, we have owner contracts. The contracts are the assets. Whats 50% of a negative asset. I don't know the answer to that. The Midwest/ Republic is the first merger under McCaskill-Bond and I think a good template for what will happen, if anything is going to happen. In the Midwest/Republic merger the FA's got merger integration rights even though the routes were the only things that transferred over.

How to pay for it. Preparing a case for an arbitrator and spending one day in court presenting it is not going to cost a fortune. I think we would get paid back the first Christmas we get to spend at home rather than on the road because of crappy seniority. Fighting the company would take significantly more money, but if we are not willing to fight for what is right then we deserve what we get.

`

 

[Sparse]

Can you expand on this?

Seeing as you have been proven to have the best info on this topic can you look into the crystal ball and let us know what is up in more detail?

I think he said a few replies ago that CA pilots should have their resumes ready.

 

[AeroBoy]

I think he said a few replies ago that CA pilots should have their resumes ready.

The best piece of advice for CitationAir pilots is to hope for the best but plan for the worst. There's no harm in having an updated resume, and I'd hope that many of the CitationAir pilots had already done this months ago, as Cessna/Textron's interest in running a private lift operation has waned with each passing minute since announcing its exit from the fractional business early last year.

 

[NJAowner]

Fo/DAC would probably not be buying that many "assets" of CA. I would see a deal structured where CA just assigns "liabilities" (its obligations under the management contracts) but keeps its assets (tangible and intangible, receivables, etc.). Other than the "core fleet" which FO does not need, the planes belong to the owners and are not the assets of CA. It is issues like these that will have lawyers on one side structuring the deal one way, and the union lawyers advocating for their client's positions.

 

[Fresh Air]

Fo/DAC would probably not be buying that many "assets" of CA. I would see a deal structured where CA just assigns "liabilities" (its obligations under the management contracts) but keeps its assets (tangible and intangible, receivables, etc.). Other than the "core fleet" which FO does not need, the planes belong to the owners and are not the assets of CA. It is issues like these that will have lawyers on one side structuring the deal one way, and the union lawyers advocating for their client's positions.

Thanks for posting that. Gives a bit of perspective from the viewpoint of someone familiar with business dealings instead of just flying planes. So if Directional doesn't pick up CA's assets, then Kenn can do whatever he wants with the crews and this whole integration discussion is kinda moot, huh?

 

[dime line]

NJA Owner, does CS own a 1/16 or 1/32 of each (maybe not each) plane that they have in their control?

 

[NJAowner]

Fresh Air -- I am not sure what it mean she can do under the other agreements, but I am just telling you from a 40000 foot level (ok a flying analogy) how the deal may be structured. Especially since (as rumor is) the $$$ are flowing from CA to DAC (in order to assume liabilities), it is less of a purchase of assets.


Dime - not sure. For example, NJ hopes that it doesn't own any interest in any jets. But practically it ends up with stub pieces from a departing owner having 1/4 and only being able to resell 3/16 at the time in question. Ideally, each jet starts off (or after initial sales starts off) with 0 company interest. Plus, if you are looking at a 50% of assets standard, there are many ways around that. First, in many acquisitions receivables are not purchase and in a fractional company they have to be huge. Secondly, intangible assets such as good will and the trademarks may have substantial value and may not be sold. It is very different than a manufacturing company where plant and equipment is sold or even an airline where jets are sold.

All being said, I think FO needs something between the Phenom and the X (since they are phasing out the Hawker 800) and the planes don't fly themselves. They would instantly need many well qualified pilots and getting then from CA is a logical choice.

 

[gret]

Fresh Air -- I am not sure what it mean she can do under the other agreements, but I am just telling you from a 40000 foot level (ok a flying analogy) how the deal may be structured. Especially since (as rumor is) the $$$ are flowing from CA to DAC (in order to assume liabilities), it is less of a purchase of assets.


