Airline Pilot Central Forums - World Being Bought or Acquired?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)

- - World Being Bought or Acquired? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/11150-world-being-bought-acquired.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAKflyer (Post 144495)

RAH started out with one list (Chautauqua) and developed into three companies. It's a different kettle of fish going the other way. I doubt the companies or lists will be merged.

True, but the binding language exists and works well. Also included is language to bind the parent during an acquisition.

We did "acquire" S5 and merged them into the list. There was a twist, as we are represented by IBT, and RAH announced it was going to start Republic as a J4J operator and whipsaw, ALPA saw fit to endorse the whipsaw company.

One list binders are great...I benefit from it every day.

RAH Scope

Quote:

D. Scope
1.
This Agreement covers the company, any subsidiary of the company, the company’s parent, any subsidiary of the company’s parent and any future airline certificate(s) created as a subsidiary of the company or subsidiary of the company’s parent.
2.
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all present and future flying (including that international flying which originates or terminates within the United States or its possessions) and all charters, ferry flights (not including ferry flights of newly-acquired aircraft prior to being placed in revenue service), training flights, test flights, (except test flights assigned to management), or other utilization of aircraft owned or leased by the company, the company’s parent or any subsidiary of the company or subsidiary of the company’s parent shall be performed by pilots on the Chautauqua Airlines Pilots’ System Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or any other applicable agreement between the company, the company’s parent or any subsidiary of the company’s parent and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division.
3.
The Company, Subsidiary of the Company, the Company’s Parent or Subsidiary of the Parent shall not establish any new airline (alter ego or otherwise) or acquire a controlling interest in any carrier whether directly or through the Parent or another Subsidiary of the Parent, and maintain it as a separate carrier. A “Controlling Interest” or “Control” means the ownership of an equity interest representing more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding capital stock of an entity or voting securities representing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total voting power of outstanding securities then entitled to vote generally in the election of such entity’s board of directors or other governing body.
4.
The Company will not transfer aircraft, or operating authority to its Parent, a Subsidiary of the Parent, or to a Subsidiary of the Company for the purpose of evading the terms of this Agreement. The Company will also not establish a third party leasing device to evade the terms of this agreement.

I guess that I am glad that I did not take that job in Jan.

crgok9...

Challenge had no airplanes to buy..just routes...didn't make sense to buy their routes, hire all their pilots if there were no airplanes to go with the deal. Where is your dog in this fight?

JMO

Pilot7576

The PR says they will operate as 3 companies, that is good news from my point of view.

WOA has out lasted WorldCorp(1st holding company), and now WorldAirHoldings(2nd holding company).

Not sure how the ATA DC10 thing is going to play out though with 2 companies operating the same type a/c, sounds like the making of a pilot/mismanagement legal battle.

WG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldguy (Post 144715)

There is some chatter here in the glass paleace that ATA will not get the DC-10's and they will infact come to World. With AMC if you add a new fleet type, you can't use it to transport troops until its been in your fleet for a year. Being that we already have one passenger DC-10 doing AMC missions we could add the "new" DC-10's in the fleet with no delay who would have thought that good old 351 would actually do something good for us. I doubt ATA wants to be paing for six DC-10's that it won't even be able to use for a year for the job that they are intended for.

Not entirely true

"With AMC if you add a new fleet type, you can't use it to transport troops until its been in your fleet for a year."

If your company has been providing "substantially similar service" for over a year, a new fleet type doesn't matter. You can change aircraft type, but as long as its widebody intl for widebody intl, for example, AMC really doesn't care.

TH1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot7576 (Post 144683)

There were no airplanes to go with the deal because UPS did not want them. UPS bought Challenge as a whole, minus the jets and did not even so much as offer the pilots a pref interview. Unfortunately, the IPA thought that this was acceptable using the excuse that UPS did not offer them jobs or at the least, interviews, due to what happened with the lawsuits of the past when they formed the airline ( UPS ). I am sorry but at the time I disagreed with the IPA's stand and thought that UPS should have offered something to the pilots of Challenge since "our" company put them on the street.

crgok9...

There were no airplanes to go with the deal because challenge leased their 75's and didn't own them. If ups had bought everything that challenge had, they would have routes and pilots and STILL NO airplanes. The IPA was not involved or consulted by ups in the challenge route acquisition, in spite of what you may think. We (IPA) are not consulted before ups makes a move; we find out what they do when we open the newspaper just like the rest of the public.

JTF

Pilot7576

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot7576 (Post 146405)

Trust me, I fully understand that UPS does not check with the IPA before they take action on something. However, I am basing my statement on a conversation that Bob Miller had at the time the whole Challenge thing was going on. Regardless of leased aircraft, UPS was in the process of hiring at that point in time. Although, it was not much, maybe 60 for the year. According to Bob, UPS did not want to have anything to do with the pilots of Challenge due to past experiences. Which I guess also means no preferential interviews.

So, aircraft aside, UPS bought their routes and their ground equipment, their base of operations in MIA and left the pilots out to fend for themselves. If UPS did not have a future need for pilots at that time then so be it, as you stated, no aircraft came with the deal. However, that was not the case...even if it only meant looking into hiring 60 pilots per year.

I don't think that UPS actually bought Challenge Air. We bought there "assets" which is different. Yes, we were hiring at the time and it would have been nice to be able to do something for some of the CAC guys, and if there weren't so many scabs over there we may have tried a little harder to help. I am sure that what UPS was trying to avoid was an NMB rule where if you take on more than 51% of the pilots, you have de facto "bought" the company instead of the assets, which would have opened the door to mergers and such. Just one more headache that they didn't need. I agree with K9 though, it was not our finest hour at the IPA