Merger legistlation law

[radarlove]

Does anyone have a link to the actual legislation that was passed in December requiring Allegheny-Mohawk?

I've been following the banter on the USAir/AWA thread and I saw an argument that now Allegheny-Mohawk is the law of the land (true as far as I know) but that also ALPA seniority list integration procedures will now--due to the new law--be applied in any ALPA-non-ALPA merger.

Am I getting this right? Who has the actual law in front of them?

 

[FDJ2]

Does anyone have a link to the actual legislation that was passed in December requiring Allegheny-Mohawk?

I've been following the banter on the USAir/AWA thread and I saw an argument that now Allegheny-Mohawk is the law of the land (true as far as I know) but that also ALPA seniority list integration procedures will now--due to the new law--be applied in any ALPA-non-ALPA merger.

Am I getting this right? Who has the actual law in front of them?

Absent any contractual protections, airline employees will have A-M as a default protection of their seniority.

ALPA-ALPA merger, ALPA policy.

ALPA-non ALPA, A-M policy

A-M, has as its goal a fair and reasonable integration. Like ALPA policy it doesn't favor any particular integration methodolgy and absent a negotiated agreement A-M utilizes binding arbitration to settle disputes.

 

[STL717]

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

Go to page 539 in the PDF file that the link above takes you to. Look for Section 117.

 

[radarlove]

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.

What does this mean?

 

[Vne]

so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-
Mohawk provisions.

What does this mean?

It means your contract can say what ever it wants BUT the A/M binding arbitration is the last arbiter in any merger regardless...The days of the "strongest stapling the weaker" are gone.......now only the arbiter can do it......officialy

 

[radarlove]

ALPA says that the law protects their internal merger language, so if UAL were to merge with AMR, then BOTH ALPA and APA merger protection language stays from their individual contracts?

This is a weird rider, I get the Allegheny-Mohak bit, I don't get what they're trying to accomplish with paragraph (2) abover.

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA says that the law protects their internal merger language, so if UAL were to merge with AMR, then BOTH ALPA and APA merger protection language stays from their individual contracts?

No. Just the opposite. ALPA and Non-ALPA would be required to go through binding arbitration.

It's a can of worms opened by people who don't know what they're doing. (But, with Congress, what else is new?) TC

 

[airlinepilot]

Not too specific??

One of our union guys said that this bill is very general in nature. Basically everyone is to be treated "fairly"........normal politician thing

 

[FL510in10min]

What would happen if we(UAL) bought Jetblue? Can we still staple them? I don't understand.

 

[StaySeated]

The new "law" is not much different than 99% of the successorship language out their today. The only real new language is "fair and equitable" and no staple jobs.

Mergers are treated just like before...ALPA with ALPA, then ALPA merger policy. ALPA with something else, then A/M.

The USairways guys are trying to stretch this into something it is not, but if you take 10 minutes and read the bill you will see that not much has changed as most if not all mergers will end up in the hands of an arbitor.

 

[FDJ2]

No. Just the opposite. ALPA and Non-ALPA would be required to go through binding arbitration.

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

 

[radarlove]

But again, para (2) says that the A/M stuff doesn't supercede current collective bargaining language, WTF does that mean? It makes sense if it's ALPA/ALPA, but that is the only scenerio under which it does. Like the poster asked, what about ALPA/Jet Blue? Does this mean ALPA language is followed?

ALPA language is a lot more involved than A/M.

How about United buying Airtran? Two unions, both have language which wins? The one with the more expensive attornies?

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

Ok, I guess what I meant was that ALPA to ALPA, National policy or contractual policy rules.

APA would have to submit to the decision of an arbitrator. Not all TWA pilots got stapled but a top down ratio or DOH would be devastating to the very group about which this legislation was created. Oh well, no one gives a $h!t anyway...

The TWA FA's got the ball rolling and ALPA slammed it home to avoid any further USAir/AWA-type issues.

Merge away.TC

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

Ok, I guess what I meant was that ALPA to ALPA, National policy or contractual policy rules.

APA would have to submit to the decision of an arbitrator. Not all TWA pilots got stapled but a top down ratio or DOH would be devastating to the very group about which this legislation was created. Oh well, no one gives a $h!t anyway...

The TWA FA's got the ball rolling and ALPA slammed it home to avoid any further USAir/AWA-type issues.

Merge away.TC

 

[FDJ2]

But again, para (2) says that the A/M stuff doesn't supercede current collective bargaining language, WTF does that mean? It makes sense if it's ALPA/ALPA, but that is the only scenerio under which it does. Like the poster asked, what about ALPA/Jet Blue? Does this mean ALPA language is followed?

It says it doesn't supercede current language, in an ALPA-non ALPA, it would use A-M, since most ALPA contracts have that as a default for non ALPA mergers. In a Union-nonunion merger, the baseline protection would once again be A-M, since it provides a baseline for protection.

ALPA language is a lot more involved than A/M.