Dime - not sure. For example, NJ hopes that it doesn't own any interest in any jets. But practically it ends up with stub pieces from a departing owner having 1/4 and only being able to resell 3/16 at the time in question. Ideally, each jet starts off (or after initial sales starts off) with 0 company interest. Plus, if you are looking at a 50% of assets standard, there are many ways around that. First, in many acquisitions receivables are not purchase and in a fractional company they have to be huge. Secondly, intangible assets such as good will and the trademarks may have substantial value and may not be sold. It is very different than a manufacturing company where plant and equipment is sold or even an airline where jets are sold.

All being said, I think FO needs something between the Phenom and the X (since they are phasing out the Hawker 800) and the planes don't fly themselves. They would instantly need many well qualified pilots and getting then from CA is a logical choice.

Don't forget if they keep the receivables, they also have to keep the payables...which are also massive and usually exceed the receivables in the case of an aviation company.

A seller of a frac has to pay the buyer cash because of the obligations, including the buy out for the owners if they leave the program. The seller is escaping and has to pay to get out of a bad business.

 

[Sparse]

I find it funny that Allen edmunds shoes advertises on this web site. In this thread, people are worried about their jobs and how to feed their family. I doubt they are concerned about what style of $300 shoes they are going to buy. Now don't get me wrong, they make great shoes, I have two pair I have had for 12 and 30 years, but with the exception of NJOwner, I doubt many on this site are going to be shopping for theses items.

 

[jonjuan]

I find it funny that Allen edmunds shoes advertises on this web site. In this thread, people are worried about their jobs and how to feed their family. I doubt they are concerned about what style of $300 shoes they are going to buy. Now don't get me wrong, they make great shoes, I have two pair I have had for 12 and 30 years, but with the exception of NJOwner, I doubt many on this site are going to be shopping for theses items.

Maybe it's a leak over from the 10/250 thread where advertisers are Rolex, Mercedes, and Members Only. :laugh:

 

[gunfyter]

In THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, I remember it said that most millionaires had never spent $149 or more for a pair of shoes.

That was one example ... but there were many other items he mentioned too. The people buying this crap are people who can't afford it

 

[NJAowner]

Re: Allen Edmunds. Great shoes and if you get them re-soled when needed can actually be a better value than cheaper shoes. They can last a long time (but do need more $ upfront). I have one pair for over 10 years -- get them resoled and conditioned every 2 years or so and they are better than new -- just like new but already broken in.

Gret --"Don't forget if they keep the receivables, they also have to keep the payables." Not quite sure how many transactions you have been involved in but very rarely is something that "they also HAVE TO" anything. In probably 75% of asset acquisitions, that is probably the case, but is far from a "HAVE TO". I would envision a deal structure that has some type of a post-closing "work out/earn out" for dealing with the owner buybacks, etc. CA may even stay on the hook directly for those. This is not the "first rodeo" for KR & DAC. If they are assuming the owner buy back liabilities I assume they will be adequately compensated for it. Since they are all Cessna products maybe they just take them back.

Sparse --a good bit of internet advertising on these boards is based upon other websites which have been visited on your computer. You may see "Allen Edmunds" because you were looking at shoes, Fisch will see oceanfront condos in Maui or La Jolla because he has been trying to figure out how to spend all his 10/$250 and retirement benefits, and I don't think we really want to know what comes on Jonjuan's screen. But we probably all get the Sporty's and pilot stuff. That is just how internet advertising usually works.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Firefox + AdBlock Plus = Advertising? What advertising ?

 

[Sparse]

Re: Allen Edmunds. Great shoes and if you get them re-soled when needed can actually be a better value than cheaper shoes. They can last a long time (but do need more $ upfront). I have one pair for over 10 years -- get them resoled and conditioned every 2 years or so and they are better than new -- just like new but already broken in.

.

They are great shoes. Don't know if it is still the case but Delta pilots could buy these through payroll deduct for 1/2 price. That's how I got mine. I have had one pair factory refurbished and they are just like new. I have had that pair for over 30 years.

 

[dime line]

In THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, I remember it said that most millionaires had never spent $149 or more for a pair of shoes.

That was one example ... but there were many other items he mentioned too. The people buying this crap are people who can't afford it

Make no mistake about it, they might not buy 149.00 shoes, but I bet they have 50,000 into a home stereo. just saying