Senority issues ATA/AWA/AirTran

[English]

Thanks StaySeated.

 

[FL717]

.....

 

[mt2]

Reading this thread makes me wonder. Hmmm, who would I rather work for/with ?
The AAI guys who are telling me I'm screwed and if you're lucky you'll get on with us b/c we're a great Company. Or the AWA guys who are saying together we'll make one heck of a Company with nary a mention of petty BS.

Hmmmmm.

 

[ultrarunner]

Check the list, you'll know who you'll be flying with.

 

[FL717]

.....

 

[Ty Webb]

Reading this thread makes me wonder. Hmmm, who would I rather work for/with ?
The AAI guys who are telling me I'm screwed and if you're lucky you'll get on with us b/c we're a great Company. Or the AWA guys who are saying together we'll make one heck of a Company with nary a mention of petty BS.

Hmmmmm.

That's because AWA is talking merger. AirTran is only buying some slots and some gates . . . . sheesh! Is it really that hard to understand?

If you guys get the AWA deal, more power to you, it looks like a much better deal for the pilots, at least right now.

But if it is the AirTran deal, once again, since some people just aren't getting it:

Our company offered to buy some of your gates and slots. You get almost $100 million dollars, a year or so of ACMI flying while you get it together, and you can still put those airplanes on other routes later. We are not buying your airplanes, taking your jobs, routes, whatever. Your ATA job isn't even necessarily going away, how can we offer you a seniority number, whan you still have an ATA job?

 

[mt2]

"In conjunction with the filing, ATA has reached an agreement with AirTran Airways, Inc. in which AirTran will assume ATA's flight operations, gates lease, and routes in Chicago Midway Airport as well as arrival and departure slots at LaGuardia Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The agreement, which is subject to approval by the city of Chicago, will take effect in the coming months." George Mikelsons

Our fragmentation clause talks of either aircraft or routes. My guess is our negotiators wrote it in for just this type of scenario. They were smart enough to foresee some event like this down the road or they learned from other pilot's misfortunes. I'm sorry you don't like it, it is what it is.

Call it what you will but Airtran is basically buying our MDW hub and that is arguably worth more than aircraft. Why can't you see that?

PS -- FL717, my earlier post was NOT aimed at you.

 

[lostplnetairman]

I have a dumb question--does ATA even own the slots at LGA and DCA to sell?

It was my understanding that only those that were grandfathered in owned their slots. The rest of the airlines had to bid for them or get awarded in lotteries. The government really monitors them and determines how to award them going forward. For example, AirTran recently lost DCA slots because they never used them. The government took them away and put them out to bid.

Someone please enlighten me....

HR Diva

 

[Ty Webb]

My position is that we are not buying any of your planes. Your company may keep those planes and shift the flying elsewhere. Are we still supposed to "take your pilots"? Sorry, but it doesn't pass the "sniff test".

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe you guys will get lucky and AWA will buy you. It would be fine with me. AirTran pilots are doing fine without this deal . . . . why make our lives more complicated?

Good luck to you guys. It could just as easily be us as you, but I don;t think I would feel entitled to a job if someone bought some of our gate leases.

 

[Jetjockey]

It certainly will be an interesting week for all involved this week regarding the ATA chapter 11 filing. I'm sure more clarity will evolve with the AirTran's due diligance clause expiring Monday, November 1st. ATA is then allowed to entertain other offers. I'm sure there will be a few.

I'm still placing my chips on the bet that the interests of the creditors and the employees will coincide on this deal. What I'm driving at is ATA as a whole is far better off for creditors, and as a byproduct..the employees will benefit. ATA fragmented into smaller pieces leaves creditors airplane leasors, and employees out in the cold. I recall the most recent chapter 11 filing by Hawaiian. The CEO had his plan, to shed the high-cost leases from Boeing, and GECap. What ended up happening is his dismissal by the judge, and a court appointed trustee took over the company. George and Joe may in bed together right now, but the night is still young.

You all can argue the valid points of labor/senority issues till the cows come home, it's in a judges hand. Further more, it's all far from over.

 

[FDJ2]

"In conjunction with the filing, ATA has reached an agreement with AirTran Airways, Inc. in which AirTran will assume ATA's flight operations, gates lease, and routes in Chicago Midway Airport as well as arrival and departure slots at LaGuardia Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The agreement, which is subject to approval by the city of Chicago, will take effect in the coming months." George Mikelsons


If the ATA fragmentation language includes routes, or any of the other assets up for sale, than the list integration that goes along with the transaction will be interesting. Fragmentation language is there for just this reason. It really doesn't matter what's said on flightinfo, or what some of us think triggers the fragmentation policy, what matters is what is defined as the fragmentation trigger at ATA. If Airtran wants the routes, then Airtran will have to take the crews. It doesn't matter if the transaction involves aircraft, routes, or gate leases in a fragmentation, each holds equal weight if they are equally protected by the same language. I'm sure there would be plenty of jobs from Airtran, or any other suitor, to absorb the ATA employees that go along with the transaction.

 

[FL717]

First off I want to make clear that my personal opinion is that IF AirTran takes ATA Routes as defined by the ATA Pilots Frag Policy, then we should abide by their policy. I was looking at our (AirTran) CBA tonight and quite frankly our frag policy is terrible. I put myself in the ATA Pilots position, and support their attempt to get what is fair and LEGAL according to their CBA 100%. It no different than if the roles were reversed wanting what is fair in OUR CBA... right.

Second, I have a copy of the signed "Agreement" between ATA and AirTran. I'm not splitting hairs here, and I'm simply pointing out that the signed agreement that ATA and AirTran have is worded DIFFERENT than George Mickelsons letter to the ATA employees where HE mentions "routes". The is NO mention of routes... only physical assets (not including aircraft) in the signed legal agreement between ATA and AirTran. The signed Agreement is what will be deemed "legal"... not Mickelsons letter to employees.

