Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
US Airways, America West in advanced merger talks - WSJ
- Thread starter Smiliner
- Start date
- Watchers 48
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
B6Driver said:
Those "new hires" were HIRED at AA before TWA was "acquired." Therefore, job protection for those new hires was expected and granted. Sorry, but that's how it works in every merger, or shall I say asset acquisition.
Is that fact enough for you? I've got plenty more "sad stories" to share.
73
JayhawkDude
Just happy to be here!
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Posts
- 88
Southwest plays down merger
[size=+1]US Air-America West deal wouldn't create strong rival, Kelly says
[/size]
[size=-1]11:29 PM CDT on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 [/size]
[size=-1]By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News [/size]
Southwest Airlines Co. chief executive Gary Kelly said Wednesday he's not particularly concerned about a possible merger between bankrupt US Airways Group and low-cost carrier America West Airlines Inc.
"The notion that they will be a very large low-cost competitor to Southwest Airlines is just not true, at least, with what we can see on the surface," Mr. Kelly said in an interview.
"The facts are as they stand today that their costs are substantially higher than ours."
Talks between US Airways, based in Arlington, Va., and America West, based in Tempe, Ariz., have reportedly intensified in recent weeks, as the two carriers have hunted for investors to finance a merger.
US Airways chairman David Bronner confirmed the talks in an interview with The Associated Press late Tuesday.
In a conference call with analysts Wednesday, America West CEO Douglas Parker said he believed the deal would be done without having to dip into the carrier's dwindling cash reserves of $350 million.
But Mr. Kelly said the deal would need a lot more than outside cash to be a success.
"It's taking one struggling route system and combining it with another struggling route system. It doesn't really change the competitive landscape as we see it."
Analysts also raised concerns that any deal would face considerable opposition from shareholders and unions.
Culture clash?
US Airways' very senior union employees would potentially clash with America West's comparatively young ones, analysts said.
"We believe airline mergers work best when buyer is big and powerful (as America West is not) and target is small and puny (US Airways is weak but over twice the size of America West)," wrote Robert Ashcroft of UBS Securities.
He expects Southwest to be a vigorous competitor that could mix up the process by bidding on assets in the same way it outbid AirTran Airways Inc. for assets of bankrupt ATA Airlines Inc. earlier this year.
"That precedent showed it's unwise to count on (Southwest) to sit on the sidelines," he added.
Mr. Kelly said he's aware that both the carriers have Boeing 737s that might interest Southwest, but he declined to speculate on what might occur.
Tough competitor
Dallas-based Southwest gives both carriers plenty of trouble.
Southwest has superior market share in America West's top two markets, Phoenix and Las Vegas, and the discounter expanded last year into Philadelphia, which is US Airways' most profitable city.
In May, Southwest will add flights to US Airways' former hub at Pittsburgh.
"We don't control the destiny of other airlines," Mr. Kelly said. "We're starting up service in Pittsburgh next month. We'll have 10 flights to US Airways' 250, and I seriously doubt that our 10 flights are going to have serious impact on US Airways' finances."
Executives at Fort Worth-based American Airlines Inc. said they wouldn't comment on whether the world's largest carrier would be active in any industry consolidation.
American parent AMR Corp. concluded the last big airline deal when it bought assets of bankrupt TWA Inc. in 2001.
"If it takes capacity out of the industry, I think that would improve the revenue environment and improve industry conditions," said American chief executive Gerard Arpey of the potential merger, in a conference call.
"If on the other hand it preserves capacity that might otherwise go away, that would be a bad development."
Shares of Southwest fell 41 cents to $14.44. Shares of America West fell 31 cents to $4.50, having traded as much as 16 percent lower during the day.
[size=+1]US Air-America West deal wouldn't create strong rival, Kelly says
[/size]
[size=-1]11:29 PM CDT on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 [/size]
[size=-1]By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News [/size]
Southwest Airlines Co. chief executive Gary Kelly said Wednesday he's not particularly concerned about a possible merger between bankrupt US Airways Group and low-cost carrier America West Airlines Inc.
"The notion that they will be a very large low-cost competitor to Southwest Airlines is just not true, at least, with what we can see on the surface," Mr. Kelly said in an interview.
