McCaskill-Bond Seniority Integration Legislation

[Crandal]

SWA will do Prenup agreement with Frontier Pilots that will help SWA get around Frontier Scope and also, the same Prenup will help circumnavigate McCasskil Legislation.

 

[FDJ2]

Wishful thinking but you did not answer the questions I wrote.

Maybe because you didn't ask one.

 

[Cometman]

It would depend on the PWA's of the pilot groups involved. FAPA has a PWA, it's been recently approved by the judge and is a part of Frontiers plan of reorganization. It has successorship protections.

I think folks need to remember that Frontier is not in Chapter 7. They seem to be doing well in reorganization and they've been posting good financial results. This isn't a fire sale like ATA and this legislation was written specifically to preclude another AA/TWA integration where an employee group is denied their right to a fair integration if their airline is acquired.

All of this may mean that SWA may back out of this deal, but I think if they are serious about it and they truly want Frontiers assets, they'll have to play nice in the sand box.

I guess if they are not happy with what SWA offers they can say no. If SWA backs out then F9 can go with republic. I think they will accept a staple, pay and Base lock. Plus seniority for vacation etc. That is it for now. I said enough since I am not in either corner. Later

 

[FDJ2]

SWA will do Prenup agreement with Frontier Pilots that will help SWA get around Frontier Scope and also, the same Prenup will help circumnavigate McCasskil Legislation.

If they do a prenup with the Frontier pilots then that implies a negotiated list. That would be great, I hope it works out and you get a mutually beneficial seniority list.

 

[FDJ2]

I guess if they are not happy with what SWA offers they can say no. If SWA backs out then F9 can go with republic. I think they will accept a staple, pay and Base lock. Plus seniority for vacation etc. That is it for now. I said enough since I am not in either corner. Later

That's right, choices have to be made by all sides.

I'm not personally involved in this potential transaction, but I do have a problem with the strong arming some seem to think is appropriate.

 

[airlinepilot]

Any aircraft that SWA owns or buys must be operated by SWAPA pilots. This is very simple. If the two unions cannot settle all issues upfront then Gary will not do it.

 

[PCL_128]

Are Skywest and ASA under 1 seniority list?

Skywest has no contract, and ASA didn't have any contract language that required an integration (same reason that Delta could purchase them and not integrate).

What would happen if they kept F9 as a seperate airline. Assuming it did not violate SWAPA. Would they have to combine the list? I do not believe they have one list with Lynx. And that brings up another question. According to your theory Lynx would also have to be included.

Lynx is included under special exceptions within the FAPA scope language. An acquisition by SWA would not be. SWA could certainly purchase F9 and operate them as a completely separate operation, but the second they try to "pool" assets, such as using F9 gates for SWA operations, the FAPA scope clause kicks in and requires an integration.

SWA will do Prenup agreement with Frontier Pilots that will help SWA get around Frontier Scope and also, the same Prenup will help circumnavigate McCasskil Legislation.

FAPA would not be wise to accept such a thing. Hopefully they will look at what the APA did to the TWA pilots when they signed away their scope protections.

 

[gt1900]

Simple, SWA will use their own A/C and swap all the gates. Its going to be so easy for them to kick F9 to the curb. I hate to say it, but SWA ain't stupid! They will not pool any assets. They are buying F9 to eliminate competition, simple as that. F9 will be gone in 3 years, and all the pilots will be on the street. And I'm not saying I like it, but thats the way its going to be. If you think SWA can't move around FAPA you are out of your mind........ Funny thing is PCL, you keep saying how the government won't let it happen, and then I point out that Skywest bought ASA and they are operated seperately as different airlines with different seniority lists. SWA will do the same thing. And get rid of F9, and its employees. For god sakes, MEH subbed all thier flying out to Republic and ALPA was helpless to stop it. Yet you think FAPA can? You simply don't get it do you!

 

[PCL_128]

Simple, SWA will use their own A/C and swap all the gates.

