I found this on google. ( Yeah, I'm bored.) It makes for interesting reading. The point being that when TWA gobbled up OZ in 1986 the TWA pilots were somewhat less than altruistic. The powerful will always try to control the weak.
Cheers.





981 F.2d 1524
142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2054, 61 USLW 2451,
124 Lab.Cas. P 10,511
Lee RAKESTRAW, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
v.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
David A. HAMMOND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 91-2285, 91-2416, 91-2417, 91-2502, 91-2503, 91-2535
and 91-2957.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 24, 1992.
Decided Dec. 28, 1992.
Thomas R. Meites, Michael M. Mulder (argued), Paul W. Mollica, Laurie A. Wardell, Meites, Frackman, Mulder & Burger, Chicago, IL, Walter H. Fleischer, DC, for plaintiff-appellees.
Michael B. Erp, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, IL, Michael E. Abram (argued), in Nos. 91-2535 and 91-2285, Stephen Presser, Peter Herman, Tamir W. Rosenblum, Joseph J. Vitale, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City, for Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. in Nos. 91-2535, 91-2503, 91-2502, 91-2416 and 91-2285.
Duane M. Kelley, Robert W. Tarun, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, Michael E. Abram (argued), New York City, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City, Robert A. Siegel (argued), Victoria D. Stratman, Tom A. Jerman, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for United Air Lines, Inc. in Nos. 91-2503 and 91-2416.
Michael B. Erp, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, IL, Stephen Presser, Peter Herman, Tamir W. Rosenblum, Joseph J. Vitale, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City for Air Line Pilots Association, Intern. in No. 91-2417.
Duane M. Kelley, Robert W. Tarun, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, Michael E. Abram (argued), Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City, Robert A. Siegel (argued), Tom A. Jerman, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for United Air Lines in Nos. 91-2417 and 91-2502.
Eugene J. Schiltz, Kenneth Philip Ross, Robert F. Coleman (argued), Coleman & Associates, Chicago, IL, for David A. Hammond, Terry D. Atkins, Kenneth N. Baldwin, Gregory N. Dohin, K. Richard Kloeppel and H.M. Smith.
Patricia J. Hruby, Thomas J. Piskorski (argued), Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Michael A. Katz, Trans World Airlines, Legal Dept., Mt. Kisco, NY, for Trans World Airlines, Inc.
Irving M. Friedman, Michael B. Erp, Stanley Eisenstein, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, IL, Stephen B. Moldof (argued), Michael L. Winston, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City, for Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. in No. 91-2957.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

1 Two cases present a common question: does a union's duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act block the union from adjusting seniority in a way known to favor some employees over others? Both of these cases arise out of trauma at an airline: in one case its acquisition by a larger carrier, and in the other a strike followed by the hiring of replacement pilots.

2 In each case the union (the Air Line Pilots Association, or ALPA) negotiated with management an agreement providing every pilot with seniority from the date of hire. In the first case, the pilots of the smaller carrier contend that they should have received bonus seniority or equivalent protection (such as denying TWA's pilots seniority credit for time on furlough) to offset the fact that dovetailing the seniority lists worked to the advantage of the larger carrier's pilots, who on average had longer service. In the second case, the pilots hired during the strike contend that another group of pilots should have received seniority from the day they went to work in the cockpit rather than the day they reported for training, in order to protect the positions that they assumed in the face of animosity from the striking pilots.

3 Judge Lindberg found in the first case that by melding the seniority lists without a bonus for the pilots from the smaller airline the union did not violate its duty of fair representation. Judge Conlon found in the second case that by creating a uniform rule of seniority for all pilots the union violated its duty to the replacements, who acquired vested rights in an earlier agreement. To obtain the seniority rule, the union had given $200 million in concessions to the carrier. The judge's ruling let the airline keep these concessions while restoring an earlier seniority table--one management strongly favored, as it rewarded pilots who had been loyal to it during the strike.

