Well, a lot of that will probably be up to an arbitrator, as everyone at Delta is familiar with, but here is the language that deals with mergers and SLI (sorry the formatting doesn't copy right, but you should still be able to read it):


D. Successorship

1. This Agreement shall be binding on any Successor or Assign of the Company, unless or until changed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. For the purposes of the Agreement, a Successor or Assign shall be defined as an entity which acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of the Company.

2. The Company shall require that the Successor or Assign shall, as a condition of and prior to the closing of a transaction as described in Paragraph D.1., above, commit in writing to adhere to the provisions of this Agreement until changed pursuant to the Railway Labor Act.

E. Merger Protections

1. The Company will not acquire a controlling interest in another U.S. certificated air carrier that operates aircraft with more than eighty-six (86) seats without advising the Association of its intention to continue to operate such aircraft (in which event the merger provisions stated below shall apply) or its intention to dispose of such aircraft (in which event the merger provisions below shall not apply). If an Affiliate of the Company were to operate or gain a controlling interest in another U.S. certificated air carrier, the Company shall be responsible to insure that its Affiliate takes the same actions as would be required of the Company if the Company were the entity that operated or gained a controlling interest in the other U.S. certificated air carrier. In the event the Affiliate does not do so, then the Association may seek relief under Paragraph P., below, and the Company would be responsible for any damages or other relief awarded under Paragraph P., below.

2. In the event of a transaction in which another U.S. certificated air carrier that operates aircraft with more than eighty-six (86) seats becomes an Affiliate of the Company (“merger transaction”), the surviving air carrier(s) will integrate the pre-merger flight operations no later than eighteen (18) months following the closing of the transaction subject to FAA and regulatory approval and use the following procedures to integrate the seniority lists of the two (2) air carriers (nothing in this Paragraph E. shall prevent the Company from disposing of its interest in the other air carrier prior to the merger of flight operations.)

a. The Company will provide for the integration of the seniority of the two (2) pilot groups in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, through ALPA Merger Policy and if not applicable through Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions. The use of ALPA Merger Policy to integrate the seniority lists of the two (2) pilot groups shall be limited to the merger of the two (2) lists and the placement of all pilots from the two (2) pilot groups on a single pilot system seniority list along with any conditions or restrictions applicable to the future application or utilization of seniority. When ALPA Merger Policy is used to integrate the seniority lists of the two (2) pilot groups, the Company shall be permitted to offer its views on the seniority integration to the arbitration panel, if the two (2) pilot groups are not able to agree upon a merged list without the assistance of an arbitrator.

b. No later than fifteen (15) days after the closing of the merger transaction, the surviving air carrier(s) along with the current NMB designated representative(s) of the pilots, and representatives chosen from both pilot groups will exchange all relevant information relating to the merger as it may pertain to the integration of the pilot seniority list.

c. No later than thirty (30) days after the closing of the merger transaction, the current NMB designated representative(s) of the pilots, including the representatives chosen from both pilots groups along with the Company shall commence efforts to arrive at a mutually acceptable method and compilation of a single pilot seniority list.

d. If negotiations have not resulted in an integrated pilot seniority list within sixty (60) days from the closing of the merger transaction, the integration of the pilot seniority list will be arbitrated utilizing ALPA Merger Policy if applicable and as described herein or otherwise Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions.

e. If arbitration takes place under the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions, the arbitration board shall be comprised of one (1) non-voting advisory member designated by each pilot group, one (1) non-voting advisory member selected by the Company, and a single neutral arbitrator. If the dispute is not resolved by the arbitrator acting as a mediator, the arbitrator shall conduct hearings and issue his decision no later than six (6) months from the closing of the merger transaction. This date may be extended by agreement of the Company and the authorized representative(s) of the pilot groups.

f. When the arbitrator issues his decision, or if ALPA Merger Policy is utilized to produce a merged seniority list, the list will be an actual seniority list with the names of all pilots and their respective order on the seniority list.

g. The decision of the arbitrator under the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions will be final and binding on all parties. If the decision is obtained through ALPA Merger Policy, the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the pilots of both the Company and the other pilot group. ALPA will promptly submit it to the Company, and the Company will approve or disapprove it within thirty (30) days of receiving it from the Association, providing at the same time its alternate list or applicable conditions and restrictions and its reasons for disapproval. ALPA and the Company will then promptly arbitrate the choice of the ALPA list and Company list (including conditions and restrictions) before a neutral selected by agreement or, failing agreement, by alternate strike from a panel under Section 13, with the first strike determined by the toss of a coin. The decision of that arbitrator will be final and binding.

3. During the transition period prior to the integration of flight operations, the Company or its Successor will not transfer or assign any of the Company’s aircraft, or existing flying as measured by block hours, from AirTran Airways to the other carrier if such transfer of aircraft results in the furlough or displacement (Captain to First Officer, or reduction in hourly rate of pay) of any AirTran pilot. At the request of either the Company or the Association, the parties will meet to discuss matters relating to the orderly integration of operations that may arise during the transition period. During the transition period all flying performed by or on behalf of the Company shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement by pilots on the AirTran Pilots’ Master Seniority List, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement or in any subsequent agreement between the Company and the Association.

4. Discussion related to any merger shall not be pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act and such discussions shall be conducted independent of the parties’ Section 6 bargaining obligations under the Railway Labor Act, unless otherwise required by the Railway Labor Act or both the Company and the authorized representative(s) of the pilots otherwise agree. The reaching of an agreement with the Association shall not be a prerequisite for closing, or any other aspect of the transaction, or operations pursuant to the transaction, provided any such action is not inconsistent with the terms of the applicable pilot collective bargaining agreement.

