Fleet Service apathy

[roabilly]

Here is the M&A Language along with the Successorship clause in the current pre-abrogation TWU CBA at AA...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Merger, Purchase, or Acquisition by Another Company
100
101 In the event of a merger, purchase, or acquisition of the Company by another company, the TWU
102 and the Company will meet to discuss the merger, purchase, or acquisition. The Company will provide
103 the TWU with information concerning the proposed merger, purchase, or acquisition at the earliest
104 feasible time to allow for the Union to prepare for those discussions. Those discussions will include the
105 impact of the merger, purchase, or acquisition upon the TWU represented employees.
106 (g) Labor Protection Provisions:
107 In the event of a merger, purchase, or acquisition of the Company by another company, the
108 integration of the seniority lists of the respective employee groups will be governed by the provisions of
109 Sections 3 & 13 of Allegheny-Mohawk, 59CAB22 (1972). The employee groups of each carrier will
110 remain separated until such time as the seniority lists are integrated in accordance with this paragraph.

111 (h) Successorship
112
113 (1) The Agreement will be binding upon any Successor. The Company will not bring
114 a single step or multi-step Successorship transaction to final conclusion unless the Successor
115 agrees, in writing, to:
116
117 (a) recognize the TWU as the representative of employees on the TWU
118 System Seniority lists consistent with the Railway Labor Act, as amended;
119
120 B> employ the employees on the TWU System Seniority list in accordance
121 with the provisions of this Agreement;
122
123 c) assume and be bound by this Agreement.
124
125 (2) If the Successor is an Air Carrier or an affiliate of an Air Carrier, the Company
126 will, at the option of the TWU, require the Successor to agree to integrate the pre-transaction
127 System Seniority list of the Company and the Successor in a fair and equitable manner within
128 twelve (12) months of the Successorship transaction pursuant to Sections 3 and 13 of the
129 Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs. The requirement of this provision does not apply to the Company’s
130 acquisition of all or part of another Air Carrier in a transaction, which includes the acquisition of
131 aircraft and employees.
132
133 (i) The attachments on the following pages are agreed to by the parties and are
134 incorporated as part of this Agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that Parker and Horton have simply met the legal obligations to the TWU as outlined in the above language.

 

[BLUTO]

Wow, that's some pretty ignorant #### right there chief.You worried about the TWU upsetting your campaign for elected office or something?

How about you do a little research before you start spouting off about the TWU at AA.

http://twu510.org/

Scroll down to Title III contract and see exactly what the TWU contract stipulates.

Here is the Kasher Arbitration decision, you know the one where the TWU and IAM went to binding arbitration regarding seniority integration?

http://www.twulocal564.org/files/Documents/KasherDecisions/Initial_Arbitration_Award_02Apr29.htm

I don't know #### about your contract but I'm not on the AA board spewing ignorance like it's gospel truth either.

Read a little bit, then post away.

jfk you make a dam good union brther!

 

[mike33]

Here is the M&A Language along with the Successorship clause in the current pre-abrogation TWU CBA at AA...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Merger, Purchase, or Acquisition by Another Company
100
101 In the event of a merger, purchase, or acquisition of the Company by another company, the TWU
102 and the Company will meet to discuss the merger, purchase, or acquisition. The Company will provide
103 the TWU with information concerning the proposed merger, purchase, or
128 twelve (12) months of the Successorship transaction pursuant to Sections 3 and 13 of the
129 Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs. The requirement of this provision does not apply to the Company’s
130 acquisition of all or part of another Air Carrier in a transaction, which includes the acquisition of
131 aircraft and employees.
132
133 (i) The attachments on the following pages are agreed to by the parties and are
134 incorporated as part of this Agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that Parker and Horton have simply met the legal obligations to the TWU as outlined in the above language.

ROA...this is what scares me, but ease my mind id you can......

125 (2) If the Successor is an Air Carrier or an affiliate of an Air Carrier, the Company
126 will, at the option of the TWU, require the Successor to agree to integrate the pre-transaction
127 System Seniority list of the Company and the Successor in a fair and equitable manner within
128 twelve (12) months of the Successorship transaction pursuant to Sections 3 and 13 of the
129 Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs. The requirement of this provision does not apply to the Company’s
130 acquisition of all or part of another Air Carrier in a transaction, which includes the acquisition of
131 aircraft and employees.

