No not really. United would be “taking one for the team” essentially. UA/JB would have to give up slots in BOS/JFK/EWR to AA and DL (organic growth is significantly cheaper). The big 3 together would gain pricing power.

BOS does not have slots, no divestitures there. UA isn't giving up anything in EWR. Divest 80 slots in JFK still leaves UA with ~100 which is plenty. DL wouldn't be allowed to bid considering they are the largest carrier, AA can't even use the JFK slots they already have so I can't see them buying more. That leaves AS, WN, F9, NK, MX types which might be interested.

LOL no chance, you’re just making sh*t up. Just apply to United. Wishful thinking is a terrible strategy.

so I am one of those folks......but that was my decision and mine (plus family) alone nobody forced me to do that. So I really should be held accountable for that decision however detrimental to my career progression it may be.

My apologies, have a great day.

One of the more honest posts I’ve read in a long time.

They aren’t wrong… BOS isn’t slot restricted…

EWR, United would be required to give up B6 gates and takeoff/landing times….

JFK - United would offer up JFK slots to divestitures to satisfy the DOJ and keep a good handful of them…. Delta wouldn’t be able to bid for them. AA might but doubt it, Breeze, F9, Southwest would all be able to advocate for those slots freely.

But we will see as there is precedent that EWR and LGA/JFK were considered as separate markets in previous cases.

If there was to be a UA/B6 merger, this is the likely scenario that will play out.

I would hazard that for most B6 who went to UA lately, it was still a good decision, even if you end up junior to yourself. Have play the hand you're dealt, you don't get to look at all the cards in the deck.

Stop listening cause one of the hosts and former management shrill pumps for Single Pilots Ops any chance he can get.

United would also have to take a bunch of bad just to get a few choice pieces. JFK is the obvious carrot, but United doesn’t seem to really want a bigger presence in FL or their aircraft. They really don’t want the debt load that they bring either. My guess is that the big 4 aren’t going to buy anyone and just wait and use their size and influence to pick up what they can if players have to significantly downsize or liquidate.

I’m came from the military side and still relatively new to the 121 world, so maybe I’m missing something. I get that a UA/JB merger is probably unlikely, and I understand seniority integrations are complicated and messy.

What I don’t fully understand is why so many seem so certain that post-covid UA hires would be the ones who get hit the hardest.

I’ve been at United about five years now, and I keep hearing that narrative, but I haven’t heard a clear explanation for it. I know mergers are complex and nothing is guaranteed, but why is there so much confidence that the post-Covid UA group would take the biggest hit? Thanks.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the post-COVID UA group would take the biggest hit in a UA/JB merger.

My guess is that these people mean UA not merging and organically growing would be better for UA pilots hired the last 5 years.

You don’t need to apologize for anything. I’m speculating as well. I don’t believe for a second both Delta and American won’t gain territory in BOS/NYC at a much cheaper price—plain and simple. Spin it how you want to favor the best possible outcome for JB, but UA is not the only carrier that has admitted in their earning calls they want more territory in the NE.

Naah judging by the few guys I know who work there...I think it would more likely involve the cabin crews of Singapore, EVA or Cathay

It would be bad for the senior NB folks as well.

I’m not an expert but United would have to pay a premium on JetBlue stock to purchase them, then add in at least 9 billion in debt (increasing) as well just to get what they want which is jfk slots? I don’t know how much slots go for but I know a billion dollars is a lot of mullah. Not to mention all the other costs that will rack up

Not if you drive them into bankruptcy, wipe out a large portion of debt, and then buy the pieces in a 363 sale.

Really? Which episodes?

Plus no widebody planes and the largest hub they have is just 30 miles from United's largest gateway to Europe.

I don't know what JetBlue's fate is going to be, but its not going to be an all out purchase or majority purchase by United. Maybe some asset purchases (slots etc) but not enough to pass the 50% threshold that would trigger seniority integration.

This again? This isn’t how it works. You are not even trying to quote actual federal law. You are posting wrong information and changing the law to fit your narrative.

How about this then……. While an acquisition of assets under the limit wouldn’t trigger a merger under Federal law, a fragmentation policy would still play a significant role. It’s true that a merger of a certain size wouldn’t trigger a merger under federal law, and that a fragmentation clause between the pilots of another airline and their employer isn’t binding on UA in a potential deal. It is also true that the fragmentation clause would prevent the airline trying to sell assets from entering any agreement that doesn’t require pilots to go with the deal, therefore making it relevant. Fragmentation clauses can be a double edged sword. They can potentially protect jobs, but they can also repel potential buyers by adding to the complexity and cost of a potential deal. My guess is that in the case of JB, it’s just added cost making even a limited acquisition unlikely.