"The facts are as they stand today that their costs are substantially higher than ours."
Talks between US Airways, based in Arlington, Va., and America West, based in Tempe, Ariz., have reportedly intensified in recent weeks, as the two carriers have hunted for investors to finance a merger.
US Airways chairman David Bronner confirmed the talks in an interview with The Associated Press late Tuesday.
In a conference call with analysts Wednesday, America West CEO Douglas Parker said he believed the deal would be done without having to dip into the carrier's dwindling cash reserves of $350 million.
But Mr. Kelly said the deal would need a lot more than outside cash to be a success.
"It's taking one struggling route system and combining it with another struggling route system. It doesn't really change the competitive landscape as we see it."
Analysts also raised concerns that any deal would face considerable opposition from shareholders and unions.
Culture clash?
US Airways' very senior union employees would potentially clash with America West's comparatively young ones, analysts said.
"We believe airline mergers work best when buyer is big and powerful (as America West is not) and target is small and puny (US Airways is weak but over twice the size of America West)," wrote Robert Ashcroft of UBS Securities.
He expects Southwest to be a vigorous competitor that could mix up the process by bidding on assets in the same way it outbid AirTran Airways Inc. for assets of bankrupt ATA Airlines Inc. earlier this year.
"That precedent showed it's unwise to count on (Southwest) to sit on the sidelines," he added.
Mr. Kelly said he's aware that both the carriers have Boeing 737s that might interest Southwest, but he declined to speculate on what might occur.
Tough competitor
Dallas-based Southwest gives both carriers plenty of trouble.
Southwest has superior market share in America West's top two markets, Phoenix and Las Vegas, and the discounter expanded last year into Philadelphia, which is US Airways' most profitable city.
In May, Southwest will add flights to US Airways' former hub at Pittsburgh.
"We don't control the destiny of other airlines," Mr. Kelly said. "We're starting up service in Pittsburgh next month. We'll have 10 flights to US Airways' 250, and I seriously doubt that our 10 flights are going to have serious impact on US Airways' finances."
Executives at Fort Worth-based American Airlines Inc. said they wouldn't comment on whether the world's largest carrier would be active in any industry consolidation.
American parent AMR Corp. concluded the last big airline deal when it bought assets of bankrupt TWA Inc. in 2001.
"If it takes capacity out of the industry, I think that would improve the revenue environment and improve industry conditions," said American chief executive Gerard Arpey of the potential merger, in a conference call.
"If on the other hand it preserves capacity that might otherwise go away, that would be a bad development."
Shares of Southwest fell 41 cents to $14.44. Shares of America West fell 31 cents to $4.50, having traded as much as 16 percent lower during the day.
Fly-n-hi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Posts
- 558
aa73 said:
APA Screwed the TWA pilots PERIOD. For you to even suggest otherwise is foolish.
I guess if I was you I would try to defend my actions as well but at this point I think you're better off just keeping your mouth shut.
BTW, my father was one of those TWA captains that you stole 20 years and 2 weeks of seniority from.
More food for thought
From the AZ Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/clicktrack/print.php?referer=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0421talton21.html
Fasten your seat belts if airline merger takes wing
Apr. 21, 2005 12:00 AM A few times each day, US Airways sends Airbus jets out of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport with passengers bound for Philadelphia and Charlotte, where they will change planes for cities in the East and South.
The airline could become much more important in Phoenix if a deal is consummated to merge with America West Airlines. I hope I'm wrong, but this gives me an Airbus full of bad feelings.
US Airways is the toxic lover of the airline singles scene. Over the years, it has hooked up with good carriers. But their good never overcame pathologies that seem the one constant of US Airways.
Pacific Southwest Airlines was a friendly, innovative airline based in San Diego. Piedmont was an industry paragon of low costs and great service, based in North Carolina. Both merged with then-USAir with the conventional wisdom saying they would bring these virtues to the combined venture. USAir remained mired in high costs, labor trouble and executive malpractice.
The consequences were not abstract. Dayton, Ohio, for example, built a sumptuous hub for Piedmont that was destroyed by the merger despite the promises of USAir executives. In North Carolina, the scars of the takeover remain the conversation of cocktail lounges and church socials.
