US airways-Delta Merger?
08-04-2006, 10:46 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SkyWest Capt.
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Completely false.
Union contracts are all valid after a merger even if it is with a non-union group.
Union contracts are all valid after a merger even if it is with a non-union group.
As far as union / non-union after mergers and acquisitions, I still think you end up dancing with the one the brought you.
Good luck to all PILOT’S, where in the same ocean just on different boats.
Last edited by JetJock16; 08-04-2006 at 10:54 PM.
08-05-2006, 08:10 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: B777 Left
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Completely false.
Union contracts are all valid after a merger even if it is with a non-union group.
Union contracts are all valid after a merger even if it is with a non-union group.
But then again, I may be wrong. But CVG767 backed up with D's history. Didn't say anything about what the contract would say, and you have to make sure there is language in said contract that would protect the union employee if there is a buy out, merger, aquisition or whatever you want to call. Survivorship clauses.
S1
08-05-2006, 11:36 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
[QUOTE=Skyone]Redeye, You missed my point a bit. One carrier union, one not. They merge, what happens to the contracts? Sure, the unions are not decertified or thrown off the property, but to merge a union and nonunion group takes some effort and time. Management can play a game that if you don't do a union then...........or.............whatever. If a nonunion carrier is the surviving entity and everything falls under their umbrella, contract or not, then their has to be a vote and all. If the union carrier is the survior, then everybody falls under their umbrella without a vote. My point being, from a management point of view, I would want the non union carrier to be the certificate in which I operate.
But then again, I may be wrong. But CVG767 backed up with D's history. Didn't say anything about what the contract would say, and you have to make sure there is language in said contract that would protect the union employee if there is a buy out, merger, aquisition or whatever you want to call. Survivorship clauses.
S1[/QUOTE
]
It does not matter whether one carrier is Union and the other one is not...................Thje contract of the Unionized carrier (whether it was the one acquired or the one that was doing the acquiring) remains in place.If it is two unionized carriers they must eventually negotiate 1 contract instead of 2 that each individual group had. MOST all ALPA contracts have a succerorship clause that spealls out what happens in the event of a buy out/merger with someone else. Pilots have learned the hard way and that is why these Clauses are in there to begin with.
In terms of one Union contract and a "working agreement" (of a non unionized group, the same really applies.) In either case MGT plays one side agaist the other and trys to delay giving anything to anyone...............but they are sure quick to take things away!!
It does not really matter in terms of merging the seniority lists...............
Case in Point Flying Tigers (ALPA at the time) merging with FedEx (non union at the time). The Flying Tigers contract remainned in place...............
Mergers are messy when it comes to seniority integration.............Union or not, Financially healthy carriers or not. Members from both seniority groups (i.e. the acquiring carrier and the acquired carrier) will tell you they got Scr**ed
But then again, I may be wrong. But CVG767 backed up with D's history. Didn't say anything about what the contract would say, and you have to make sure there is language in said contract that would protect the union employee if there is a buy out, merger, aquisition or whatever you want to call. Survivorship clauses.
S1[/QUOTE
]
It does not matter whether one carrier is Union and the other one is not...................Thje contract of the Unionized carrier (whether it was the one acquired or the one that was doing the acquiring) remains in place.If it is two unionized carriers they must eventually negotiate 1 contract instead of 2 that each individual group had. MOST all ALPA contracts have a succerorship clause that spealls out what happens in the event of a buy out/merger with someone else. Pilots have learned the hard way and that is why these Clauses are in there to begin with.
In terms of one Union contract and a "working agreement" (of a non unionized group, the same really applies.) In either case MGT plays one side agaist the other and trys to delay giving anything to anyone...............but they are sure quick to take things away!!
It does not really matter in terms of merging the seniority lists...............
Case in Point Flying Tigers (ALPA at the time) merging with FedEx (non union at the time). The Flying Tigers contract remainned in place...............
