Midwest Flight Crew Members get shafted again

[airlinepilot]

Isn't this the first court to define McCaskill-Bond

Will this end up in the appeals court? Could this definition of "Merger vs Acquisition" be a game changer??? Very interesting....

I am wondering if this will effect the SWA-Airtran SLI negotiations?

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin recently reversed an earlier decision and found in favor of the IBT.

The Midwest Flight Attendants were arguing that they are entitled to seniority integration pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, the IBT argued that they were not covered.

The court agreed with the IBT based upon the fact that the RAH acquisition of Midwest, according to the court, was not a covered transaction.

"Accordingly, McCaskill-Bond implicitly incorporates the CAB’s corresponding definition of a “merger” as “joint action by the two carriers whereby they unify, consolidate, merge, coordinate 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.”

So, the FA's get shafted and have to start over as new-hires. I can only imagine what the IBT has in store for the Midwest pilots.

The irony of the situation is the fact that the Midwest pilots just participated in the SLI arbitration. That very arbitration was based upon Section 3 of Allegheny Mowhawk, "the "seniority integration" Labor Protective Provision and the only substantive LPP adopted by McCaskill-Bond."

So the Midwest pilots were covered by A-M and M-B, but the FA's are not? That seems odd.

The only reason I mention SWA-Airtran is leverage. SWAPA just gained some more.

When does the link between "merger" and "acquisition" end?

The IBT argued, successfully in this case, that a "covered transaction" only includes two or more "covered air carriers". They specifically mentioned the fact that RAH, a holding company, acquired Midwest LLC, another holding company. Neither of which are a covered air carrier.

Seems like a complete stretch to me, but at least one court bought it and swallowed the hook.

 

[roughneck]

Will this end up in the appeals court? Could this definition of "Merger vs Acquisition" be a game changer??? Very interesting....

There won't be anything to appeal. Either they will combine the airlines and our Merger teams will broker a deal with each other or the operations will stay apart and there will never be an SLI. Won't be anything to appeal.

 

[airlinepilot]

CBA will not allow seperate ops beyond 2 yrs

This was the first time the courts have given an opinion on the laws. Don't think that certain labor lawyers and groups aren't going to try and use it to support what they consider "fair and equitable". Going to be a very interesting year!

There won't be anything to appeal. Either they will combine the airlines and our Merger teams will broker a deal with each other or the operations will stay apart and there will never be an SLI. Won't be anything to appeal.

 

[roughneck]

CBA will not allow seperate ops beyond 2 yrs
This was the first time the courts have given an opinion on the laws. Don't think that certain labor lawyers and groups aren't going to try and use it to support what they consider "fair and equitable". Going to be a very interesting year!

The 2 year provision is about 30 days at any given point from being a 30 year provision. A longer fence is a pretty easy sell if the company asks for our help in keeping separate ops. The AirTran guys will grieve their "Post announcement language" but it really will be of little consequence. What is their remedy? You can't force a company to integrate operations after an acquisition especially when the language you are trying to force them with was crafted after the acquisition announcement. I smell another supreme court victory for SWA if it is pushed.

 

[StaySeated]

Will this end up in the appeals court? Could this definition of "Merger vs Acquisition" be a game changer??? Very interesting....

There is a rather large labor-law firm in Atlanta that is absolutely wetting themselves over this decision. For the 20% of the attorney's employed there that have actually ever been laid, this court decision trumps that day.

 

[Tweet-a-Lishus]

Bring it on!

 

[T3700]

Read the last sentence of the decision:

"McCaskill-Bond was never meant to protect the employees of an air carrier that simply goes out of business."

 

[MCDU]

Read the last sentence of the decision:

"McCaskill-Bond was never meant to protect the employees of an air carrier that simply goes out of business."

I guess SWA could just let Airtran go out of business once they are the controlling force and owner of this airline. It has been done before.
Airlines go out of business because there is money to be made.

M

 

[Wesb737fo]

I guess SWA could just let Airtran go out of business once they are the controlling force and owner of this airline. It has been done before.
Airlines go out of business because there is money to be made.

M

Genius plan! Spend a billion dollars to buy an airline that makes money, control it and let it go out of business, waisting millions of dollars in the process....this is a plan worthy of Doctor Evil...."one meeellion dollars"....sorry...I digress. Wait a minute.....you should be an airline manager.

C'mon.....seriously...if Gary Kelly wanted to do that, wouldn't it be cheaper just to go head to head or wait out AAI if they thought we would go under any time soon. I'm not following your logic.

 

[IBNAV8R]

It's been done before.