What was the EXACT date of the UA/CO seniority snapshot?

[Tail Gunner Joe]

http://online.wsj.com/JUNE 25, 2010, 6:44 P.M. ET


United, Continental Had Exploratory Talks in 2006

UAL Corp. and Continental Airlines Inc. engaged in preliminary talks about a merger as early as 2006, the two companies said in a joint proxy statement and prospectus filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday regarding their merger plan agreed to in May. But Northwest Airlines Corp. held a "golden share" of preferred stock in Continental at the time, giving Northwest the ability to block a Continental merger.

That golden share "effectively made a transaction...unfeasible at that time," UAL and Continental said in the filing, without naming Northwest. But once Northwest and Delta Air Lines Inc. agreed to merge in 2008, Continental was able to redeem that preferred stock.

UAL, parent of United Airlines, and Continental then had more merger discussions in 2008, a time when United also did due diligence on transactions with two other airlines. Throughout the spring of that year, United talked seriously about a transaction with Continental while holding parallel discussions with US Airways Group Inc., identified in the SEC filing as "Company A."

Continental broke off the negotiations in April 2008, concluding that it wasn't prepared to engage in a business combination with United at that time. The following day, UAL CEO Glenn Tilton broached the idea of Continental joining the global Star Alliance group of carriers, of which United is a founding member. In June, United discontinued merger discussions with US Airways and said Continental would join Star.

In June of 2009, senior management of United and US Airways met again to discuss a combination. They explored a deal that summer and suspended talks from September 2009 through late January of 2010 as they "independently pursued business, liquidity and other priorities" that were more pressing because of the severe travel downturn brought on by the recession.

According to the SEC filing, United and US Airways recommenced their talks in late January of this year and continued them until April 22. But news reports of those discussions surfaced April 7, promping Continental CEO Jeff Smisek to call Mr. Tilton to discuss the possibility of renewing merger discussions.

Throughout April, the chief financial officers of the two carriers evaluated the possible transaction and pursued due diligence, even as United was maintaining discussions with US Airways. By April 14, Mr. Tilton met with US Airways CEO Doug Parker to discuss the remaining open issues, including a potential exchange ratio in a share swap, in a possible transaction between their companies."No significant progress was made," the filing said.

The following day, the United and Continental executive teams met and agreed on an exchange ratio, the composition of the senior management team, the location of the headquarters, the corporate name and brand and other details. The exchange ratio in the share swap later because an issue of disagreement but was sorted out.

On April 21, United informed US Airways of the "growing seriousness of its discussions with Continental," and US Airways publicly announced the next day that it was dropping out of the talks with United.

As reported, United and Continental on May 3 announced a $3 billion share swap, which would create the world's largest airline by traffic. The deal is being reviewed by the Justice Department. Mr. Smisek would become the CEO of the combined companies, and Mr. Tilton would become the nonexecutive chairman for two years. The company, to be called United but retain Continental's logo and colors, would be based in Chicago, United's current home.

In the SEC filing Friday, the two carriers said they received a second request for information from the Justice Department on June 7 and are preparing to achieve substantial compliance with that request. On June 21, they jointly filed a formal merger notification with the European Commission. The lengthy SEC filing, a preliminary Form S-4 registration statement, is prepared in advance of the special shareholder meetings both carriers will hold later this year to ask their investors to vote for the merger.

 

[catIIIc]

The snapshot has not been taken yet the lists have just been certified. No one knows when it will be done the date probably be arbitrated also.

 

[bluefin]

Per UAL/CO mec, May 3, 2010. The date of the announcement.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

Per UAL/CO mec, May 3, 2010. The date of the announcement.

The snapshot has not been taken yet! Only seniority list certifications have been done. Merger Com's are swapping them this week. The actual snapshot day for SLI will be negotiated/arbitrated and can be any date from date of announcement forward. This is directly from the merger committee, not the MEC.

Yogi

 

[jumppilot]

Exactly.

Who knows whats going to happen.

CAL will more than likely have new hires on property by the end of the year and in the history of SLIs no active pilot has ever gone below a furloughed.

Which is why hiring UAL pilots could create a problem, unless they resigned their number.

The above is opinion only.

 

[Shrek]

Oh did we get a JCBA? - Because SLI gets done after..........just sayin

 

[whatitdoing?]

Oh did we get a JCBA? - Because SLI gets done after..........just sayin

Come on SHREK, you know the snapshot has already been taken. The list is being certified right now, but that snapshot was taken when the merger was announced.

 

[johnsonrod]

Didn't UAL just have talks with USAir too? Wouldn't that break off the initial CAL talks? Obviously they were not "exclusive", since they also talked with USAir afterwards. I would think they would take the snapshot during these most recent discussions, not 4 years ago.

 

[whatitdoing?]

This isn't hard. The snapshot was taken when a merger agreement was agreed to between two airlines........ie UAL/CAL. Not merger talks, a signed agreement.

 

[pilotgolfer]

Exactly.

Who knows whats going to happen.

CAL will more than likely have new hires on property by the end of the year and in the history of SLIs no active pilot has ever gone below a furloughed.

Which is why hiring UAL pilots could create a problem, unless they resigned their number.

The above is opinion only.