Swapping the gates would trigger the Section 1 language. Unless all assets are kept completely separate, the scope language comes into play. I'm not a big fan of independent unions, as you well know, but I have to admit that FAPA seems to have done a pretty decent job of writing their scope clause.

I hate to say it, but SWA ain't stupid!

Agreed. That's why they're demanding that FAPA come down to Dallas to talk with them about signing away their scope language. SWA management knows that that language will inhibit what they're trying to do, so they're going to try to convince FAPA to give it up. The same thing happened with TWA/AMR, but the TWA pilots were in much worse shape, because they were likely to liquidate without the deal. F9 has more leverage, because they have an alternate deal on the table with Republic. If they refuse to accept SWA's terms, then SWA can take their ball and go home, and the FAPA pilots still have jobs under Republic.

Funny thing is PCL, you keep saying how the government won't let it happen

The government? I'm talking contract language, not government legislation. Bond-McCaskill is a completely separate issue.

and then I point out that Skywest bought ASA and they are operated seperately as different airlines with different seniority lists.

Different scope language. The whole RJDC battle was linked back to the fact that neither the DAL nor the CMR/ASA scope language required an integration. The FAPA language appears to have enough protections.

For god sakes, MEH subbed all thier flying out to Republic and ALPA was helpless to stop it. Yet you think FAPA can?

Again, different contract language.

You simply don't get it do you!

Have you read the FAPA contract? Here's the applicable section:

G. MERGER PROTECTION

1. In the event of a merger between the Company and another air carrier (i.e. the combination of all or substantially all
the assets of the 2 carriers) where the pre-merger operations are integrated, the integration shall be in accordance
with Sections 2, 3, and 13 of the Labor Protective Provisions specified by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-
Mohawk merger (“Allegheny-Mohawk LPP’s”). The term merger as used herein means joint action by the 2 carriers
whereby they unify, consolidate, merge, or pool in whole or in part their separate airline facilities or any of the
operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities.
2. In the event the Company acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of another air carrier, or another air
carrier acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of the Company, the Company shall meet promptly with
the Association to negotiate a possible Fence Agreement to be in effect during the period, if any, the 2 carriers are
operated separately without integration of the Pilot work force. These discussions shall not be pursuant to Section 6
of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and reaching an agreement with the Association shall not be a prerequisite for
closing, or any other aspect of the transaction or operations pursuant to the transaction.

H. SUCCESSORSHIP

1. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor or assign of the Company unless and until changed in
accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. For the purposes of this Paragraph H, a
successor or assign shall be defined as an Entity, which acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of the
Company through a single transaction or multi-step, related transactions.
2. No contract or other legally binding commitment involving a successor or assign shall be signed or otherwise entered
into unless it is agreed as a material and irrevocable condition of entering into, concluding and implementing such
transaction that the successor shall be bound by this Agreement, shall recognize the Association as the
representative of the Pilots, and shall assume the employment of the Pilots.

 

[ASADFW7]

So who is a lawyer here? Let this play out between the two parties involved. The big play is who SWA goes after next.

 

[gt1900]

If SWA just gets rid of F9 there is nothing F9's contract is going to do. Thats what you don't get. SWA can get rid of all the gates on the A concourse and take the freed up gates on the C concourse. They can simply shut F9 down. They don't have to take any assets, any employees, nothing! They paid just over $100 million to get rid of 1 of the 2 competing airlines in DEN. Thats a pretty good price to pay when you know you can make it up easily in the long run. What you don't realize is that SWA and F9 overlap so much in the DEN market now that it woulnd't be seen as taking over routes. They can add flights to SWA and dump flights from F9. There is a way around FAPA's contract. And you can bet that SWA will use that if they decide to! I haven't read it, but from what I understand MEH violated their contract with the MEH pilots. Contracts get violated everyday, and the person with the most money usually wins. SWA has the most money! I'm not saying its fair, but its the way things work. How many times has AAI viloated our contract? How many times have all the airlines violated their own contracts. Thats what I mean when I say you don't get it. Im sure SWA has great lawyers, and they will find away around FAPA's contract!

