Alaska Blue and a LUV triangle
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,173
Right... I guess I missed the alluding email you speak of... but the number is right! I get it though, I just stole the number from an alluded email and posted that number here to try and look smart 🙄.
#55
Banned
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 289
Slow news day?
For those not following, the max crisis had SWA actually reconsidering their single-fleet strategy. COVID aside, if the max grounding had occurred 5-7 years down the line it would have put SW into BK and possibly liquidation, too much of their fleet would have been max and therefore INOP (AS of course would be in the same boat in that scenario).
For those not following, the max crisis had SWA actually reconsidering their single-fleet strategy. COVID aside, if the max grounding had occurred 5-7 years down the line it would have put SW into BK and possibly liquidation, too much of their fleet would have been max and therefore INOP (AS of course would be in the same boat in that scenario).
And please don’t use the DC-10 as a bolster to your theory. Not even remotely in the same ball park when it was grounded in 1979.
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 45
#57
Banned
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 289
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 791
That's not correct in this case. I'm guessing Jet America and VX did not have scope limits on regional flying. I know VX didn't, they didn't even have a contract yet.
Many other majors have scope language which limits or prohibits ANY flying not performed by mainline. IIRC two obvious potential merger partners fall into that last category (WN and B6). HA has some regional feed, not sure what their scope is.
A merger partner's scope language (and everything else in the CBA) should be written to be binding on a successor company, which includes a new merged entity. So the deal could not be executed unless:
a) The other pilots agree to waive scope to the degree necessary to accommodate existing outsourced FFD.
b) OR the existing FFD is adjusted to comply with scope (that means FFD is eliminated in the case of WN/B6).
The new company would have to comply with the most restrictive limitations of each pilot group's contract, unless the pilots agree otherwise. Obviously there will eventually be an SLI and joint contract tailored to the new entity but that's not typically negotiated until after the merger is executed. Things like scope would have to be complied with on day one.
Historical example... the first time OO tried to buy EV, the EV pilots stuck to their guns on their contract, which OO found incompatible with their business plans, so the deal was called off.
Many other majors have scope language which limits or prohibits ANY flying not performed by mainline. IIRC two obvious potential merger partners fall into that last category (WN and B6). HA has some regional feed, not sure what their scope is.
A merger partner's scope language (and everything else in the CBA) should be written to be binding on a successor company, which includes a new merged entity. So the deal could not be executed unless:
a) The other pilots agree to waive scope to the degree necessary to accommodate existing outsourced FFD.
b) OR the existing FFD is adjusted to comply with scope (that means FFD is eliminated in the case of WN/B6).
The new company would have to comply with the most restrictive limitations of each pilot group's contract, unless the pilots agree otherwise. Obviously there will eventually be an SLI and joint contract tailored to the new entity but that's not typically negotiated until after the merger is executed. Things like scope would have to be complied with on day one.
Historical example... the first time OO tried to buy EV, the EV pilots stuck to their guns on their contract, which OO found incompatible with their business plans, so the deal was called off.
#59
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post