That said, I am not advocating that the agreement is "legal" only that it is a legal document. Believe me.... it will probably be hashed out in court what the definition of "routes" will be as it applies to the signed agreement, and how that applies to AirTran buying "assets", not to include aircraft, and whether this violates the ATA Pilots CBA.

 

[propjob27]

After hearing George publically speak, as well as reading one of his emails that was clearly not proof read by his speach writer, this confusion doesn't surprise me one bit. George's english is not good. Yeah, sure, his English is a lot better than my Latvian, but I'm not CEO of a company over there either.

George saying "routes" in his letter to us, and something else in the signed ATA/AAI agreement is causing a lot of confusion. Who knows what he actually meant. I dont think he even knows.

He also "said" to the Indystar paper that:

"Mikelsons has said he expects ATA to shrink TO two-thirds of hits present size after its deal with AirTran."

That = about 759 pilots remaning.

I'm about 90% sure what he meant to say was "...ATA is to shrink BY two-thirds."

That = 380 pilots remaining.

I think he got a little confused with his English again about the mathmatical difference between shrinking "to" and shrinking "by".

None of it means sh i t anyway. Whats left of this place is all up to the judge.

 

[mach zero]

So what kind of seniority deal was hammered out between the original AirTran Airways and Valujet pilots?

 

[Ty Webb]

"Mikelsons has said he expects ATA to shrink TO two-thirds of hits present size after its deal with AirTran."

That = about 759 pilots remaning.

I'm about 90% sure what he meant to say was "...ATA is to shrink BY two-thirds."

That = 380 pilots remaining.

His English may not be great, but his math seems to be correct.

MDW Ops reduced by 20 aircraft- typical staffing is 11 -12 crew per airplane, so that is 230 pilots

28 slots @ LGA and DCA = 3.5 aircraft = 42 pilots

Typical staffing levels would indicate a decrease of around 272 pilots . . . . if those aircraft are parked or sold, and not put to work on different routes or charter work.

The AirTran Airways and Valujet deal was a merger (or a purchase, depending on who you ask). This deal is not a merger.

The short answer is that there are still lawsuits going on over that debacle.

 

[sunburn]

I'm sitting at the bottom of this whole mess with very few people below me. As such, I have no doubt that I will be out of work in the near future and even if a merger of pilots occurs, I'll still be at the bottom, just now I'd be at the bottome of 2000+ pilots instead of 1000 (thereby doubling any upgrade time).

As a new contrib to this line I'd like to know if there has ever been a preferential hiring process in this industry? For example the acquiring airline is given the ability to screen many of the acquired crew and place them acording to their experience and/or their fit to the new company. I only ask this because if I were in the shoes of the acquiring company I'd want to make sure the pilots gained had the requisite experience and capibility. In no means would I want to take the position of someone who has worked hard to get there, but lets face it. We have all flown with an individual who although competent to pass a checkride, by no means belongs in the position that he is in. But even with some form of preferential hiring, I could see this as a disaster with lots of hard feelings. Any thoughts or past experiences?

 

[mt2]

Just a few notes on this:

1. 60% of ATA pilots are based in MDW.
2. Nearly all of our LGA and DCA flying is into/out of MDW so you can't really count aircraft for them.
3. Any way you look at it, we stand to lose 1/3 to 2/3 of our pilot group and that's a LOT of people !!

 

[English]

As a new contrib to this line I'd like to know if there has ever been a preferential hiring process in this industry? For example the acquiring airline is given the ability to screen many of the acquired crew and place them acording to their experience and/or their fit to the new company.

While the situations were different, I remember SWA giving preferential interviews to Midway pilots a few years back, as well as United giving preferential interviews to UFS (United Feeder Services?) pilots. Of course, these cases were different as they did not involve the transfer of aircraft, gates, routes, etc. But if airlines would do if due to the demise of an airline, why not in this case?

 

[mach zero]

I'm sitting at the bottom of this whole mess with very few people below me. As such, I have no doubt that I will be out of work in the near future and even if a merger of pilots occurs, I'll still be at the bottom, just now I'd be at the bottome of 2000+ pilots instead of 1000 (thereby doubling any upgrade time).

As a new contrib to this line I'd like to know if there has ever been a preferential hiring process in this industry? For example the acquiring airline is given the ability to screen many of the acquired crew and place them acording to their experience and/or their fit to the new company. I only ask this because if I were in the shoes of the acquiring company I'd want to make sure the pilots gained had the requisite experience and capibility. In no means would I want to take the position of someone who has worked hard to get there, but lets face it. We have all flown with an individual who although competent to pass a checkride, by no means belongs in the position that he is in. But even with some form of preferential hiring, I could see this as a disaster with lots of hard feelings. Any thoughts or past experiences?

Trust me when I say that the flight crews from ATA definintely have the "requisite experience and capability" to work at any carrier that acquires them. Most of these guys and gals have significant domestic and international experience in Boeing / Lockheed aircraft. Several have been shot at, several have flown into overseas airports that "don't exist," and all are dedicated hard working pilots from whom I learned alot while I was there. IMHO there is a reason that ATA never lost an airplane in the 31+ years it has been in business. What you see here are AirTran people worried about possibly losing some seniority. That is all this is about. It has nothing to do with qualifications as is the case with most mergers at the major airline level.

 

[Ty Webb]

What you see here are AirTran people worried about possibly losing some seniority. That is all this is about. It has nothing to do with qualifications as is the case with most mergers at the major airline level.

No one is saying anything about qualifications of the ATA crews- don't be ridiculous. The only difference of opinion I see here is "what constitutes a merger or a route sale".

Right now, there is too much that is not known.