Now here's America West, good-looking and freshly cleaned up after the 12-step program to move toward being a low-fare airline. I'd like to believe America West's intellectual capital, combined with the changes wrought by US Airways' latest time in bankruptcy court, would create a powerhouse. History, though, doesn't support the view. US Airways' troubles have withstood visionary turnaround artists, committed employees, take-no-prisoners investors and judges and big incentives from communities.
Changing a corporate culture is difficult. The difficulty rises when industries become obsessed with mergers. The focus becomes making a deal and finding the draconian cutbacks necessary to "make the numbers work." Customer service, innovation and competitiveness become secondary. No wonder most large mergers don't work, and many drag down the combined company (just ask Carly Fiorina).
Despite the reassurances from some corners that the merged airline's headquarters would be here, I worry. Wall Street might want it on the East Coast to keep a better eye on its money. If so, it's the same old story: Arizona isn't growing new companies to replace its steady losses. It's the same old story of good jobs lost, community leadership eviscerated. We don't have unlimited pages in this tale before this place becomes a mere people warehouse riding a real estate bubble.
Travelers in the West have enjoyed a sweet deal, thanks to competition. Anybody from back East can tell you about the horrific fares imposed by "fortress hubs," where one carrier holds a near-monopoly. An America West-US Airways deal would set off the long-anticipated consolidation of the industry.
The investors pushing this move want to see far less competition.
Even if Sky Harbor continued to see strong rivalry, the merger might stall the airport's ability to improve. I can see a tough (or desperate) new US Airways threatening to move hub flights to Las Vegas if Phoenix tries to raise fees to help fund infrastructure.
I hope I'm wrong.
It would be especially sad, considering the way this town has backed America West and fallen in love with it.
As a woman said Wednesday after reading the news, "Well, there goes my favorite airline."
From the AZ Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/clicktrack/print.php?referer=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0421talton21.html
Fasten your seat belts if airline merger takes wing
Apr. 21, 2005 12:00 AM A few times each day, US Airways sends Airbus jets out of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport with passengers bound for Philadelphia and Charlotte, where they will change planes for cities in the East and South.
The airline could become much more important in Phoenix if a deal is consummated to merge with America West Airlines. I hope I'm wrong, but this gives me an Airbus full of bad feelings.
US Airways is the toxic lover of the airline singles scene. Over the years, it has hooked up with good carriers. But their good never overcame pathologies that seem the one constant of US Airways.
Pacific Southwest Airlines was a friendly, innovative airline based in San Diego. Piedmont was an industry paragon of low costs and great service, based in North Carolina. Both merged with then-USAir with the conventional wisdom saying they would bring these virtues to the combined venture. USAir remained mired in high costs, labor trouble and executive malpractice.
The consequences were not abstract. Dayton, Ohio, for example, built a sumptuous hub for Piedmont that was destroyed by the merger despite the promises of USAir executives. In North Carolina, the scars of the takeover remain the conversation of cocktail lounges and church socials.
Now here's America West, good-looking and freshly cleaned up after the 12-step program to move toward being a low-fare airline. I'd like to believe America West's intellectual capital, combined with the changes wrought by US Airways' latest time in bankruptcy court, would create a powerhouse. History, though, doesn't support the view. US Airways' troubles have withstood visionary turnaround artists, committed employees, take-no-prisoners investors and judges and big incentives from communities.
Changing a corporate culture is difficult. The difficulty rises when industries become obsessed with mergers. The focus becomes making a deal and finding the draconian cutbacks necessary to "make the numbers work." Customer service, innovation and competitiveness become secondary. No wonder most large mergers don't work, and many drag down the combined company (just ask Carly Fiorina).
Despite the reassurances from some corners that the merged airline's headquarters would be here, I worry. Wall Street might want it on the East Coast to keep a better eye on its money. If so, it's the same old story: Arizona isn't growing new companies to replace its steady losses. It's the same old story of good jobs lost, community leadership eviscerated. We don't have unlimited pages in this tale before this place becomes a mere people warehouse riding a real estate bubble.