5. At the request of either the Company or the Association, the parties may agree to tailor the provisions in Paragraphs E.1. through E.4., above, to accommodate the unique or special circumstances associated with a merger transaction or merger protections. Any such agreement must be in writing and must receive the approval of both the Company and the Association in accordance with their respective agreement approval processes and protocols.

 

Carl, The Delta 1113 contract was amendable last spring. The merger contract extended the amendable date to fall more in line with the NWA amendable date. That was one of several reasons I voted no on the joint contract.

I would love a restoration contract. It would be incredible for me. The issue is I don't see any way to push through a contract that would increase Delta's cost 2 billion dollars a year while working under the RLA. If we hold that out as the minimum we will still be working under this contract 5 years after the amendable date. What I want is a intelligent strategy that will put the most money in my pocket and best quality of life over time. Going for full restoration I don't believe has even a tiny chance of doing that. I and many others believe a smarter concept it to try and get a industry leading contract done at or near the amendable date. Something that would put us at the top of the passenger airlines. The contract should have a 3 to 3.5 year length. That would put us negotiating the next contract in 2016 or 17 instead of still working under the current agreement in that time frame. It also sets the bar for other airlines to top keeping relative costs inline.
At my seniority the relative costs mean little. If I were a junior pilot I would hate to see our cost way out of line with the industry. Every single time a airline has accomplished that it has led to career stagnation and in most case furloughs. Ask the SWA pilots how much growth they have had since they moved from the lower half to top of the industry pay scales.
There is one last point. DALPA represents all pilots at Delta. The last survey both phone and computer asked for what most would consider acceptable in a new contract for pay. The number was surprisingly low. Well below what I will vote to accept. DALPA however has to take direction from the entire pilot group. Not a vocal minority.

 

Do you mean THIS Bruce York???

Source: Letter from ALPA Employees Unit 1 President Don McClure (EAL-retired) to the ALPA BOD this summer....

"The unfair labor practice cases filed against ALPA have been consolidated with another unfair labor practice case against ALPA filed by a former ALPA employee. I mention this because that case demonstrates again the arrogance and poor judgment exhibited by ALPA management. That case was filed because Director of Representation Bruce York, while attending a luncheon with Captain Prater and their counterparts at the Teamsters, criticized a former ALPA employee who had been laid off and had taken a job with the Teamsters and then filed a grievance because he had not received all of the severance pay to which he was entitled. After verbally criticizing a Teamsters employee for engaging in activity protected by the NLRA (filing a grievance), Bruce York compounded the mistake by sending the Teamsters an email repeating that criticism. That petty and pointless gesture led to the issuance of yet another unfair labor practice complaint against ALPA. ALPA's defense is the patently ridiculous argument that, in communicating with officials of the Teamsters, York was not acting as ALPA agent or supervisor. Once again, pilot dues money will be spent defending ALPA's arrogant and unlawful conduct."

As an aside...the "former employee" who was "laid off" was a Senior Contract Administrator with decades of experience. He and six others were laid off IN VIOLATION of their contract. They filed unfair labor practice suits and won reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.

One of the key players behind the layoff?

Bruce York.

 

So SWAPA or ALPA, I wonder what the real SWA pilots would pick?

 

You found the black helicopter.

Thank you for putting it much more eloquently than myself. Getting his opinion on our issue is like asking Ronald McDonald where to go for lunch.

 

 

Nice Clamp!

 

My favorite birds!

I have to admit I have a few concerns with the selection of Seth Rosen as a negotiator. He's heralded as the best in determining actual costs of a contract provision, but what access does he have that any other negotiator wouldn't have if ALPA and management opened the books? It would be interesting to investigate his or any of his LLC's sources of income over the past few decades just to verify without a doubt that this guy doesn't have any backdoor ties with current or former management teams. There is almost something comforting in bringing a team of negotiators along that management doesn't have familiarity with. Now I am treading on thin ice, it's not an accusation, but how could his loyalty be made certain?

 

Nope.. not gonna let that slide. Payrates have been defined and negotiated the same way in this industry as long as anyone can remember. "Saving typing space" is lazy. I know you don't want to try and build a contract here on the forum, but by stating crap about how great the big iron is and that we need these huge rates for it sets an expectation.. whether intentional or not. It is a defacto way of negotiating without actually doing it because everybody will read it as.. well the 777/747 gets $350/hr.. that means I will get X... Same old way of thinking about it. I know I am tilting at windmills here, because I can guarantee you that the negotiators don't get it.. so go ahead.. like I said before.. build the same old same old. Carl will get to retire with a billion dollars, and you will be lucky to get a hundred grand... and it's your own short sighted thinking that's responsible... good for Carl. Wish I was him.

 

I had an interesting conversation with a friend during my 4 hour Hooterville productivity sit today. He said that he will vote yes for anything in order to foster debate. He wasn't talking about contracts.. but rather anything that stirs controversy. For example: Would you consider allowing a nuclear power plant to be built in your back yard? His answer: Yes... So it gets put on the ballot and see what the general populace really wants... Now the tree huggers will fight against the right wing club-all-the-baby-seals and don't-tell-me-I-can't-drive-an-SUV crowd... it would certainly be entertaining if nothing else.

So it really gave me a different perspective regarding the subject of this thread. So let's suppose we put it on the ballot... let ALPA come defend itself and explain to us why we simply cannot live or function without them anymore. The association has been on cruise control for a long time. PCL apparently thinks that Seth Rosen is the greatest attorney since Perry Mason or Clarence Darrow. Pro/con papers or better yet.. live debate would have to be generated (something that was quashed years ago by the party in power).

Why is this such a bad idea? And please spare us the usual scare tactic of how it is a bad idea to change horses just prior to section 6... By that logic, it will ALWAYS be a bad time to change horses. That argument is hollow.