United better hurry up....
10-28-2019, 04:58 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Learjet driver
I think you would be much happier with an SLI at SW. it would be a merger of equals. A United and JB deal would not be a merger of equals. The relative seniority SLI dream wouldn’t pan out.
Not happening anyway. United just announced they are hiring 4000 pilots between now and 2022. That wouldn’t be necessary if a merger with JB was on the horizon. Good news for anyone who wants to jump ship though.
Not happening anyway. United just announced they are hiring 4000 pilots between now and 2022. That wouldn’t be necessary if a merger with JB was on the horizon. Good news for anyone who wants to jump ship though.
M&A have 2 elements. Category/Class and Relative seniority. With a UA merger, or with any of the big 3 for that matter, there would be a fencing off of aircraft based on career expectations (Widebodies), then there would be an argument about the larger narrow body aircraft (75s). Besides the cat/class, you're looking at relative seniority and the only real arguing point there is how much of a longevity multiplier to you give the legacy airline pilots based on YOS. Once that's decided, you plug and play. This is over simlified but that's the 30K' view.
Again, I think a merger with JB and a Big 3 would still work out for the JB guys better. Especially the younger JB pilots. I still don't like the thoughts of a SW merger just because of the unknown and how they took in AT. I don't really care what condition of AT was in at the time of the merger. It might work out, but I wouldn't want the unknown factor they present.
10-28-2019, 06:14 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Can you copy/paste your actual wording for that part of Sec 1?
E. Merger and Successorship Protections
In the event there is a merger or other Successorship Transaction involving an air carrier or an Entity that Controls an air carrier with the Company in which the seniority rights of Pilots on the JetBlue Pilots System Seniority List could be affected, the following procedures will apply:
1. The Companies or Successor and the pilot groups subject to the transaction will negotiate a Transition and Process Agreement (“TPA”) to outline the procedures and timelines for negotiation of a joint collective bargaining agreement and the integration of the Pilot System Seniority Lists.
2. A single collective bargaining agreement will be negotiated by the pilot groups and the Companies subject to the transaction or their Successor. While such negotiations are ongoing and until a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement is ratified the status quo as specified in the agreement(s) of the impacted pilot group(s) will apply. Each pre-merger carrier shall keep separate flight operations of the carriers and will not transfer or interchange pilots or aircraft between the carriers unless otherwise negotiated and agreed to by the Association, and shall ensure that all Company aircraft on hand or on order at the time of the transaction are operated only by JetBlue Pilots. This will not prohibit the carrier from obtaining a single operating certificate.
3. If all pre-transaction pilot groups are represented by the Association, on or before the date of closing of the successorship transaction or merger, the JetBlue MEC shall make a request to the ALPA Executive Council under the Association Merger and Fragmentation Policy then in existence (“Merger Policy”) that a “reasonable probability of a merger being consummated” has occurred within the meaning of and so as to trigger the application of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA shall complete the seniority integration and present an integrated seniority list to the Company as expeditiously as is reasonable. If any pre-transaction pilot group is not represented by the Association, the procedures specified in Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions, 59, CAB 22 (1972), consistent with the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond statute, shall apply. The companies involved in the merger or successorship transaction shall accept the integrated seniority list, including any conditions and restrictions, established through Association Merger Policy or LPP proceedings, as applicable, provided that none of the attendant conditions and restrictions therein: i) require a system flush whereby pilots may displace any other pilots from the latter’s position; ii) require a pilot to be compensated for flying not performed (e.g., differential pay for a position not flown); or iii) significantly increase the Company’s costs, including through retroactive monetary liability on the part of either pre-merger carrier.
4. There shall be no furloughs due to a Transactional Event until two (2) years after the closing of the Transactional Event.
In the event there is a merger or other Successorship Transaction involving an air carrier or an Entity that Controls an air carrier with the Company in which the seniority rights of Pilots on the JetBlue Pilots System Seniority List could be affected, the following procedures will apply:
1. The Companies or Successor and the pilot groups subject to the transaction will negotiate a Transition and Process Agreement (“TPA”) to outline the procedures and timelines for negotiation of a joint collective bargaining agreement and the integration of the Pilot System Seniority Lists.
