Originally Posted by
EngineOut
Yes, but as I understand it, the A-M amendment to the Reauthorization bill only applies if both companies are subject to the RLA (aka "union").
Not correct. It applies either way you slice it. A merger between same union groups, between any two unions, AND between a unionized employee group and a non-unionized employee group. This is law was designed to prevent another AA/TWA seniority integration.
"ALPA pilots involved in a non-ALPA merger, and all unionized employees under the Railway Labor Act, at least a minimum standard of protection in future transactions with merging employee groups outside of their union by ensuring a “fair and equitable” seniority integration process under the Allegheny-Mohawk merger provisions, which are incorporated in this law...
This legislation, which applies to covered mergers that occur after Dec. 26, 2007, was originally proposed by AFA and supported by ALPA. It stems from the inequities that arose when the independent unions that represent the flight attendants and pilots of American Airlines forced the flight attendants and pilots of the former TWA to forgo a merger seniority arbitration process and suffer imposed seniority terms that disfavored these groups. This legislation corrects that situation and will prevent outside groups from simply dictating seniority terms to ALPA pilots."
Originally Posted by
EngineOut
The MAG S & M (huh, huh) provision that Nevjet posted is pretty standard in my experience. I've seen it almost verbatim in two airline union contracts that I've worked under (neither as a pilot).
Actually, I posted the XJT Successor and Merger clause. But I also posted XJT's holding letter. I'm not sure how standard that is but I know it would be a deterrent to anyone wanting to buy part of the company. And probably more so if the proposed successor's pilots are non-union. Certainly XJT pilots would not roll over on this.