4 * We simplify the facts. Details are irrelevant on the view we take of the union's obligations. Interested persons may glean additional particulars from the district court's opinions, our own prior opinion in the second case, and an opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado addressing some state-law issues that are not salient here. Hammond v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 141 L.R.R.M. 2063, 1991 WL 202638, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 13558 (N.D.Ill.); Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 765 F.Supp. 474 (N.D.Ill.1991). See also Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. United Air Lines, Inc., 802 F.2d 886 (7th Cir.1986); DeJean v. United Airlines, Inc., 839 P.2d 1153 (Colo.1992).

5 * In 1985 Trans World Airlines was in financial distress. Texas Air Corporation made overtures to acquire TWA. Terrified by the reputation that Texas Air's honcho Frank Lorenzo had acquired for slicing wages, TWA's unions made overtures of their own to other potential acquirers. Eventually the unions cut a deal with Carl Icahn, head of an investment group that acquired TWA. The pilots made sizable concessions, in exchange for which Icahn agreed not to reduce the size of the airline. This agreement, called the "wraparound agreement" because it wraps around the gap between old and new corporate shells, provides among other things that there shall be "no full or partial merger undertaken of the pilot seniority lists of the airline operated by TWA or New TWA ... and any such other [acquired airline] ... without prior consent of ALPA".

6 In 1986 TWA acquired the stock of Ozark Airlines. The pilots at TWA, having made concessions the prior year, wanted job security. They preferred having Ozark's pilots added at the end of TWA's seniority list, as if they had been hired on the date of the merger, but were willing to dovetail the seniority lists, giving each pilot seniority from the date hired by either airline. TWA was an old, shrinking carrier; the pilots still working there had long seniority, while Ozark, a growing regional carrier, had a younger labor force. A merger by date of hire would leave TWA's pilots with the pick of the assignments. The pilots at Ozark understood this. Seeing that melding the seniority list by date of hire would leave them near the bottom, the first to go if TWA continued shrinking, they demanded protection. One common bulwark is slots: for example, if TWA had three times as many pilots as Ozark, then the three most-senior pilots at TWA would be numbers 1 to 3 on the seniority list, the most senior pilot at Ozark would be number 4, positions 5-7 would go to TWA's pilots, position 8 to Ozark, and so on. That method would boost Ozark's senior pilots, hired during a period when TWA was laying off pilots, from puddle jumpers to 747s, and demote some of TWA's captains. Deadlock ensued. TWA's pilots would not yield more than merger by date of hire, and Ozark's pilots stood on their demand for protection.

7 ALPA has a merger policy providing for arbitration if the two carriers' pilots cannot agree how to merge seniority lists. On behalf of all pilots, ALPA then asks the employer to implement the arbitral award. Ozark's pilots demanded arbitration. Hank Duffy, the president of ALPA, deferred convening the arbitral panel, seeking to mediate the dispute. Meanwhile ALPA did not consent to merger of the seniority lists. TWA then announced that it would operate Ozark's planes with TWA's pilots. TWA wanted Ozark's assets--planes, gates, and landing slots--rather than its labor force. The wraparound agreement barred shrinkage at TWA but not a transfer of planes into TWA. Staring unemployment in the face, Ozark's pilots accepted a merger of the seniority lists by date of hire, approving the agreement by a vote of 329 to 35. Eventually Ozark's pilots got a slight bonus: ALPA convened an arbitral panel, which established seniority "cells" protecting Ozark's pilots from losing some of the positions they had in the cockpits of Ozark's former aircraft. TWA's pilots received some protective cells in exchange, and these too aggrieve Ozark's pilots. ALPA sought more shelter for Ozark's pilots by lobbying (Congress let the merger proceed) and asking federal regulators for terms that would protect Ozark's pilots as conditions of the acquisition (it lost, Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Department of Transportation, 838 F.2d 563, 567 (D.C.Cir.1988)).