2. A single collective bargaining agreement will be negotiated by the pilot groups and the Companies subject to the transaction or their Successor. While such negotiations are ongoing and until a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement is ratified the status quo as specified in the agreement(s) of the impacted pilot group(s) will apply. Each pre-merger carrier shall keep separate flight operations of the carriers and will not transfer or interchange pilots or aircraft between the carriers unless otherwise negotiated and agreed to by the Association, and shall ensure that all Company aircraft on hand or on order at the time of the transaction are operated only by JetBlue Pilots. This will not prohibit the carrier from obtaining a single operating certificate.
3. If all pre-transaction pilot groups are represented by the Association, on or before the date of closing of the successorship transaction or merger, the JetBlue MEC shall make a request to the ALPA Executive Council under the Association Merger and Fragmentation Policy then in existence (“Merger Policy”) that a “reasonable probability of a merger being consummated” has occurred within the meaning of and so as to trigger the application of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA shall complete the seniority integration and present an integrated seniority list to the Company as expeditiously as is reasonable. If any pre-transaction pilot group is not represented by the Association, the procedures specified in Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions, 59, CAB 22 (1972), consistent with the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond statute, shall apply. The companies involved in the merger or successorship transaction shall accept the integrated seniority list, including any conditions and restrictions, established through Association Merger Policy or LPP proceedings, as applicable, provided that none of the attendant conditions and restrictions therein: i) require a system flush whereby pilots may displace any other pilots from the latter’s position; ii) require a pilot to be compensated for flying not performed (e.g., differential pay for a position not flown); or iii) significantly increase the Company’s costs, including through retroactive monetary liability on the part of either pre-merger carrier.
4. There shall be no furloughs due to a Transactional Event until two (2) years after the closing of the Transactional Event.
10-28-2019, 06:38 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Can you copy/paste your actual wording for that part of Sec 1?
In the event of a merger between the Company and another Air Carrier, where the surviving air carrier decides to integrate the pre-merger operations, the following procedures will apply:
Guadalupe was not an air carrier and there is no language regarding an affiliate or entity that controls or is controlled by an entity or affiliate of an air carrier.
Decides: AirTran pilots left it up to the purchaser to decide to integrate them or NOT!
Our language requires a JCBA. The only way to accomplish this if the other CBA does not require it also is though the RLA process of Merger of Operations. This legal process (test) basically breaks/forces open the CBA of the purchasing airline's employee group for seniority integration.
10-28-2019, 07:10 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 30 West
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by BunkerF16
M&A have 2 elements. Category/Class and Relative seniority. With a UA merger, or with any of the big 3 for that matter, there would be a fencing off of aircraft based on career expectations (Widebodies), then there would be an argument about the larger narrow body aircraft (75s). Besides the cat/class, you're looking at relative seniority and the only real arguing point there is how much of a longevity multiplier to you give the legacy airline pilots based on YOS. Once that's decided, you plug and play. This is over simlified but that's the 30K' view.
Again, I think a merger with JB and a Big 3 would still work out for the JB guys better. Especially the younger JB pilots. I still don't like the thoughts of a SW merger just because of the unknown and how they took in AT. I don't really care what condition of AT was in at the time of the merger. It might work out, but I wouldn't want the unknown factor they present.
Again, I think a merger with JB and a Big 3 would still work out for the JB guys better. Especially the younger JB pilots. I still don't like the thoughts of a SW merger just because of the unknown and how they took in AT. I don't really care what condition of AT was in at the time of the merger. It might work out, but I wouldn't want the unknown factor they present.
It never mentions relative seniority. In a merger of equals relative seniority usually plays out because of all three of those conditions.
United, American or Delta are not equal to JetBlue. Southwest on the other hand is.
10-28-2019, 07:16 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Learjet driver
Your merger with Southwest might be based on that but ALPA merger policy is based on 3 things.... Status (Capt or FO), Category and Class (777 vs. A320) and Longevity (1995 vs. 2015).
It never mentions relative seniority. In a merger of equals relative seniority usually plays out because of all three of those conditions.
United, American or Delta are not equal to JetBlue. Southwest on the other hand is.
It never mentions relative seniority. In a merger of equals relative seniority usually plays out because of all three of those conditions.