Agreed.

How about United buying Airtran? Two unions, both have language which wins? The one with the more expensive attornies?

Allegheny-Mohawk.

 

[FDJ2]

Ok, I guess what I meant was that ALPA to ALPA, National policy or contractual policy rules.

Contractual policy in that case.


The TWA FA's got the ball rolling and ALPA slammed it home to avoid any further USAir/AWA-type issues.

Merge away.TC

This legislation would not have had any effect on the AAA/AWA merger.

 

[igneousy2]

This would not have affected AA/TWA either. Contrary to popular belief, the TWA pilots were not merely stapled to the bottom of the AA seniority list. In a nutshell, the lists were ordered by expected career value with a whole lot of fences put up around different bases/equipment on both sides. The problem TWA pilots had was the fact that most AA First Officers at the time made more (and therefore had a higher career value) then most TWA Captains which is why probably 2/3 of the TWA pilots ended up junior to most of the AA pilots.

This was all done prior to 9/11 during a time when AA was hiring 100+/month, so I don't think the possibility of furlough was at the top of very many peoples minds.

"Fair and equitable" treatment during seniority integration has always been a protection for pilots - this does not change anything. Legally, the measure of "fair and equitable" usually comes down to money. When a Captain at TWA gets bumped down to FO at AA and in the process ends up with the same pay or even a raise in a lot of cases - it was a hard case for TWA pilots to make that AA's proposal was anything but "fair and equitable".

 

[thruthemurk]

This would not have affected AA/TWA either. Contrary to popular belief, the TWA pilots were not merely stapled to the bottom of the AA seniority list. In a nutshell, the lists were ordered by expected career value with a whole lot of fences put up around different bases/equipment on both sides. The problem TWA pilots had was the fact that most AA First Officers at the time made more (and therefore had a higher career value) then most TWA Captains which is why probably 2/3 of the TWA pilots ended up junior to most of the AA pilots.
.

Wrong. The new law would have blocked the manuevering by APA that resulted in TWA ALPA giving up their right to demand arbitration. It is the lack of a neutral of arbitrator that allowed AA to have their way with the carcass. The right to arbitration would not be waivable today.

 

[TWA Dude]

Agree with thruthmurk. Whether you think what the APA did was fair or not is irrelevent. We TWAers don't think it was "fair and equitable". We would've been very happy to have an arbitrator rule instead. Based on how carefully arbitrator Nicolau measured career expectations in the AWA/USA integration I'm certain any arbitrator would've been kinder than the APA.

 

[Thebadcat1313]

This would not have affected AA/TWA either. Contrary to popular belief, the TWA pilots were not merely stapled to the bottom of the AA seniority list. In a nutshell, the lists were ordered by expected career value with a whole lot of fences put up around different bases/equipment on both sides. The problem TWA pilots had was the fact that most AA First Officers at the time made more (and therefore had a higher career value) then most TWA Captains which is why probably 2/3 of the TWA pilots ended up junior to most of the AA pilots.

This was all done prior to 9/11 during a time when AA was hiring 100+/month, so I don't think the possibility of furlough was at the top of very many peoples minds.

"Fair and equitable" treatment during seniority integration has always been a protection for pilots - this does not change anything. Legally, the measure of "fair and equitable" usually comes down to money. When a Captain at TWA gets bumped down to FO at AA and in the process ends up with the same pay or even a raise in a lot of cases - it was a hard case for TWA pilots to make that AA's proposal was anything but "fair and equitable".

Check your history, son. The cramdown from APA came after 9/11, when it was obvious that there were going to be massive furloughs. Also, the only base where TWA pilots are protected is STL. Real nice, if you've spent your whole career at JFK or LAX. NOT! The TWA pilots who were integrated (from the bottom up at 8:1) were mostly older guys, of which most have now retired, so this was a way for APA to look like they were doing something for the TWA guys, when in reality, it did'nt cost them a thing. I don't know of any AA f/o's who made more than a TWA captain. Have you looked at a copy of the TWA contract that was in effect at the time of the merger? Most of today's passenger airline pilots would think they hit the lottery if they had that contract in today's environment.

You are repeating stuff that you've heard third-hand as fact. You really ought to be a little more careful about that.

 

[aa73]

ABased on how carefully arbitrator Nicolau measured career expectations in the AWA/USA integration I'm certain any arbitrator would've been kinder than the APA.

That is debatable. The way I understand it, the integration was designed to stand up in court for the inevitable lawsuits that followed, and I've been told by both AA and TWA pilots who were involved that it was patterned after what an arbitrator would have probably awarded.

True or not - I still am in agreement that binding neutral arbitration is the only way to settle differences in a merger.

73

P.S. as far as facts go, 47% were integrated at 8:1 and 53% were stapled. And yes, it was settled in Nov 2001, two months after 9/11.

 

[TWA Dude]

That is debatable.