8 In this litigation a class of Ozark's former pilots accuses ALPA of violating its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act as well as committing offenses under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a). The pilots contend, too, that both ALPA and TWA dishonored their obligations under the wraparound agreement, which would violate the Railway Labor Act. 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh. Most of plaintiffs' claims emphasize ALPA's departure from its usual "merger policy" and Duffy's supposed toadying to the more numerous TWA pilots, who threatened to secede from ALPA unless they got their way.

9 After holding the case under advisement for 19 months, the district judge granted summary judgment to ALPA and TWA, adopting the defendants' briefs as his statement of reasons. Judges must give their own reasons and may not adopt parties' briefs. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 626 (7th Cir.1990). We remanded the case so that the judge could comply with Circuit Rule 50. The court promptly issued a new opinion explaining that dovetailing is a non-arbitrary objective for a union, that there is no evidence that ALPA's leaders had it in for the Ozark pilots, and that the Ozark pilots' vote undercut most of their remaining contentions. The court also concluded that the wraparound agreement creates rights in favor of TWA's pilots exclusively, even though it names ALPA as a whole; Ozark's pilots are not third-party beneficiaries.

10 Adversity has continued at TWA, which is now a debtor in bankruptcy. Seniority turned out to matter greatly. Many of Ozark's former pilots did not last long at TWA. The bankruptcy judge has lifted the automatic stay, permitting this appeal to proceed.

If I had gotten DOH at AA I would be have been ecstatic.
I also would have a job there!
As it went down I don't.
Does that mean the AA pilots are less than altruisic?

One has Nothing to do with the Other
 

What Godzilla is saying is that TWA/OZ was DOH, and noone lost their jobs. Quite the contrary, OZ pilots suddenly found themselves able to bid 767/L1011/747 Int'l, which obviously wasn't available prior to the merger.

In the TWA/AA debacle, 60% of TWA pilots were stapled to bottom of 11,000+ AA pilot list, including 200 MD80/717 Captains with 14 years service, all were subsequently furloughed, plus 500 more that were ratioed. Not to mention TWA pilots were 'Fenced' into STL, had JFK/LAX/SFO domiciles closed, and could only fly MD80/757/767, without being allowed to bid 737/A300/777.

See the (gigantic) difference?

No.

What would have happened to the OZ guys if 9-11 occurred right after the sweet deal they got?

So, are you a F/A?

BUT don't forget that as long as they stay in their protected STL base, they operate under Supplement CC, which maintains protected Captain and FO slots according to TWA seniority - while AA pilots are seeing stagnation issues in DFW and ORD so that the STL slots maintain protected. So in that case, AA pilots did not benefit whatsoever from the acquisition, and in fact slid backwards. Funny how that never gets mentioned...

The AA/TWA deal was very similar to the Delta/PanAm deal of 1991 - an asset acquisition with employees included. The only reason PanAm pilots did not get furloughed was because there was no 9/11 style disaster. Delta only took SOME Pan Am pilots out of seniority. Why then do we not hear what a screw job that was?

You guys are trying to compare this to a true merger, which it was not.

73

Funny what else doesn't get mentioned. The TWA guys in STL very conveniently (especially for you) actually move you up out of CC seniority as they (the KMart pilots) get/will get furloughed. Just another SNB living on the backs of far more qualified TWA guys and gals.

You ARE/WERE an STL (SLT) SNB wudn't (all apologies to W) you 73?

First off, stop it with the abbreviated compliments. While I'm completely flattered, kissing a$$ and calling me a Studly Native Beast is not the way to get me to change my mind.

Secondly, (sp?) I moved OUT of STL because it never figured into my career expectations. I was only there temporarily during MOAB 2 while I waited for my LGA seniority to get better - which is where I'm at today. In the meantime, there are monthly reinstatements to STL for TWA pilots, and natives are pretty much getting squeezed out at the bottom - which is the way it should be. Ideally, STL will be strictly an ex TWA base with no natives.