Mergers are messy when it comes to seniority integration.............Union or not, Financially healthy carriers or not. Members from both seniority groups (i.e. the acquiring carrier and the acquired carrier) will tell you they got Scr**ed
08-05-2006, 11:44 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by CVG767A
I'm not so sure about that. I just got to Delta at the time of the Western merger, so I don't know the specifics, but I know that Western had unionized mechanics and flight attendants. After the merger, both groups were non-union, without so much as a vote on the issue.
The same thing happened during the PanAm aquisition. That was a little different though- as I recall, Delta had them go through the hiring process.
Maybe some prior WAL guys could add to this.
The same thing happened during the PanAm aquisition. That was a little different though- as I recall, Delta had them go through the hiring process.
Maybe some prior WAL guys could add to this.
I am willing to bet that after immediately after the merge the Western (unionized side was still getting paid what their contracts deliniated" Rememeber at that time DELTA was still "The Delta Family" and paid most of their NON union folks pretty well. They might have even been paying their NON Union folks more than the Western Unionized folks.....................
So after the merge I am willing to bet that there was a NMB vote to KEEP or Decertify the IAM or Teamsters or whoever the Westerns folks Union was. I guess the majority voted to decertify.
Back then...(Don't know the numbers ) but I bet the DELTA employees outnumbered the Wesetern employees (Union verses non Union) The Delta side already had a Majority. All it takes to decertify a Union is an NMB vote of 50% plus 1 and my money is that Delta had it................................................ ...not to mention in the mid 80's, the Big Alirlines were expanding like gangbusters and making tons of money......................and DELTA still had a rep for taking care of their employees................................
I am not so sure that would happen today!
Last edited by RedeyeAV8r; 08-05-2006 at 12:14 PM.
08-07-2006, 07:55 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: B777 Left
Posts: 736
Redeye,
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point? Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA? Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point? Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA? Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
08-07-2006, 08:58 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by Skyone
Redeye,
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point?
The simple answer is Yes. Sorry I don't know how to do the Multiple qoute thing.
Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA?
[COLOR="Red"]The contract for the NW FA's would remain in place and the former NW FA's would continue to get their benefits /pay from their contract. Most likely since the Delta FA's have no contract they would be at odds although I am sure they woud continue to get what they were previously getting. Assuming the NW FA's were getting more/pay benefits, what do you think the DELTA FA's would say? "We want the same thing" At some point a contract would have to be negoitiated to cover all the FA's........yes there would be a NMB vote to Keep the AFA as the official bargaining agent, i.e. UNION. Remember that if NW had 8000 flight attendants and if DL had 9000..(just a guess) the vote 8001 to keep the union. Actually, lets say out of 16000 only 1000 people voted. Only 501 have to vote pro union and the AFA is still in. It is 51% of the people who voted. I am sure somerhing like this more people would vote, but you would be surprised. Is is all conjecture but my guess is the union would stay.
[/COLOR] Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
This one is actually easier to predict, in my opinion.............
The bigger battle would come first...........the seniority integration.
.Until a seniority inegration formula/ agreement is reached both groups would work on their old former aircraft and routes only.........which is insuffucent to the company (similiar to the USAir/Amwest current sitiuation) Whatever group had a better contract at the time would have an edge. You have two employees now working for the same company doing the same thing and both have been there 15 years......but one is making more and has better benefits than the other one.....which Union do you think would win,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There would have to be another vote to decide which union the emplyees want.
There would be some big politics from the UNion leaders. No union wants to lose 8000 memebers with a potental to gain 8000 more.
S1
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point?
The simple answer is Yes. Sorry I don't know how to do the Multiple qoute thing.
Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA?
[COLOR="Red"]The contract for the NW FA's would remain in place and the former NW FA's would continue to get their benefits /pay from their contract. Most likely since the Delta FA's have no contract they would be at odds although I am sure they woud continue to get what they were previously getting. Assuming the NW FA's were getting more/pay benefits, what do you think the DELTA FA's would say? "We want the same thing" At some point a contract would have to be negoitiated to cover all the FA's........yes there would be a NMB vote to Keep the AFA as the official bargaining agent, i.e. UNION. Remember that if NW had 8000 flight attendants and if DL had 9000..(just a guess) the vote 8001 to keep the union. Actually, lets say out of 16000 only 1000 people voted. Only 501 have to vote pro union and the AFA is still in. It is 51% of the people who voted. I am sure somerhing like this more people would vote, but you would be surprised. Is is all conjecture but my guess is the union would stay.