This tells me ( i think ! ) that USairways must be the acquiring Entity, thus not triggering any change of control and following the A/Mohawk to its fullest!....


It's time to Pay Attention to the Details !

 

[roabilly]

ROA...this is what scares me, but ease my mind id you can......

125 (2) If the Successor is an Air Carrier or an affiliate of an Air Carrier, the Company
126 will, at the option of the TWU, require the Successor to agree to integrate the pre-transaction
127 System Seniority list of the Company and the Successor in a fair and equitable manner within
128 twelve (12) months of the Successorship transaction pursuant to Sections 3 and 13 of the
129 Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs. The requirement of this provision does not apply to the Company’s
130 acquisition of all or part of another Air Carrier in a transaction, which includes the acquisition of
131 aircraft and employees.

This tells me ( i think ! ) that USairways must be the acquiring Entity, thus not triggering any change of control and following the A/Mohawk to its fullest!....


It's time to Pay Attention to the Details !

Well “33”…

Let’s review this language, and render a collective interpretation. From what I see… it is apparent that this is in regards to the acquisition of another carrier by AA pertaining to “all or in part” of that carrier. Basically, this language is a clarification pertaining to the Successorship language that follows in the next section. The “company” in a CBA always refers to the entity in the agreement , as opposed to any future or nonexistent suitor or purchaser.

It would be interesting, and highly unlikely that AA could pull off the role as the acquirer, especially since they are the ones that are legally bankrupt!

Again… this is my interpretation of the words. Case in point… additional language on the IAM side regarding change in control could interact with this particular language, and ultimately it could be the NMB that decides the outcome.

Maybe Occupy has some input…

 

[mike33]

I agree Roa....anything else but US acquiring would trigger the CC language. I held my opinion but you knew where i was coming from. The only thing i see that would change things is for AA MNGMT to do a 180 and include the merger in BK. Then anything can happen. Thats why a LOA would be a neutralizer for usairways fleet re: this Merger. IMO

 

[roabilly]

I agree Roa....anything else but US acquiring would trigger the CC language. I held my opinion but you knew where i was coming from. The only thing i see that would change things is for AA MNGMT to do a 180 and include the merger in BK. Then anything can happen. Thats why a LOA would be a neutralizer for usairways fleet re: this Merger. IMO

Here is an article regarding a statement from David Bates, President of the Allied Pilots Association. Please take time to read this article; it is very insightful as to what could transpire in this merger.

(Click here for article)

Apparently, the intent would be for AA to retain public branding and livery. The Corporate Headquarters would be located in DFW (AA’s Headquarters). In addition Horton and Parker worked together in the 1980’s at American! Now…I fully understand mike33’s concerns regarding “Change in Control”… and the possible consequences of such a scenario to our labor group.

The N/D folks are well aware of the need for additional M&A and CC language… and have been addressing this for months. Pursuing foolish leadership changes at this critical time is certainly not prudent, or recommended!

 

[Harry Callahan]

Roa I took the time to read the article & I have a tendency to agree with you. With that said I'm not committed to vote for any one person or group. I do know that we need job protection. I did promise one person my vote & I'll stick to that promise.

Harry

 

[mike33]

The problem i see is that the TWU language stipulates that there is no applying A/Mohawk if "All or Part" , and part can be any % not like the " CC " which says all or majority i believe. Thus there is a possibility of the TWU language kicking in no matter if US takes over 80% and AA 20%. Plus there is no " CC " but there is a seniority integration problem which favors the TWU..............IMO


THINK ABOUT IT

EDUCATE YOURSELF

 

[saywhat]

The problem i see is that the TWU language stipulates that there is no applying A/Mohawk if "All or Part" , and part can be any % not like the " CC " which says all or majority i believe. Thus there is a possibility of the TWU language kicking in no matter if US takes over 80% and AA 20%. Plus there is no " CC " but there is a seniority integration problem which favors the TWU..............IMO


THINK ABOUT IT

EDUCATE YOURSELF

mike33,

I talked with one of the negotiators and he confirmed that they were afraid of a merger with American with the current language and that 95% of the focus of negotiations over the last few months has been better merger protection language. The slow pace is due to the merger focus. He also confirms that the negotiating committee is very pissed off.