Travelers in the West have enjoyed a sweet deal, thanks to competition. Anybody from back East can tell you about the horrific fares imposed by "fortress hubs," where one carrier holds a near-monopoly. An America West-US Airways deal would set off the long-anticipated consolidation of the industry.
The investors pushing this move want to see far less competition.
Even if Sky Harbor continued to see strong rivalry, the merger might stall the airport's ability to improve. I can see a tough (or desperate) new US Airways threatening to move hub flights to Las Vegas if Phoenix tries to raise fees to help fund infrastructure.
I hope I'm wrong.
It would be especially sad, considering the way this town has backed America West and fallen in love with it.
As a woman said Wednesday after reading the news, "Well, there goes my favorite airline."
satpak77
Marriott Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Posts
- 3,015
uhhh
http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/21/news/midcaps/jetblue_earnings.reut/index.htm
JetBlue profits nose-dive
Low-fare air carrier earnings fall 54 percent; first declining quarter since April 2002.
April 21, 2005: 11:52 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/earnings/
NEW YORK (Reuters) - JetBlue Airways Corp. reported Thursday that quarterly profit slid 54 percent as it grappled with record fuel prices, though the result beat forecasts.
JetBlue, which has posted a profit every quarter since its initial public offering in April 2002, said net income fell to $7 million, or 6 cents per share, compared with $15.2 million, or 14 cents a share, a year earlier.
Wall Street analysts had forecast first-quarter EPS at the New York-based airline at 3 cent a share.
JetBlue's (up $0.82 to $20.29, Research) shares were up 3.03 percent in morning trade on Nasdaq.
Susan Donofrio, an analyst at Fulcrum Global Partners, said the results were "pretty much in line" with her expectations.
JetBlue has some of the lowest costs in the airline industry, helped by high productivity and low labor expenses as well as one of the youngest jet fleets in the industry.
But the airline, which has been rated highly in customer service surveys, has not been immune to soaring energy costs.
JetBlue, which has been expanding its fleet aggressively, said revenue rose 29.5 percent to $374 million, beating a Reuters Research forecast of $363 million.
"Looking ahead, we're seeing good strength in the second quarter as our customers demonstrate their loyalty," JetBlue Chief Executive David Neeleman said in a statement.
JetBlue shares have outperformed the sectoral Amex Airlines index by about 6 percent so far this year.
B6Driver said:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/21/news/midcaps/jetblue_earnings.reut/index.htm
JetBlue profits nose-dive
Low-fare air carrier earnings fall 54 percent; first declining quarter since April 2002.
April 21, 2005: 11:52 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/earnings/
NEW YORK (Reuters) - JetBlue Airways Corp. reported Thursday that quarterly profit slid 54 percent as it grappled with record fuel prices, though the result beat forecasts.
JetBlue, which has posted a profit every quarter since its initial public offering in April 2002, said net income fell to $7 million, or 6 cents per share, compared with $15.2 million, or 14 cents a share, a year earlier.
Wall Street analysts had forecast first-quarter EPS at the New York-based airline at 3 cent a share.
JetBlue's (up $0.82 to $20.29, Research) shares were up 3.03 percent in morning trade on Nasdaq.
Susan Donofrio, an analyst at Fulcrum Global Partners, said the results were "pretty much in line" with her expectations.
JetBlue has some of the lowest costs in the airline industry, helped by high productivity and low labor expenses as well as one of the youngest jet fleets in the industry.
But the airline, which has been rated highly in customer service surveys, has not been immune to soaring energy costs.
JetBlue, which has been expanding its fleet aggressively, said revenue rose 29.5 percent to $374 million, beating a Reuters Research forecast of $363 million.
"Looking ahead, we're seeing good strength in the second quarter as our customers demonstrate their loyalty," JetBlue Chief Executive David Neeleman said in a statement.
JetBlue shares have outperformed the sectoral Amex Airlines index by about 6 percent so far this year.
Fly-n-hi said:
Flynhi -
I cannot defend any actions of mine because I had no actions in this whole mess. You know that.
