Nevets

Not correct. It applies either way you slice it. A merger between same union groups, between any two unions, AND between a unionized employee group and a non-unionized employee group. This is law was designed to prevent another AA/TWA seniority integration.

"ALPA pilots involved in a non-ALPA merger, and all unionized employees under the Railway Labor Act, at least a minimum standard of protection in future transactions with merging employee groups outside of their union by ensuring a “fair and equitable” seniority integration process under the Allegheny-Mohawk merger provisions, which are incorporated in this law...

This legislation, which applies to covered mergers that occur after Dec. 26, 2007, was originally proposed by AFA and supported by ALPA. It stems from the inequities that arose when the independent unions that represent the flight attendants and pilots of American Airlines forced the flight attendants and pilots of the former TWA to forgo a merger seniority arbitration process and suffer imposed seniority terms that disfavored these groups. This legislation corrects that situation and will prevent outside groups from simply dictating seniority terms to ALPA pilots."

Actually, I posted the XJT Successor and Merger clause. But I also posted XJT's holding letter. I'm not sure how standard that is but I know it would be a deterrent to anyone wanting to buy part of the company. And probably more so if the proposed successor's pilots are non-union. Certainly XJT pilots would not roll over on this.

EngineOut

You posted:

"ALPA pilots involved in a non-ALPA merger, and all unionized employees under the Railway Labor Act, at least a minimum standard of protection in future transactions with merging employee groups outside of their union by ensuring a “fair and equitable” seniority integration process under the Allegheny-Mohawk merger provisions, which are incorporated in this law...

This references only unionized carriers. ALPA vs. non-ALPA means that it's ALPA vs. some other union. SkyWest is not subject to the RLA. If you have any other sources that state otherwise in plain english, point me to it.

Frankly, I'm sure if any merger/acquisition is not amenable to both groups, it'll go to court anyway. Both sides will make the same arguments we have.

I don't think there is any precident of a union and non-union carrier integrating operations as the result of a merger/acquisition.

rickair7777

Here's the preamble definitions from the actual law:

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:


(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term “air carrier” means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.


(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term “covered air carrier” means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.


(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term “covered employee” means an employee who—


(A) is not a temporary employee; and


(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

We are all covered by the RLA by virtue of being in the airline business...union membership is not required. The RLA prevents SKW pilots from conducting a wildcat strike or other job action as much as it applies to unionized pilots. The new law applies to us all by virtue of being "Covered Employees". It would not apply to fractional pilots, regardless of their union status.

Bottom Line: Non-union groups will still get Alleghany-Mohawk protection in a merger. It might actually be better than being union, because if two merging groups are in the same union, the law allows the internal policies of that union to apply...can you say Cactus vs. Airways?

EngineOut

Thank you for that, Rick. I wasn't able to find that anywhere.

Nevets

A-M LPP are very similar to ALPA merger policy. The difference is that with A-M LPP, management may be involved in the negotiations.

Deez340

Quote:
Originally Posted by viper548
Chip talked to my class about a month ago and was asked about this. He said he'd like to get another contract (US Air, or CAL) but not at the expense of buying a company losing $10M per month. Mesa has even worse problems right now. I wouldn't be surprised if SKY bought pieces of mesa to get more CR7's and CRJ9's or to get in with US Air. SkyWest has a lot of money in the bank and have always been a cautious company, that will continue. Jerry and Chip are smart guys.


It's becoming a burden being right this often. In all seriousness for the XJT guys I wish I were wrong on this one. In addition, sadly, I believe (read as know) that SkyWest's experience with the ASA acquisition further soured their attitude toward ALPA and as such they just want the contract with CAL, the equipment to execute it, and will dispose of anything else they can. Saabarooski's comment about XJT guys interviewing for their own jobs at first year pay may prove prophetic. Good luck to all. Be proactive.

Deez340

deleted>.........................................

TonyWilliams

There are a number of things in the ALPA world that have transpired recently at SkyWest, none of them positive in the minds of those who manage this company (and probably to an overwhelming majority of line pilots as well).

Currently, ALPA is still actively sueing SkyWest for whatever wrongs they think occurred that culminated in their defeat here. Briefs will be presented in court the first week of August 2008.

As to the ASA acquisition, we all know why SKW bought them, and it had nothing to do with it being ALPA or not ALPA. But, as Jerry told us at a pilot meeting in Dec 2007 (directly after ALPA's failed organizing drive here), he thought the whole 5 year contract negotiation process was crazy, and said so.

Granted, he did not involve himself in the contract negotiations until the end, nor does he have any experience in dealing with a labor union. But he wasn't impressed with the process. I can't think of anything in the ASA contract that hurts SkyWest, Inc. (some would argue the limitations on transferring airplanes out, but I don't find this significant to the company).

So, buying XJT will also have absolutely nothing to do with whether it is ALPA or not. Obviously, Chip and Jerry aren't going to play games with the ALPA provisions in the XJT contract that seriously limit the company. But they've never once stripped a purchased airline of its crews to then rehire them at first year pay and seniority.

The XJT pilots will do that to themselves, or not. They will have to vote to accept the changes to the contract, or go down with the ship trying to keep them.

Long before ASA was bought, SkyWest bought Sun Aire. They were fully integrated into SkyWest on par. ASA would have been also, in my opinion, had it not been union, or if we had become union. The same would be true of XJT.

Mesa is a whole 'nother issue. We'll pick that apart piece by piece.

JoeyMeatballs

We will vote to whatever suits us, sinking ship or not, if you think we will Vote in changes so YOUR management can take advantage of us,(if this appears to be the case) is about as silly as some of your posts

CAL has a history of pushing us into a corner, you will be able to read about it, in Larry Kellner's book, due out in 2010,

"FROM FIRST TO WORST" How one man single handedly managed to undue all that Bethune created

Paok

I read that book ........ well I read BETHUNEs book, and Bob Six's....... lets see if Kellner comes out with one ha.....