hou757 & calmwinds
09-29-2018, 07:49 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 846
hou757 & calmwinds
Originally Posted by calmwinds
The reason I mention 121 operations is what other business would have FA’s that the FA agreement would be worried about with mergers, purchases and acquistions.
Generally, I think we are agreeing. The original FA agreement back in the day of AW is long gone. The only part in the new FA agreement is 1.B.5 that deals with acquisitions. There is nothing that blocks the Xjet acquisition by United as long as that paragraph is followed. (Note the paragraph deals with mergers, purchases and acquistions - not just mergers - despite the title of the paragraph). Subparagraph e would be the only paragraph with any effect with separate operations and that only subparagraph only deals with furloughs.
Generally, I think we are agreeing. The original FA agreement back in the day of AW is long gone. The only part in the new FA agreement is 1.B.5 that deals with acquisitions. There is nothing that blocks the Xjet acquisition by United as long as that paragraph is followed. (Note the paragraph deals with mergers, purchases and acquistions - not just mergers - despite the title of the paragraph). Subparagraph e would be the only paragraph with any effect with separate operations and that only subparagraph only deals with furloughs.
Theoretically, part 125 could apply. But all my references have been to the scope LOA. It’s the exact same loa from the legacy UAL FA contract that was just incorporated into their new JCBA. Section one is mostly labor protection provisions in case of a merger, acquisition, etc. The LOA is the part that puts restrictions on UAL. Go back and reread my previous post here. I’ve explained it in detail.
Originally Posted by calmwinds
Thanks. Good find. I missed this LOA in my review.
I can see the FA’s using this. Paragraph 2 is pretty explicit: “Without limiting the foregoing, the Compang agrees to not establish or purchase an alter-ego airline in whole or in part.” Paragraph 1 prevents a controlling interest.
And, the 175, even the 145, definitely does routes that have been historically performed by mainline United.
I can see the FA’s using this. Paragraph 2 is pretty explicit: “Without limiting the foregoing, the Compang agrees to not establish or purchase an alter-ego airline in whole or in part.” Paragraph 1 prevents a controlling interest.
And, the 175, even the 145, definitely does routes that have been historically performed by mainline United.
No regional is an alter ego airline. Continental was the alter ego airline when UAL/CAL decided to merge. The LOA is what required them to merge the two airlines (in a vacuum of ignoring the existence of the pilots’ contracts). That language was there to prevent the Lorenzo tactics of buying airlines (TXI, Continental, Eastern, etc) and whipsawing then against one another. There is no whipsaw possible between any regional and UAL. They simply not comparable air carriers.
As for operations historically performed by mainline, that hasn’t been the case since the first regional jet was introduced. UAL FAs haven’t done any commuter or regional flying, exclusively, for at least about 20 years, whenever it is had Vickers Viscount and DC9-10s. A precedent has been set.
Every single paragraph in the LOA is definitely up for debate, especially when it comes to a multi billion dollar operation and union lawyers. So I agree, that none of what’s in the contract prohibits UAL from buying any regional. They’ll either comply with it, come to some alternate agreement or argue it to an arbitrator. More likely, they’d come to a mutual agreement. In any case, none of that means UAL is buying anything.
Last edited by Nevjets; 09-29-2018 at 08:05 PM.