 

[Empennage]

A few things, I doubt you will see a "transfer of assets" while operating both airlines independently.

Also, nobody has mentioned it, but all SWAPA has to do at some point (if common elements are used), is make a petition to the NMB for single carrier status.

Most of us, which have a stake in this, are cautiously optimistic.

 

[regionaltard]

So who is a lawyer here?

Why, everyone. Next question please?

 

[NuGuy]

Whew...flying into main hub airports, rejected TAs, money losing quarters, high labor costs and now a merger with potential SLI problems.

SWA sounds more like a legacy every day...welcome to the club...here's your sign....

Nu

 

[PCL_128]

If SWA just gets rid of F9 there is nothing F9's contract is going to do. Thats what you don't get. SWA can get rid of all the gates on the A concourse and take the freed up gates on the C concourse. They can simply shut F9 down. They don't have to take any assets, any employees, nothing!

You're skipping a step. In order for SWA to do all of that, they first have to acquire F9, and the acquisition would require them to accept the terms of the FAPA contract.

I haven't read it, but from what I understand MEH violated their contract with the MEH pilots.

Not quite true. The MEH scope language was incredibly weak. It wasn't violated, because it just wasn't there.

 

[gt1900]

You don't think theres loopholes? They pay lawyers a LOT of money to be able to find loopholes. This will be a walk in the park for SWA.

 

[mt2]

You're skipping a step. In order for SWA to do all of that, they first have to acquire F9, and the acquisition would require them to accept the terms of the FAPA contract.

Of course WN has said that the deal is subject to getting labor agreements with FNT groups:

"Even if our bid is accepted and approved by the bankruptcy court, our closing on this transaction will be subject to several contingencies. These will include the negotiation of acceptable labor agreements dealing with the interim period of separate operation and seniority"

GK is a smart man and WN is a very smart and shrewd Company. I'm certain they have done their homework and know what they need to make this work in the best interest of Southwest Airlines. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months.

 

[PCL_128]

You don't think theres loopholes? They pay lawyers a LOT of money to be able to find loopholes. This will be a walk in the park for SWA.

With that sort of mentality, you might as well just give up, get rid of the unions, and take whatever management gives you. I doubt that's what you'd really like to do, though.

Yes, management pays lawyers lots of money to try to find loopholes, but that doesn't mean that they are always successful. You're here at AirTran, so you're obviously very familiar with the Twomey arbitration. Management paid a lot of money to try to argue that case, and they thought they'd be successful, but it didn't turn out very well for them. They've paid millions of dollars that they thought their lawyers would be able to get them out of. In reality, unions win about 50% of contract interpretation arbitrations, and 75% of disciplinary arbitrations. Management obviously has more money, but as you can see, that doesn't really translate to always winning. Don't give up before the battle is fought.

 

[gt1900]

With that sort of mentality, you might as well just give up, get rid of the unions, and take whatever management gives you. I doubt that's what you'd really like to do, though.

Yes, management pays lawyers lots of money to try to find loopholes, but that doesn't mean that they are always successful. You're here at AirTran, so you're obviously very familiar with the Twomey arbitration. Management paid a lot of money to try to argue that case, and they thought they'd be successful, but it didn't turn out very well for them. They've paid millions of dollars that they thought their lawyers would be able to get them out of. In reality, unions win about 50% of contract interpretation arbitrations, and 75% of disciplinary arbitrations. Management obviously has more money, but as you can see, that doesn't really translate to always winning. Don't give up before the battle is fought.

This coming from a guy who stole a job from someone because he paid to sit in the right seat of an airplane that should have had a pilot who was being paid for the exact same job! PRICELESS!

 

[PCL_128]

This coming from a guy who stole a job from someone because he paid to sit in the right seat of an airplane that should have had a pilot who was being paid for the exact same job! PRICELESS!

So much for an intelligent conversation.