Jumppilot,

Why do you think hiring UAL furloughees will be a problem? If someone were to be hired, they would just have 2 seniority numbers. Whichever number worked to their benefit in the SLI, then let them use it. How does this affect you as a CAL pilot? I thought it was a great idea to let the UAL furloughees go to CAL as newhires with their UAL longevity. The difference in pay would have been covered by UAL...just like they did in the jets for jobs program. Again, it doesn't affect the seniority of the CAL pilots. Why should they give a hoot what the UAL guy is making as a new hire? You will be bidding senior to them till the cows come home...so what difference does their payrate make?

 

[Shrek]

Come on SHREK, you know the snapshot has already been taken. The list is being certified right now, but that snapshot was taken when the merger was announced.

I totally agree - I was just trying to focus everyone's attention back towards what is more important at the particular moment.

I know the SLI is potentially a huge issue but if we allow ourselves to tackle that first before the JCBA it plays into MGT's hands.

 

[skywdriver]

Jumppilot,

Why do you think hiring UAL furloughees will be a problem? If someone were to be hired, they would just have 2 seniority numbers. Whichever number worked to their benefit in the SLI, then let them use it. How does this affect you as a CAL pilot? I thought it was a great idea to let the UAL furloughees go to CAL as newhires with their UAL longevity. The difference in pay would have been covered by UAL...just like they did in the jets for jobs program. Again, it doesn't affect the seniority of the CAL pilots. Why should they give a hoot what the UAL guy is making as a new hire? You will be bidding senior to them till the cows come home...so what difference does their payrate make?

Hiring UAL guys affects CAL furloughs like myself. IF we hire off the street, those folks are below me, no questions asked. If we hire UAL guys then they get the benefit of coming back to work sooner due to CAL movement and then the benefit of picking the best side to integrate from possibly leaving myself and other CAL furloughed pilots that many numbers closer to another furlough. To me, that is an important issue. I am all for UAL guys getting back to work over hiring off the street, but they shouldn't be able to do so at my potential expense.

 

[Shrek]

Hiring UAL guys affects CAL furloughs like myself. IF we hire off the street, those folks are below me, no questions asked. If we hire UAL guys then they get the benefit of coming back to work sooner due to CAL movement and then the benefit of picking the best side to integrate from possibly leaving myself and other CAL furloughed pilots that many numbers closer to another furlough. To me, that is an important issue. I am all for UAL guys getting back to work over hiring off the street, but they shouldn't be able to do so at my potential expense.[/QUOTE/]

Over 1400 of us thank you so much for that viewpoint.........much appreciated.

As long as we keep 50 seat scope it will work itself out until age 65 retires start kicking in.

 

[skywdriver]

Hiring UAL guys affects CAL furloughs like myself. IF we hire off the street, those folks are below me, no questions asked. If we hire UAL guys then they get the benefit of coming back to work sooner due to CAL movement and then the benefit of picking the best side to integrate from possibly leaving myself and other CAL furloughed pilots that many numbers closer to another furlough. To me, that is an important issue. I am all for UAL guys getting back to work over hiring off the street, but they shouldn't be able to do so at my potential expense.[/QUOTE/]

Over 1400 of us thank you so much for that viewpoint.........much appreciated.

As long as we keep 50 seat scope it will work itself out until age 65 retires start kicking in.

Shrek,

I meant nothing against the UAL guys here, if you read what I wrote, I said I am all for bringing you guys back over hiring off the street. However, how can you say it isn't an unfair break to get a recall earlier than you otherwise would and then to get the choice of sides in the integration? I understand that the integration itself probably won't be "fair" in a lot of people's eyes, but that is just a part of the merger. CAL bringing back UAL guys rather than hiring off the street would be a good gesture of unification, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of any CAL pilots. It is our aircraft orders that are going to create movement until retirements start back up, so I as a CAL pilot should expect that with that movement, I will move up in the list and get some padding on the bottom side. If more senior United guys fill those slots, I do not get that benefit and to me that is a huge break for UAL guys at my expense.

Regarding scope, I am optimistic that we can stick together on this thing and do what should be done. Best of luck to your side as well as mine. We may not see eye to eye on this issue, but I assure you I am ready to work together when the chance presents itself.

 

[Shrek]

Fair enough - I would probably see it that way too from your point of view.

Let's shelve this one and get that JCBA done

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

Shrek and Skyw,

Let's get it done! Scope and JCBA! Working together will create great leverage. We can all agree to disagree, but if we keep our eye on the ball, we all can't lose.

Yogi

 

[whatitdoing?]

I don't think the SLI will be a big deal, it's gonna be the JCBA. They're already fighting us on the transition agreement. They walked out. I have a feeling that this might be a long long road.

 

[bluefin]

I wonder how smart of a move that was, to hit a snag on such a minor detail this early in the process. Especially with the grilling titty and smizek(sp) got the other day. Were they not touting how good it would be for the employees? now they walk away from minor items.

 

[skywdriver]

Fair enough - I would probably see it that way too from your point of view.

Let's shelve this one and get that JCBA done

I agree 100%. I have spoken with my union reps to make it clear that any loosening of scope is unacceptable. I am hoping the UAL side will be even more militant on this issue than the CAL side.