[/COLOR] Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
This one is actually easier to predict, in my opinion.............
The bigger battle would come first...........the seniority integration.
.Until a seniority inegration formula/ agreement is reached both groups would work on their old former aircraft and routes only.........which is insuffucent to the company (similiar to the USAir/Amwest current sitiuation) Whatever group had a better contract at the time would have an edge. You have two employees now working for the same company doing the same thing and both have been there 15 years......but one is making more and has better benefits than the other one.....which Union do you think would win,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There would have to be another vote to decide which union the emplyees want.
There would be some big politics from the UNion leaders. No union wants to lose 8000 memebers with a potental to gain 8000 more.
S1
Last edited by RedeyeAV8r; 08-07-2006 at 09:04 AM.
08-07-2006, 10:31 AM
#27
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,382
Originally Posted by Skyone
Redeye,
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point? Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA? Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
Everything you say is correct. That's not my point. My point is that if two managements are involved in a merger/aquisition or whatever, the airline that had no unions would probably be favored to be the surviving certificate. I am not talking current contracts, but rather would the unions remain as the bargaining agents for all the employees at that point? Probably would have to have a vote either way, but it would seem a harder hurdle for the unions to jump if the survior had been nonunion as opposed to be recognized by the carrier in the first place. Even a couple or three years ago there was a vote at Delta for the AFA. Failed, again. So let's say there is a merger with NWA, my question is, since the AFA had been recognized as the official bargaining agent for the FAs would the Delta FAs automatically fall under the afa umbrella if NWA's certificate survived, or if Delta was to survive would there then have to be another vote to recognize the AFA? Not to argue the point that DAL may vote union or whatever, but rather I believe the bar would be harder for the unions if surviving agent was for all practical matters, nonunion.
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
Union contracts invariably have a successorship clause...the acquiring company is obligated to honor the existing contract (the only way around that is Chapter 7 liquidation). In order to integrate the new employees, they either have to agree to the new terms through negotiation or they just continue to operate under their existing rules as seperate group. The exception is two ALPA carriers, in which case a forced integration will occur eventually if the unions can't agree...Legacy USA & Cactus are in this boat.
Skywest cannot "de-unionize" ASA, obviously they may be able to shrink them some, but there may even be limitations on this in the successorship clause. I suspect that ASA may not see growth until they come to terms with SKW.
I'm not
08-09-2006, 04:41 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by surreal1221
For some odd reason I feel Delta will want to continue on their own, unless THEY are the ones doing the merging. Their history of airline aquisitions has been set, and I doubt they will allow themselves to become another companies aquisition. (spell check?)
Their history of airline aquisitions has been set, and I doubt they will allow themselves to become another companies aquisition. (spell check?)
08-09-2006, 03:53 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Skyone
Redeye,
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
And to throw some more juice into it, hypotheticaly, what's the opinion of what would the procedures be if AA merged with an ALPA carrier, if the numbers were similar.
S1
Any TWA folks care to comment?
08-09-2006, 08:57 PM
#30
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by reddog25
Any TWA folks care to comment?I'll leave it at this:
IF it is in ALPA's best interest to 'sell out' your ALPA-represented pilot group, no matter how big or how long it has been ALPA, they'll do it in a heartbeat. For instance, AA buys Alaska, ALPA doesn't care that AS has 1000+ ALPA represented pilots---they'd rather get 10,000+ AA dues-paying members in.
ALPA desired to organize the APA at AA (11,300 pilots) and decided to serve up the TWA pilot seniority list (2400 pilots) to APA on a platter; "Just join ALPA, you can construct the merged seniority list however you want".
Not only would Duane Woerth sell his own Mother to cut a deal----he'd send her COD.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