All I was saying in my post is that "native" AA pilots deserved a piece of the job protection pie. By the very nature of hiring on with AA, and being on the property - BEFORE - the merger was announced, this was to be expected. Most of your TWA coworkers realize this.
In the end, I cannot argue with the fact that the APA slammed you guys and then some. As I said in an earlier post, I am one of the few "natives" that believes the APA could have done a much better job with the whole integration, not to mention their attitudes in the process.
I also believe that you guys should as angry, if not angrier, at ALPA and how they failed to put up a fight during the whole process. You guys shoiuld win a huge award for their blatant misreperesentation.
When I mentioned that I had more sad stories, I meant it - and that includes the whole spectrum of TWA and AA pilots who were affected, not just from the merger but from 9/11.
Finally, I resent the fact that you blame me for "stealing" your dad's seniority at an airline he never worked at, when I was on the property long before him - and that I didn't concoct the resulting seniority integration, the APA did - but I also realize that emotions speak louder than words.
So in the end, it defintely could've been handled in a much better way. Hopefully, companies and unions who merge in the future will look to ours as an example of what not to do.
Last but not least, if you are ex TWA I hope you're back on the property before long.
Regards-
73
aroundtheblock
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 159
I'm surprised no one has said tis yet.... Maybe the new CEO at U has taken a page out of the Stephen Wolf playbook. Wolf and a few others received $25 million (on top of their normal salary) in a losing effort to merge US Air with United. These guys might just be trying to ilk the last few pennies out of the sinking ship.
No matter how it goes down, if it does happen, all of the execs will walk away with millions as the trainwreck ensues.
Ask Goodwin, Wolf, Gangwal, Lorenzo how all that money tastes. Oh the list is just too long.
It's a good thing we live in a a country that abortion rights and the right to drive an SUV supercedes one's intelligence to preserve one's career. Fu&$in amazing.
A new phrase that may come in handy;
"Would you like fries with that burger?"
Ask Goodwin, Wolf, Gangwal, Lorenzo how all that money tastes. Oh the list is just too long.
It's a good thing we live in a a country that abortion rights and the right to drive an SUV supercedes one's intelligence to preserve one's career. Fu&$in amazing.
A new phrase that may come in handy;
"Would you like fries with that burger?"
Last edited:
aroundtheblock said:
Around,
You are pretty close to the truth here. The game now is to extend the life of the patient untill every last single drop of blood can be extracted OUTSIDE of the liquidation.
Once the big liq starts, the judge has control of who gets what. By stringing it along, the lawyers and GECAS can suck U dry before any pesky interference. As soon as it's done, they bail and U will collapse so quick you won't believe it.
UAL is the same, but just further up the road a bit. They also have more furniture to burn.
Nu
Black Water Dog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 87
Fly-n-hi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Posts
- 558
aa73,
I'm not TWA...just my father...for 35 years plus 4 at AA.
I'll keep this simple and short.
You say that you resent the fact that I blame you for stealing my father's seniority. When TWA was aquired they were bringing over the planes as well as the pilots. It's not as if it was just the pilots coming over. APA saw this as an opportunity to gain seniority quickly, period. There was absolutely no reason that the TWA folks should not have kept their original hire dates.
You say I should blame ALPA for letting this happen? Don't get me wrong...I'm not a big ALPA fan...but I blame you...not ALPA. APA screwed TWA. ALPA allowed it to happen, true, but you guys did the screwing.
Your logic is this: WE screwed the TWA pilots but ALPA didn't do anything to stop it so you should be mad at ALPA.
Are you saying that you should only treat someone the way you would like to be treated if you are forced to?
I feel I have the right to blame you as an induvidual and as a member of APA...unless you were active and vocal in getting the TWA guys their DOH's. Were you?
All in all this is just my opinion. I don't hate you or anything like that. But I will argue with you about this subject as long as you want.
I'm not TWA...just my father...for 35 years plus 4 at AA.
I'll keep this simple and short.
You say that you resent the fact that I blame you for stealing my father's seniority. When TWA was aquired they were bringing over the planes as well as the pilots. It's not as if it was just the pilots coming over. APA saw this as an opportunity to gain seniority quickly, period. There was absolutely no reason that the TWA folks should not have kept their original hire dates.