United, American or Delta are not equal to JetBlue. Southwest on the other hand is.
It's cat/class and longevity (which leads to relative seniority scenarios, but not directly).
So to set it correctly its:
Category/class (Widebody vs narrow body)
Longevity. (#1 NB CA at United has how many YOS? #1 CA at JB has how many YOS?) That's where the multiplier would come into play to give the additional YOS for UA (or any top 3 guys) some benefit before the JB guys get plugged in.
CA/FO mean nothing. The seniority list would be ghost bid so that each pilot would be placed where they COULD hold, not what they actually sit at the time of the merger.
So you're right, JB and UA aren't the same. Which is why there would be a fencing off of WBs before JB pilots would be integrated.
10-28-2019, 10:46 AM
#37
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,588
Originally Posted by BunkerF16
You're partially right in your correcting me. I misspoke.
It's cat/class and longevity (which leads to relative seniority scenarios, but not directly).
So to set it correctly its:
Category/class (Widebody vs narrow body)
Longevity. (#1 NB CA at United has how many YOS? #1 CA at JB has how many YOS?) That's where the multiplier would come into play to give the additional YOS for UA (or any top 3 guys) some benefit before the JB guys get plugged in.
CA/FO mean nothing. The seniority list would be ghost bid so that each pilot would be placed where they COULD hold, not what they actually sit at the time of the merger.
So you're right, JB and UA aren't the same. Which is why there would be a fencing off of WBs before JB pilots would be integrated.
It's cat/class and longevity (which leads to relative seniority scenarios, but not directly).
So to set it correctly its:
Category/class (Widebody vs narrow body)
Longevity. (#1 NB CA at United has how many YOS? #1 CA at JB has how many YOS?) That's where the multiplier would come into play to give the additional YOS for UA (or any top 3 guys) some benefit before the JB guys get plugged in.
CA/FO mean nothing. The seniority list would be ghost bid so that each pilot would be placed where they COULD hold, not what they actually sit at the time of the merger.
So you're right, JB and UA aren't the same. Which is why there would be a fencing off of WBs before JB pilots would be integrated.
10-28-2019, 04:24 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by BunkerF16
Funny reading how so few understand how the M&A process works.
No we wouldn't be stapled to the bottom of the UA seniority list. In fact, my guess is the majority of JB pilots would be happy with how that integration went.
It doesn't matter what the pilot group does or doesn't do in relationship to how a merger would finalize. It's in the hands of 3-4 JB pilots (The chairman and 3 other M&A members) who have full authority and autonomy to negotiate and argue before a aribtration board.
A merger with SW would be trickier as the ALPA guidelines don't necessarily need to be followed. What you would worry about is if they tried to Guadalupe Holdings incorporate JB like they did with AT. That's when it would get messy.
I'll take a merger with a legacy any day over SW. Plus, who wants to fly a POS boeing anyways?!
No we wouldn't be stapled to the bottom of the UA seniority list. In fact, my guess is the majority of JB pilots would be happy with how that integration went.
It doesn't matter what the pilot group does or doesn't do in relationship to how a merger would finalize. It's in the hands of 3-4 JB pilots (The chairman and 3 other M&A members) who have full authority and autonomy to negotiate and argue before a aribtration board.
A merger with SW would be trickier as the ALPA guidelines don't necessarily need to be followed. What you would worry about is if they tried to Guadalupe Holdings incorporate JB like they did with AT. That's when it would get messy.
I'll take a merger with a legacy any day over SW. Plus, who wants to fly a POS boeing anyways?!
He's only 94. Ask the Atlas guys about his latest deal.
10-28-2019, 05:27 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
So let’s say #1 NB CA at United had 30yrs longevity and 20yrs for the #1 JB NB CA. How do they calculate the multiplier? That always seemed like black magic to me.
10-28-2019, 06:49 PM
#40
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,588
Originally Posted by BunkerF16
I’ve gone to ALPA’s M&A training and they showed the different scenarios that could theoretically take place as well as case studies of the most recent integrations and it’s still crazy complicated. Like a jigsaw puzzle. The arbitrators would have the committee members model several different scenarios based on different Longevity weighted scales and eventually pick one that they deemed fairest—whatever that means.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
