Ati / abx merger?
04-20-2018, 07:36 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 168
On 2nd thought ATSG would screw this up. All the successfull mergers in the industry the management cared to get it done right and paid the pilots appropriatly.
ATSG isn't smart enough to see where the industry is and is headed! They already have a huge turn over and very few intrested. Pay ATI industry low rates and think it will solve long term hiring issues.....I think not.
Can you imagine the mass exedus if they try to Amalgamate the contracts like southern atlas? Lawsuits and people quitting, not coming to work here... if they are smart the take the best of both and move on and grow....but.....
ATSG isn't smart enough to see where the industry is and is headed! They already have a huge turn over and very few intrested. Pay ATI industry low rates and think it will solve long term hiring issues.....I think not.
Can you imagine the mass exedus if they try to Amalgamate the contracts like southern atlas? Lawsuits and people quitting, not coming to work here... if they are smart the take the best of both and move on and grow....but.....
04-21-2018, 08:04 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,809
Originally Posted by 2Planez
You think that merger would be bad? Wait till Atlas buys ATSG and amalgamates Southern and ATI!
04-21-2018, 09:07 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 493
ATSG just bought labor peace at one of its two carriers, apparently in large part because labor peace was a major concern of a major customer. The carrier at which it bought labor peace flies 70 percent of the aircraft that have been dry-leased by that customer.
Merging the two carriers would instantly create renewed labor drama at the carrier at which ATSG had just bought labor peace. Not to mention a long list of operational matters to deal with, given the very different procedures and operational cultures at the two carriers. It would have been one thing to have had a single-transportation-system finding by the NMB, where (in this case) two different carriers would be required to have one bargaining representative (union). It is quite another thing to merge two employee groups, manuals, operational procedures, etc. Particularly-so given the relationship between the two groups here.
It doesn't strike me that, long-term, there is that much operational inefficiency from having two separate carriers, given that many of the similar/duplicative functions are already contracted out to ATSG units that serve both carriers. The major extra expense is having two groups of executives. Meanwhile, short-term, trying to merge these two particular carriers would be a complete goatrope and very-expensive at the end of the day.
Having just accomplished labor peace, do they really want a representation fight at a merged ABX/ATI, as well as a prolonged, new, contract fight? If there is some contractual provision that they think would require a simple resolution of the representation and contract issues, do they really think that 1224's very-creative attorneys wouldn't tie them up in litigation for years?
It seems insane to me that ATSG would want to do this. There are quite a few other options for structural change that would leave the contract and labor peace intact at the one carrier.
As we used to say when I lived in Texas: "Why borrow the trouble?"
(Of course, the fact that it seems insane to me doesn't mean that out in Hooterville they don't see it as pure genius...)
Merging the two carriers would instantly create renewed labor drama at the carrier at which ATSG had just bought labor peace. Not to mention a long list of operational matters to deal with, given the very different procedures and operational cultures at the two carriers. It would have been one thing to have had a single-transportation-system finding by the NMB, where (in this case) two different carriers would be required to have one bargaining representative (union). It is quite another thing to merge two employee groups, manuals, operational procedures, etc. Particularly-so given the relationship between the two groups here.
It doesn't strike me that, long-term, there is that much operational inefficiency from having two separate carriers, given that many of the similar/duplicative functions are already contracted out to ATSG units that serve both carriers. The major extra expense is having two groups of executives. Meanwhile, short-term, trying to merge these two particular carriers would be a complete goatrope and very-expensive at the end of the day.
Having just accomplished labor peace, do they really want a representation fight at a merged ABX/ATI, as well as a prolonged, new, contract fight? If there is some contractual provision that they think would require a simple resolution of the representation and contract issues, do they really think that 1224's very-creative attorneys wouldn't tie them up in litigation for years?
It seems insane to me that ATSG would want to do this. There are quite a few other options for structural change that would leave the contract and labor peace intact at the one carrier.
As we used to say when I lived in Texas: "Why borrow the trouble?"
(Of course, the fact that it seems insane to me doesn't mean that out in Hooterville they don't see it as pure genius...)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
