Major buying Bankrupt/ Distressed Regionals
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,206
Why go through the expense of purchasing an airline just to capture the pilots when they can simply interview and hire the ones they want?
#14
2. They would rather hire ex-military, especially retired ex military, who due to their age will have a lower average wage over the course of their remaining career, already have a pension with offset for inflation, TRICARE for medical coverage, little experience with union negotiating, and have a 20 year history of conformity to the norms of an organization.
3. Their existing pilots would demand expensive concessions on the JCBA to allow it, and certainly flow-down rights in the event of a furlough.
4. It would require a revamping of the training program to operate both airlines under the same certificate. Their training shops are struggling with throughput right now. It would be the worst time in the world to add one or more small Jet types and try to get the FAA to certify the new type - not to mention then having to deal with their existing union on LCA/SLI issues for the new type(s).
5. Why on earth would they want to add another fleet type? They are struggling to deal with the type-swapping caused by early retirements during COVID already.
6. The majors do not - as of yet - actually have a shortage of applicants.
Among others…
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 442
1. There are reasons some regional lifers are regional lifers.
2. They would rather hire ex-military, especially retired ex military, who due to their age will have a lower average wage over the course of their remaining career, already have a pension with offset for inflation, TRICARE for medical coverage, little experience with union negotiating, and have a 20 year history of conformity to the norms of an organization.
3. Their existing pilots would demand expensive concessions on the JCBA to allow it, and certainly flow-down rights in the event of a furlough.
4. It would require a revamping of the training program to operate both airlines under the same certificate. Their training shops are struggling with throughput right now. It would be the worst time in the world to add one or more small Jet types and try to get the FAA to certify the new type - not to mention then having to deal with their existing union on LCA/SLI issues for the new type(s).
5. Why on earth would they want to add another fleet type? They are struggling to deal with the type-swapping caused by early retirements during COVID already.
6. The majors do not - as of yet - actually have a shortage of applicants.
Among others…
2. They would rather hire ex-military, especially retired ex military, who due to their age will have a lower average wage over the course of their remaining career, already have a pension with offset for inflation, TRICARE for medical coverage, little experience with union negotiating, and have a 20 year history of conformity to the norms of an organization.
3. Their existing pilots would demand expensive concessions on the JCBA to allow it, and certainly flow-down rights in the event of a furlough.
4. It would require a revamping of the training program to operate both airlines under the same certificate. Their training shops are struggling with throughput right now. It would be the worst time in the world to add one or more small Jet types and try to get the FAA to certify the new type - not to mention then having to deal with their existing union on LCA/SLI issues for the new type(s).
5. Why on earth would they want to add another fleet type? They are struggling to deal with the type-swapping caused by early retirements during COVID already.
6. The majors do not - as of yet - actually have a shortage of applicants.
Among others…
#16
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...l-bond-statute
the major union is going to do everything they possibly can to stop it from happening. A guy flying 777s has zero interest in allowing himself to be displaced by someone who has been flying CRJ-200s for the last 20 years.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 2,174
One company after the transaction REQUIRES all of the above to be accomplished, plus DOJ approval and an agreed upon SLI. Given that the SLI might involve the transaction involving McCaskill-Bond to try to avoid a direct staple:
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...l-bond-statute
the major union is going to do everything they possibly can to stop it from happening. A guy flying 777s has zero interest in allowing himself to be displaced by someone who has been flying CRJ-200s for the last 20 years.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...l-bond-statute
the major union is going to do everything they possibly can to stop it from happening. A guy flying 777s has zero interest in allowing himself to be displaced by someone who has been flying CRJ-200s for the last 20 years.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 442
One company after the transaction REQUIRES all of the above to be accomplished, plus DOJ approval and an agreed upon SLI. Given that the SLI might involve the transaction involving McCaskill-Bond to try to avoid a direct staple:
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...l-bond-statute
the major union is going to do everything they possibly can to stop it from happening. A guy flying 777s has zero interest in allowing himself to be displaced by someone who has been flying CRJ-200s for the last 20 years.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...l-bond-statute
the major union is going to do everything they possibly can to stop it from happening. A guy flying 777s has zero interest in allowing himself to be displaced by someone who has been flying CRJ-200s for the last 20 years.
Again I wouldn’t bet on MESA, RP, OO being bought and integrated, but it could happen.
#20
Your list happens with any M&A if it was so prohibitive as you say then there would be no M&A which we know is far from the case with airlines. Your point about the SLI law is interesting because there is no precedent with it, we don’t know how it will look when used. So you jumped from no-staples to regional lifers displacing 777 captains, yet the law you posted doesn’t say no-staple and it doesn’t say 777 captains get replaced, it says “fair and equitable”. “Fair and equitable” is very wide, especially if both parties agree.
Again I wouldn’t bet on MESA, RP, OO being bought and integrated, but it could happen.
Again I wouldn’t bet on MESA, RP, OO being bought and integrated, but it could happen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post