Of course it's debatable. I know my opinion is worth as little as the next guy but it's very worth reading arbitrator Nicolau's reasoning in the AWA/USA decision. He gave all active USAirways pilots relative seniority and stapled all furloughees based on his perception of their career expectations. Keeping in mind that TWA was hiring up until the sale to AA closed, is it not unreasonable to expect that the same would've been in store for TWA? Regardless, we'd have been willing to take that chance.

 

[zippy32]

I'm new to the airline thing, so please forgive my ignorance.

Acquiring another carrier is different than a merger, correct? So if the rumors of SWA (SWAPA) acquiring Frontier (FAPA), AirTran (NPA), or Alaska (ALPA) come to pass how might that work?

Are the rules different for a merger vs. an acquisition?

 

[aa73]

O Keeping in mind that TWA was hiring up until the sale to AA closed, is it not unreasonable to expect that the same would've been in store for TWA? Regardless, we'd have been willing to take that chance.

I'm really the wrong guy to ask, since I am only reporting what has been told to me by folks who were involved in the process. But I don't know if the arbitrator would have been basing his decision on hiring trends between both airlines, as he did with AWA/US, as much as the differences in career expectations between both airlines (which was much more at stake with our merger vs. AWA/US.) JMO, I could be wrong.

73

 

[TWA Dude]

Acquiring another carrier is different than a merger, correct?

It depends on your perspective. From an accounting and SEC point of view all mergers are acquisitions. Regardless, employee groups are merged together. So in essence it really doesn't matter. Some pilots exhibit false pride by proclaiming "We bought you" but of course we pilots have nothing to do with such management decisions.

So if the rumors of SWA (SWAPA) acquiring Frontier (FAPA), AirTran (NPA), or Alaska (ALPA) come to pass how might that work?

Well, prior to this new law basically the acquiring airline had its way as far as integrating. The law is as yet untested.

Are the rules different for a merger vs. an acquisition?

No.

 

[TWA Dude]

But I don't know if the arbitrator would have been basing his decision on hiring trends between both airlines, as he did with AWA/US, as much as the differences in career expectations between both airlines (which was much more at stake with our merger vs. AWA/US.)

Hiring trends are a component of career expectations. Prior to the merger announcment USAirways was still furloughing with no hope of recalls while AWA was hiring to accomodate firm aircraft deliveries. Nicolau was also presented with financial data. Looking back to TWA in 2001 one certainly would have seen a financially struggling yet solvent carrier. Feel free to PM me if you'd like a Word version of the Nicolau Award.

 

[stlflyguy]

TWA had more money in the bank at the time of the AA-requested bankruptcy filing than at other times it was in regular, daily operations.

The fact that there were orders/options for more 717's and Airbii certainly could illustrate that plans for growth were in motion.

Interestingly enough, there's rumor that the very "Fair Merger Act" that ALPA wouldn't get behind in '01 is the very one that they pushed through Congress and had passed. Thanks for the extra effort, ALPA. What good were you before?

A relative seniority integration with fences is what I believe to be the best methodology. AA73's career expectations were to remain at the same relative seniority that he brought at the time of the merger. I'd say he did rather well by having a large number of TWA pilots stapled behind him.

stlflyguy

 

[pipe]

Take an honest look at the whole TWA/AA thing.

Without regard to the condition of TWA, what would have happened at AA without the merger?

All Fokkers - gone.
All 727's - gone.

All of the above pilots - gone.

How does that compare to the number of nAAtives that actually got a furlough?

PIPE

 

[STL717]

This would not have affected AA/TWA either. Contrary to popular belief, the TWA pilots were not merely stapled to the bottom of the AA seniority list. In a nutshell, the lists were ordered by expected career value with a whole lot of fences put up around different bases/equipment on both sides. The problem TWA pilots had was the fact that most AA First Officers at the time made more (and therefore had a higher career value) then most TWA Captains which is why probably 2/3 of the TWA pilots ended up junior to most of the AA pilots.

This was all done prior to 9/11 during a time when AA was hiring 100+/month, so I don't think the possibility of furlough was at the top of very many peoples minds.

"Fair and equitable" treatment during seniority integration has always been a protection for pilots - this does not change anything. Legally, the measure of "fair and equitable" usually comes down to money. When a Captain at TWA gets bumped down to FO at AA and in the process ends up with the same pay or even a raise in a lot of cases - it was a hard case for TWA pilots to make that AA's proposal was anything but "fair and equitable".

You know nothing of what you speak!
Pure BS!

 

[Prog 2/2]

Take an honest look at the whole TWA/AA thing.

Without regard to the condition of TWA, what would have happened at AA without the merger?

All Fokkers - gone.
All 727's - gone.

All of the above pilots - gone.

How does that compare to the number of nAAtives that actually got a furlough?

PIPE

Oh c'mon, they saved our jobs.

Just ask any one of them.

(Except aa73. I've read his stuff on this and other boards and he's a native that seems to take a pretty rational view of things; vis-a-vis TWA.)