 

[mike33]

mike33,

I talked with one of the negotiators and he confirmed that they were afraid of a merger with American with the current language and that 95% of the focus of negotiations over the last few months has been better merger protection language. The slow pace is due to the merger focus. He also confirms that the negotiating committee is very pissed off.

We will see how much DP and ISOM value their employees won't we? Its no skin off their back....Just sign the damn LOA already

 

[Harry Callahan]

Mike:
I think we already know that answer.

Harry

 

[necigrad]

I talked with one of the negotiators and he confirmed that they were afraid of a merger with American with the current language and that 95% of the focus of negotiations over the last few months has been better merger protection language. The slow pace is due to the merger focus. He also confirms that the negotiating committee is very pissed off.

I've heard this as well. And to say they're pissed off I expect is an understatement. With the November furloughs Labor Relations and the NC were meeting when it was announced. LR didn't even know anything about it. Now the company is taking valuable time from LR to hammer out agreements for a merger that might not happen, costing them available time to deal with the negotiations ongoing right now, and possibly tossing the concept of "good faith negotiations" out the window.

I'd also like to point out something about the AA language. Remember that when US and AWA merged the TWU agreed to fair and equal being date of hire. This may be something to throw at an arbiter; what's fair and equal is fair and equal, regardless of which company it is.

 

[urbff]

That Ticket is so a reminder of a RC Ticket. I do hope some of the thinking at the top and bottom has changed. I remembers a lot of " Oh sweeties " and " Honey this and Honey thats" a few years ago on this board !.

Why Boys, It makes me so happy that you remember me. It's been so long. So much is happening. Just not sure what to think. Ya'll just talk and I'll listen. I think of you all fondly. Just not up to posting much anymore.

 

[ograc]

The problem i see is that the TWU language stipulates that there is no applying A/Mohawk if "All or Part" , and part can be any % not like the " CC " which says all or majority i believe. Thus there is a possibility of the TWU language kicking in no matter if US takes over 80% and AA 20%. Plus there is no " CC " but there is a seniority integration problem which favors the TWU..............IMO


THINK ABOUT IT

EDUCATE YOURSELF

As I posted earlier I do not see any advantage to the IAM represented Fleet Service employees in this proposal. I believe it has a very real potential adverse effect on our members. Based on what is proposed, and the subsequent written agreements signed with the unions on AA property, one would believe the focus is on the AA merger by the company.
I beieve the current team. along with teams running for election in June, understand the urgency and will act accordingly in the best interests of OUR members in IAM DL 141. Unfortunately, based on the company's actions, our interests do not seem to be a concern to them. They are in no hurry to reach CBAs with Fleet, MTC., Pilots or FA on US property. It is becoming apparent why. Seniority integration problem which favors the TWU... IMO also!
ograc

 

[ograc]

I've heard this as well. And to say they're pissed off I expect is an understatement. With the November furloughs Labor Relations and the NC were meeting when it was announced. LR didn't even know anything about it. Now the company is taking valuable time from LR to hammer out agreements for a merger that might not happen, costing them available time to deal with the negotiations ongoing right now, and possibly tossing the concept of "good faith negotiations" out the window.

I'd also like to point out something about the AA language. Remember that when US and AWA merged the TWU agreed to fair and equal being date of hire. This may be something to throw at an arbiter; what's fair and equal is fair and equal, regardless of which company it is.

necigrad,
Based on recent developments, this is a classic case of failure to negotiate in good faith... IMO. The company is not the least bit interested in agreeing to merger protection language for US Fleet under a LOA that will restrict their agenda of a merger with AA. IMO... this is why we have been dancing with the company for the past 6 months in negotiations. Your point of the TWU agreeing to fair and equal being defined as date of hire, with the US and AMA should be duly noted going forward.
ograc