ChrisUS
Senior
- Aug 20, 2005
- 449
- 72
VERY well written and informative ! I COMPLETELY agree with your summary and pray that the unions and management can work this out.
If we sit this dance out, we will be the wallflower that NO ONE wants.
UA AND US Merger Talks
- Thread starter nycbusdriver
- Start date
- Status
VERY well written and informative ! I COMPLETELY agree with your summary and pray that the unions and management can work this out.
If we sit this dance out, we will be the wallflower that NO ONE wants.
I've said as much a few times already. However, the DOT et al are a fickle bunch, and aren't necessarily that predictable. The discussion has been more along the lines of assuming the merged airline could keep whatever they chose to.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Plus the last time the UA/US merger actually reached the point of seeking DOT approval, after spinning off the Shuttle (with it's mainline slots) and an express-type operation to Robert Johnson (with "commuter" slots) nobody said that DCA ops had to be eliminated to get approval. Even satisfying the DOJ would have left the merger carrier as the largest presence in DCA by a pretty wide margin.
Jim
Jim
Continental Reopens Talks With United
The talks are in early stages and may quickly fall apart, these people cautioned
See Story
UAL, Continental in merger talks: source
Discussions are only between airline executives at this point and no bankers are involved
See Story
Labor strife clouds possible USAir/United merger
See Story
Regards,
USA320Pilot
The talks are in early stages and may quickly fall apart, these people cautioned
See Story
UAL, Continental in merger talks: source
Discussions are only between airline executives at this point and no bankers are involved
See Story
Labor strife clouds possible USAir/United merger
See Story
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
USAPA files rgency Order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because US Airways is "suddenly and currently the subject of intensive (merger) negotiations" with United Airlines
(ii) The facts showing the existence and nature of the emergency are:
A corporate merger between US Airways, Inc., employer of the pilots Appellant represents, and United Airlines, Inc., whose pilots are represented by another union, is suddenly and currently the subject of intensive negotiations between these two major airlines and their unions, and has reached a critical stage.
Continued corporate and labor negotiations for a merger are impeded, however, by uncertainty regarding pilot labor integration issues resulting from the District Court’s injunction in this case and pendency of this appeal. This has been identified as one of the principal obstacles to a major corporate merger. Appellant is subject to a non-disclosure agreement but news media reports (attached hereto as exhibits A, B and C) substantiate the same, specifically that labor issues are the obstacle.
The possibility of such a corporate merger was a contingency identified by Appellant to the District Court on a motion to stay both the litigation and the injunction on July 23, 2009 (Doc. # 596). The District Court denied this motion in its entirety on August 28, 2009 (Doc. # 610). Subsequently, the District Court partially reversed itself by granting a conditional stay on February 12, 2010 (Doc. # 637), but declined to stay the injunction (attached hereto as exhibit D). Before that, Appellant had identified the possibility of a corporate merger to the District Court as a ground for finding a lack of ripeness (no jurisdiction) but the District Court has consistently rejected this.
A subsequent motion by Appellant to stay both litigation and injunction made to this Court on August 28, 2009 (Dk. # 7044031) was referred to the merits panel for a decision on November 18, 2009 (Dk. # 7135030). It has not been acted upon to date.
This case, however, was ordered for expedited treatment on August 4, 2009 (Dk. # 7014854). All briefs were submitted and argument was heard on December 8, 2009, before a panel consisting of the Honorable Judges Tashima, Graber, and Bybee. No decision has issued to date.
A present emergency results from the fact that the pending injunction will prevent a corporate merger that would create an airline capable of competing with the recent Delta/Northwest combination and thus thwart economic benefits and preservation of jobs that might accrue to the corporations and employees, including Appellees.
All arguments made in Appellants’ pending motion for a stay (Dk. # 7044031) are hereby incorporated (a copy is attached as exhibit E).
Appellant respectfully requests that this Court STAY all district court proceedings and the permanent injunction.
