Board Of Directors
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
ClueByFour
Veteran
It's not quite that simple.
Any contract that US goes not reject in bankruptcy (eg, the assumed contracts) are absorbed by HP. A union contract is not unlike any other--HP cannot simply walk away from it because US "ceases to exist."
Any contract that US goes not reject in bankruptcy (eg, the assumed contracts) are absorbed by HP. A union contract is not unlike any other--HP cannot simply walk away from it because US "ceases to exist."
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Interesting point, Clue, which brings up some interesting speculation that someone more versed in the legal niceties would have to answer.....
I assume that most or all the mainline contracts have "successor" clauses, i.e. if an entity other than US Group absorbs US Inc or Group, they have to honor the contracts (at least until something different can be negotiated).
If the new holding company (Barbell Holdings) absorbs US Group, then HP absorbs Barbell it seems pretty cut and dried - Barbell must honor US contracts (assuming they aren't rejected), then HP must honor Barbell contracts.
The twist is this - Barbell won't absorb US Group, as I understand the merger agreement. Barbell will be a division of US Group (like PDT ,PSA & Inc). When the time comes, US Group will disappear and Barbell will both absorb and become HP. So, does Barbell have to honor US Group or Inc contracts? To my layman's mind, it'd be like saying that PSA has to honor mainline contracts if they combined with Mesa.
Jim
I assume that most or all the mainline contracts have "successor" clauses, i.e. if an entity other than US Group absorbs US Inc or Group, they have to honor the contracts (at least until something different can be negotiated).
If the new holding company (Barbell Holdings) absorbs US Group, then HP absorbs Barbell it seems pretty cut and dried - Barbell must honor US contracts (assuming they aren't rejected), then HP must honor Barbell contracts.
The twist is this - Barbell won't absorb US Group, as I understand the merger agreement. Barbell will be a division of US Group (like PDT ,PSA & Inc). When the time comes, US Group will disappear and Barbell will both absorb and become HP. So, does Barbell have to honor US Group or Inc contracts? To my layman's mind, it'd be like saying that PSA has to honor mainline contracts if they combined with Mesa.
Jim
PITbull
Veteran
longing4piedmont said:
Can't just get rid of contract languge. They don't just diappear because there has been a merger and a new Board. Seats are created for the stakeholders.
When did we not remain stakeholders?
Jim hit it right on the head,,,
There have been supposed "boards" of directors for the other wholly owned subsidiaries for sometime.
So your contract entitles you to a board seat on a board that never meets, never decideds anything, and more or less exists only on paper...
Congrats
Allegheny/Piedmont, PSA, SSO, and now US Airways, are all just subsidiaries, get used to it...
There have been supposed "boards" of directors for the other wholly owned subsidiaries for sometime.
So your contract entitles you to a board seat on a board that never meets, never decideds anything, and more or less exists only on paper...
Congrats
Allegheny/Piedmont, PSA, SSO, and now US Airways, are all just subsidiaries, get used to it...
What about the operating certificate? Seems to me that it will be U's as it already provides the A330 and EMB170 (plus a horrid assortment of other airframes which should never fly here again of course).
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Swaayze,
Someone that works with the FAA would know, but I presume at some point during the integration that the FAA would put all the airplanes on one ops certificate.
Look at the PSA/PI/US mergers. PSA operated MD-80's & Bae-146's that neither of the others had, PI was the sole operator of F28's & 767's, US was the only one that operated DC9's & BAC-111's. All those planes ended up on one certificate.
Which was the orignal that survived? Don't know, but I suspect it was US's since they were the acquiring airline and the PIT FAA office oversaw it all.
Jim
Someone that works with the FAA would know, but I presume at some point during the integration that the FAA would put all the airplanes on one ops certificate.
Look at the PSA/PI/US mergers. PSA operated MD-80's & Bae-146's that neither of the others had, PI was the sole operator of F28's & 767's, US was the only one that operated DC9's & BAC-111's. All those planes ended up on one certificate.
Which was the orignal that survived? Don't know, but I suspect it was US's since they were the acquiring airline and the PIT FAA office oversaw it all.
Jim
ClueByFour
Veteran
To a certain extent, what the unions get in terms of BOD seats depend entirely upon the contract language--specifically successorship clauses.
They might also attempt to whack that language when it's time to merge the contracts.
They might also attempt to whack that language when it's time to merge the contracts.
PITbull
Veteran
Emil.Howes said:
Its contractual language that lives in the agreements until 2009. They must be negotiated.
The BOD consists of stakeholders and equity shareholders. I believe Labor's investment is in the tune of $2b billion since 2002.
They owe us the seats; its contractual. The co. needs to sit with labor an negotiate and exchange.
PS: Rico, The Labor Board seats are occupied and meet with the U BOD every time they call a meeting.
PITbull said:
PITBull,
Everything has a price tag attached in contract negotiations.
How many employee positions were ‘negotiated’ for the union figure heads to sit on the BOD and what has been the benefit to the membership by having a union ‘presence’ on the BOD?
What is the ROI for having a union 'presence’ on the BOD?
-BigE
PITbull
Veteran
Emil.Howes said:
Hey Newbie,
The price tag paid for the BOD seats is a whopping $2 billion to have 3 seats.
Its part of the package deal. The folks that sit on our BOD seats represent Labor's interest and the interest of our stake in the Co. as investors.
I am not sure about all the other contracts but I already posted link that shows that the IAM mechanics already voted out their rights for any board seats. Has anyone checked their contracts to see if you already voted out your rights for any board seats? Therefore making this discussion regarding board seats a moot point.
Oh yeah, you and 700UW have had a great track record of holding stupid assumptions that got slaughtered by reality...
Like I said, no one is taking your board seats away, just do not expect any meetings anytime soon