Hope that clears it up, Mr Spud.
Yours truly,

"SNB" (there I go again!) 73

That doesn't give AA/APA/ALPA the right to screw the employees, however.

I've heard this before, about TWA/AA being like DL's purchase of PA assets. They were in no way similar, and I'll explain.

PA had about 85 aircraft and was a shell of its former grand self when DL bought some of their pieces in '91. PA had a JFK int'l hub, Berlin slots, a FRA hub, plus many trans-Atlantic route authorities. DL bought all trans-Atlantic routes, the FRA hub, 24 A-310s and 25 B-727s, plus the NE Shuttle, DCA-LGA-BOS, for $1 billion. It was roughly 55% of PA's remaining assets, aircraft and routes. Only 660 pilots (out of 1250) went with the deal, many out of seniority, only because they were current/qualified on the equipment DL purchased. Because of this gross violation of an ALPA CBA and seniority, former PA pilots sued ALPA (Dukes/Spellacy vs. ALPA) and won millions.

AA purchased TWA whole, and along with 189 aircraft, worldwide route authorities, ORD/JFK/LGA/DCA slots, 35% of WORLDspan CRS, hangars, 3 hubs and miscellaneous gates, terminals, concourses and other assets, for $750 million. It was later valued at $2 billion. In the process, AA insulated their employees after 9-11 by placing almost all the TWA employees at the bottom of respective seniority lists, causing the loss of 20,000 out of 22,500 TWA jobs, which would have most certainly been junior AA employees, had AA not bought TWA.

In retrospect, I'd say YOU were the lucky one. PA had almost 50% of their pilots go with DL, while only 20% of TWA's much larger pilot group survived the 'un'integration with AA.' And now, TWA's pilots are sueing ALPA, for failing to represent them in their greatest time of need.

7576 writes,
With all those "assets" why was TWA in BK again, and in the process of liquidating when Don Carty proposed to purchase the whole deal.

Yes, TWA was within minutes of liquidating the whole airline. Game over. The end.

And TWA pilots were represented by ALPA the worlds largest pilot union. AA pilots were/are represented by APA the worlds smallest pilot union aside from Teamsters.

Why would ALPA go along with the seniority integration.

Perhaps they were well aware that TWA was in the process of liquidating.

TWA was a great airline. I have great respect for TWA and the pilots of TWA. The TWA FA's got a bad bad deal by being totally stapled to the bottom of the FA seniority list.

The TWA pilots were not stapled. Some TWA junior CA's were furloughed directly from the left seat. They were not furloughed out of seniority. They were with-held from the right seat displacement due to unnecessary training cycles. That is what AA does.

Many TWA CA's at the time of integration could have held 767 left seat anywhere in the AA system. And still can. Many TWA CA's can hold S80 CA anywhere in the AA system. Some cannot with their seniority number, but they are protected in seat in St Louis.

At the time of purchase there were about 9,500 AA pilots. TWA CA's were entered around 2,500 seniority and now after retirements the most senior TWA CA is around 4,000 seniority and in his/her protected base STL.
The FO's were feathered in at 1 for every 8 AA FO's until they ran out of FO's at AA and then it was only TWA pilots at the end of the list.

AA parked the 717's. My understanding is those CA's do not have reinstatement rights. That is unfortunate. Sincerely.

But UAL does not have reinstatement rights. So had UAL bought TWA in its' entirety things might be different but who knows.

This is America and everyone is entitled to their day in court. I've tired of this constant bashing of the AA pilots.
2 idiots from APA made really bad derogatory remarks toward the pilots of TWA at the time of AA's purchase of TWA. They are idiots and I have never felt that way.

Right now at AA our union APA is working hard to get a contract. They are doing the best they can for all pilots at AA.

I am in favor of protecting CA jobs for ex-TWA CA's for a while longer. Not forever though.

I think the pilots of TWA beef has always been ALPA.

Back to the title of this thread AArogance. I don't think it was APArogance.