(iii) Counsel for the other parties were notified and served as indicated:
Lead counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondent, Marty Harper, was notified in person by telephone and email from Appellant’s counsel, Nick Granath, on April 15, 2010 prior to filing. A courtesy copy of this motion was provided to counsel by electronic transmission.
Date: April 14, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicholas Paul Granath, Esq.
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP
Nicholas Granath, Esq. [email protected] 2915 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55405 Tel. (612) 341-9080 (cell 612 210-846) Fax (612) 341-9079
Lee Seham, Esq. Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq. Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq. 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204 White Plains, New York 10601 Tel. (914) 997-1346 Fax (914) 997-7125
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA)
(ii) The facts showing the existence and nature of the emergency are:
A corporate merger between US Airways, Inc., employer of the pilots Appellant represents, and United Airlines, Inc., whose pilots are represented by another union, is suddenly and currently the subject of intensive negotiations between these two major airlines and their unions, and has reached a critical stage.
Continued corporate and labor negotiations for a merger are impeded, however, by uncertainty regarding pilot labor integration issues resulting from the District Court’s injunction in this case and pendency of this appeal. This has been identified as one of the principal obstacles to a major corporate merger. Appellant is subject to a non-disclosure agreement but news media reports (attached hereto as exhibits A, B and C) substantiate the same, specifically that labor issues are the obstacle.
The possibility of such a corporate merger was a contingency identified by Appellant to the District Court on a motion to stay both the litigation and the injunction on July 23, 2009 (Doc. # 596). The District Court denied this motion in its entirety on August 28, 2009 (Doc. # 610). Subsequently, the District Court partially reversed itself by granting a conditional stay on February 12, 2010 (Doc. # 637), but declined to stay the injunction (attached hereto as exhibit D). Before that, Appellant had identified the possibility of a corporate merger to the District Court as a ground for finding a lack of ripeness (no jurisdiction) but the District Court has consistently rejected this.
A subsequent motion by Appellant to stay both litigation and injunction made to this Court on August 28, 2009 (Dk. # 7044031) was referred to the merits panel for a decision on November 18, 2009 (Dk. # 7135030). It has not been acted upon to date.
This case, however, was ordered for expedited treatment on August 4, 2009 (Dk. # 7014854). All briefs were submitted and argument was heard on December 8, 2009, before a panel consisting of the Honorable Judges Tashima, Graber, and Bybee. No decision has issued to date.
A present emergency results from the fact that the pending injunction will prevent a corporate merger that would create an airline capable of competing with the recent Delta/Northwest combination and thus thwart economic benefits and preservation of jobs that might accrue to the corporations and employees, including Appellees.
All arguments made in Appellants’ pending motion for a stay (Dk. # 7044031) are hereby incorporated (a copy is attached as exhibit E).
Appellant respectfully requests that this Court STAY all district court proceedings and the permanent injunction.
(iii) Counsel for the other parties were notified and served as indicated:
Lead counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondent, Marty Harper, was notified in person by telephone and email from Appellant’s counsel, Nick Granath, on April 15, 2010 prior to filing. A courtesy copy of this motion was provided to counsel by electronic transmission.
Date: April 14, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicholas Paul Granath, Esq.
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP
Nicholas Granath, Esq. [email protected] 2915 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55405 Tel. (612) 341-9080 (cell 612 210-846) Fax (612) 341-9079
Lee Seham, Esq. Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq. Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq. 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204 White Plains, New York 10601 Tel. (914) 997-1346 Fax (914) 997-7125
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA)
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
So the plot unfolds. The only real remaining question's are:
1) Will CO find that their concerns from last year have been adequately addressed based on the current environment to follow through this time?
2) Will CO make an offer for UA as a single transaction?
3) Will US be involved in some type of 3 way combination?
1) Will CO find that their concerns from last year have been adequately addressed based on the current environment to follow through this time?
2) Will CO make an offer for UA as a single transaction?
3) Will US be involved in some type of 3 way combination?
Well, someone usually gets ignored at some point in a three way. Guess it's a good time for US to go smoke a cigarette.
- Status