You say I should blame ALPA for letting this happen? Don't get me wrong...I'm not a big ALPA fan...but I blame you...not ALPA. APA screwed TWA. ALPA allowed it to happen, true, but you guys did the screwing.
Your logic is this: WE screwed the TWA pilots but ALPA didn't do anything to stop it so you should be mad at ALPA.
Are you saying that you should only treat someone the way you would like to be treated if you are forced to?
I feel I have the right to blame you as an induvidual and as a member of APA...unless you were active and vocal in getting the TWA guys their DOH's. Were you?
All in all this is just my opinion. I don't hate you or anything like that. But I will argue with you about this subject as long as you want.
Fly-n-hi said:
Flyinhi and NAA-
Reread my post. I am not agreeing with the APAs behavior, or their method of integration. I am agreeing with you and your coworkers (GASP!) that the integration could have come out much better.
If your father, or anyone else at TWA, got to American before me - through the whole interviewing and hiring process that I had to go through - then I would back down from my stance a little. But since I was a "Native" - that is, hired by American from the beginning - then I am entitled to some form of job protection during a merger. Regardless of the # of planes, or routes, etc, the pilots of the acquiring airline are always entitled to more perks than the airline being acquires. This has been true of every merger, includoing OZ/TWA.
If TWA went out and bought some airline, you TWA "natives" would have fought tooth and nail for some sort of job protection. That is a perk of working for the airline that is buying.
You can sit here and blame me till the cows come home, over my "lack of getting the TWA guys DOH (lol!)... I challenge you to name ONE MERGER in the history of the airlines where one pilot group fought to get the other group DOH. Get real man - I didn't even have a say from the APA's perspective. You actually think we had a say in it?
If you want to play that game, I can sit here and blame TWA pilots personally for being associated with the biggest mistake of the airline industry - buying your company. That's right, since you weren't "active and vocal" in preventing this disastrous merger that cost AA millions of $, I can hold each TWA pilot responsible - according to your logic - even though you didn't have a say in it.
Do you see how illogical your theory is? Blaming a line pilot for an integration that we had no control over? That's like blaming a Republican for the continuing
massacre in Iraq - because he voted for Bush.
Bottom line- APA screwed up the integration big time. Yes, I've admitted that for a long time now. I was dissapointed in how they handled the whole thing - because several of my TWA friends went right to the street. However - and several of your TWA coworkers agree with me on this - APA made sure that their own dues-paying members were entitled to some sort of job protections- which is EXACTLY what ALPA should have fought for you guys.
And finally, to quote you exactly, "you guys did the screwing..." No, Flyinhi, my senior leadership did the screwing. As a line pilot, I was on the sidelines watching in shock.
Regards,
73
joevollers
rockingthenotsofreeworld
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Posts
- 205
Everyone might be making some false assumptions
UsAir has come out and said that this would be a "merger". Doug Parker and the others at AWA hve been extremely tight lipped.---While AWA does not have tons of cash , they do have alot of willing financiers.
This smells more like a buyout and maybe only take as much of USair as they thought might be beneficial.
If I'm right, I very well might not be but who knows---does ALPA's merger policy cover buyouts too??
Pragmatically, I would bet that the only person who will be able to effectively answer how the pilot lists will be integrated is Doug Parker who will be running the show in any given scenario.
UsAir has come out and said that this would be a "merger". Doug Parker and the others at AWA hve been extremely tight lipped.---While AWA does not have tons of cash , they do have alot of willing financiers.
This smells more like a buyout and maybe only take as much of USair as they thought might be beneficial.
If I'm right, I very well might not be but who knows---does ALPA's merger policy cover buyouts too??
Pragmatically, I would bet that the only person who will be able to effectively answer how the pilot lists will be integrated is Doug Parker who will be running the show in any given scenario.
TWA Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,666
Whether it's a buyout, acquisition, stock swap, or whatever is irrelevant. To the unionized workgroups it's a merger and ALPA policy should apply.joevollers said:
Not quite. All Management cares about is that the merged list doesn't create a lot of training events. Beyond that they can only become involved in an advisory capacity.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