The law is called the "Railway Labor Act" which was amended specifically for airline mergers in 2008 under a law called McCaskill-Bond.

Here is direct language from the Law:

(4) the term “covered transaction” means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.

Here is the specific section on the Congress website.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

Its clear there is no requirement for United to bring over pilots on asset purchases if they don't break the 50% threshold. Its not "covered" under this law, which is the only law that mentions requiring integration of other airline employee groups.

ALPA's policy can't do anything. ALPA isn't a party to United or any other airline buying parts of another airline or force United or any other airline to port over employees.

ALPA Fragmentation policy only addresses the seniority integration if United brings over pilots, etc.

Its never been used. Ever.

American says thanks but no thanks.

https://news.aa.com/news/news-detail...4/default.aspx

Thank god. Now we just need JB to say no thanks and life can go on as usual.

My thoughts exactly

I don’t think the ball is in JetBlue’s court.

Think the roles are reversed regarding JB. They are wanting to be acquired and it’s UA saying no thanks.

Unless UA can drive them into Chapter 11, shed billions of debt and the make an acquisition. Even then, no thanks. No more mergers.

Why did it take this long for AA to refute this?

It reads less like “TBNT” and more “it’s our understanding the administration wouldn’t like it, so it’s not something we are thinking about.”

I’d even charitably say they are interested and simply acknowledge it’s a pipe dream, unless the Trump admin comes around to it.

Some comic relief is always appreciated.

I don’t think that they have been trying to drive anyone into bankruptcy, they’re just focused on knocking Delta out of the number 1 slot. To do that they have been actively chasing every available dollar of revenue, which includes price sensitive basic economy customers while also improving the brand. The LCC’s are just caught in the crossfire. Don’t think for a second that the management of the big 4 would mourn the loss of a low cost competitor, but I don’t think that they are really in their sights either.

First of all you're right. I don't think management is trying to kill LCCs. That's just a byproduct of the post pandemic United growth and expansion of basic economy.

Secondly, they aren't focused on "top spot". United is already the #1 airline in the world by every reasonable metric. More mainline planes, more passenger miles flown, and more revenue from flying passengers than any other airline in the world. Yes I'm aware American counts their RJ fleet flown by their express carriers. United has over 1,100 planes and Delta about 960. We also have nearly double the number of widebody planes than Delta has.

Delta insists that "total corporate revenue" is the only metric that matters, because they make $5B a year from an oil refinery that is included in their annual passenger revenue. But absent the oil refinery revenue, Delta has less passenger revenue than United.

Also being in "top spot" isn't really anything exciting because it doesn't actually mean anything other than bragging rights.

Throughout the 2010s the airlines all played nice and just kept in their lanes, but as soon as Kirby took over he put his foot on the pedal and that made it harder for the little airlines because we took so many of their passengers. Its just going to get worse as Starlink is expanding (331 installs already) and we get those 500 more planes in the next 5 years.

Other than the mid-late 90s, these last few years have been fun to watch a management team that's really interested in running a great airline. Too bad the last 30 years weren't like this. It would have been a lot more fun.

They released the statement on a Friday afternoon which is the typical time for statements that companies want to bury. They announce earnings next week. They knew they'd get asked about it on the earnings call so now they can just say refer to the statement.

This won’t age well.

The defining document would be the JetBlue contract. I suspect it has good fragmentation protections. I am surprised however no one has posted it. If United were to make an offer for only a portion of JetBlue it would apply. JetBlue management could not agree to the sale without including the fragmentation protections and transfer of jobs in the sale agreement. At the point ALPA merger policy goes into effect. ALPA merger policy in the end is quite simple. Both sides meet in an unsuccessful attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. It then goes to binding arbitration. The arbitrator can do almost anything he wants.

Tell me this…several seniority integrations took place before the existence of the McCaskill-Bond amendment. Also, pilots (ex. - Pam Am) were transferred with routes and aircraft. Why did any of this happen absent McCaskill-Bond? Because that amendment isn’t the end all with respect to required integrations.

Contractual provisions are applicable and enforceable, as is ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy. You may have read a book or took a class at some point. But I’ll side with Cohen, Weiss & Simon and ALPA’s Representation Department attorneys over your repetitive soapbox pronouncements.

Nope. In an asset deal the buyer is typically not automatically bound to the seller’s CBA unless it expressly assumes it.

They are not bound by the sellers agreement. The seller however is bound by the agreement and would need to negotiate the agreement to comply with the fragmentation clause. United could decide at that point not to accept the deal. If it were simply up to the buyer if they wanted to comply or not fragmentation clauses would be worthless.