Seems like I remember when US and UAL tried to merge Congress or a judge stopped that too back in '99? Because it would be "too big" of an airline.

 

Because TWA was in chapter 11 when others were making money. Without a buyer, who's to say that they would not have been parted out and all of the employees out on the street? I don't think TWA ever had a chance in STL. Less than 20% of their passengers were originating. The vast majority were connecting, which makes it nearly impossible to make money.

I hate to see names like TWA, Pan Am, NWA, etc. go away. I agree with Congressman Oberstar that mergers in the current market are bad for everything (all but a few greedy investors who only care about a quick buck, even if it takes food off people's tables).

 

if these idiots wanted to save money they should start with the merging of regionals. there is a lot or redundant management at that level...

 

To accept the purchase of their assets, TWA was instructed by AMR to file for Chpt 11 so that the courts would eject Carl Icahn and his debilitating Karubu ticket agreement and to re-negotiate it's airplane leases which (because of TWA's poor credit rating) were very high. In simple terms, TWA's BK was a pre-packaged deal set forth by their buyer, AMR....period.

Back in 2001, the economy was faultering and the price of oil was rising thus making it hard to say that the profits made by the legacy carriers were certain to continue even without factoring in the 9/11 event.

AMR was not the only buyer of TWA. Boeing stepped forward, America West was already involved with a marketing agreement with TWA, of course Carl Icahn would have loved to regain control of TWA and finally there were a few other raiders/crackpots that stepped forward. To me in retrospect, Boeing would have been the best suitor. They did not want 185 airplanes being put on the market to dilute demand in addition TWA had placed a large order for aircraft. Boeing made it very clear to our managment that if they took over, their jobs would be terminated immediately. With the AMR offer, management as well as the employees were promised employment with the merger TWA/AMR airline. In retrospect, AMR suffered economic hard times like almost all other airlines post 9/11 and the unions on the property slotted the TWA employees such that they would endure they bulk of any layoffs. 100% of the TWA F/As lost their job, and 1890 out of 2400 pilots lost their job.

Would TWA survived ? We will never know. Admitedly the future at TWA was bleak and survival was a long shot. But in simple terms, "wouldda, shouldda, and might have" are fictional statements. Empirical data of what actually happened represents one of the most lopsided mergers in airline history.

I have two final points to try to tie my response to the thread's theme.

First, in a deregulated industry the US Gov't should not be called upon to determine the integration of seniority lists. In the case of TWA/AMR they were called upon because of the glarring disparity in slotting TWA employees into AMR's seniority lists. In addition, you would hope that if Senators are called upon that they would use a dose of morality and ethics to determine legislation. You would also hope that the buyer in the case of a merger would also excercise some moral responsibility. It is my opinion, that the buyor union and the representing Senator from Texas displayed any of these qualities.

Secondly, as merger mania becomes the catch phrase, I would offer an educated guess that pilots at the weaker carriers are reminiscent of the fate of the TWA pilots and are speaking up that they don't want to merge. Some may argue, a merger will help keep me employed. I offer, as a 1995 hire at TWA, I was laid off in 2003, and my current airline is my third since. Two trips to the unemployment line, three ground schools, a divorce and a weakened retirement were all the "rewards" of my last merger.

I'm not asking for sympathy, just hoping the next round of mergers is characterized by moral and ethical behavior versus greed and arrogance. We are our own worst enemies sometimes.

FF

 

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions used in 1972 by the CAB are federal law now. It is no longer possible (in theory) for one group to take advantage of another; at least to the degree that the AA pilots took advantage of the TWA pilots.

Too bad those LPPs were not applied to your merger with AA. Turns out a "promise" from the APA do treat you fairly instead of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs isn't worth much. You would probably be a mid-seniority FO I would guess. Of course, AMR claimed they would buy TWA only if the merger protective provisions in the ALPA contract were wiped out.

 

Except it is Justice and Transportation that approve/disapprove mergers. Not congress. And this administration is probably as pro-business as any. Look at the big push for changing the foreign ownership laws. Sure congress can call for hearings, they could even try to pass new laws forbidding airline mergers. But short of that, it is not the job of congress to approve mergers.
JMO

 

Yes...and no. Congress can apply quite a bit of pressure, and they have done so in the past. Here's another member of the hill weighing in.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...orthwest-deal/

 

In all industry, not just the airline industry, the vast majority of mergers to date have ended in failure.

That's just the facts!

Mergers are bad news!

AL

 

Sounds like Rep. Cohen is calling for hearings. Like I said in my post, congress can call for hearings. Sure, they can make noise and "apply pressure", and it does have influence - no doubt. But they have no legal means to stop a merger. Again, short of passing new laws.

 

Oh, I don't know. It has worked out pretty well for the oil companies and banks. Not to mention the railroads.