Us Airways Workers Think Merger
- Thread starter jB-Rocks
- Start date
BoeingBoy,
You are correct, they are just talks, that is why I stated that they did not want to get too indepth since it is not a sure thing. But, the question of how to merge the two seniority lists were talked about along with the possibility of the 2 for 1..or whatever it is called in their lingo.
I have a question , noone is purchasing anyone, right? They would merge and then keep the U name..since know one really knows who America West is? That is the only thing that I do not understand what my friend said, because they seem to think they will be puchasing U, if this whole thing happens. And "IF" that was to happen well then they would be the purchasing company and the one to decide how the list is built? Right?
You are correct, they are just talks, that is why I stated that they did not want to get too indepth since it is not a sure thing. But, the question of how to merge the two seniority lists were talked about along with the possibility of the 2 for 1..or whatever it is called in their lingo.
I have a question , noone is purchasing anyone, right? They would merge and then keep the U name..since know one really knows who America West is? That is the only thing that I do not understand what my friend said, because they seem to think they will be puchasing U, if this whole thing happens. And "IF" that was to happen well then they would be the purchasing company and the one to decide how the list is built? Right?
PSA1979
Senior
xoxo said:
AWA is not buying US, the two companies are merging together with a 3rd and possibly 4th party putting up the money. And anyway it happens, it goes by all the language of the contracts and bylaws. Go back and read those posted above, they are very, very, very specific!!! WE can't be more specific than the language, in my opinion, it's one of the few things written (contractually) that is black and white, not grey.
PSA1979
Senior
xoxo said:PSA1979,
Thanks for posting that info on the bylaws and language!
[post="268575"][/post]
You're welcome and Thanks to DCAFlyer for the AFA C&B
PSA1979 said:You're welcome and Thanks to DCAFlyer for the AFA C&B
[post="268576"][/post]
A couple of points of clarification, to the extent that I underdtand them:
1. I believe PSA 1979 is correct, that however the "transaction" happens, be it a true merger, where two or more parties (airlines) join together, or an aquisition, where one party aquires another, if BOTH parties are AFA (or any of the AFL-CIO managed groups, for that matter) whatever you call the transaction, it is still covered under Section X of the AFA bylaws (or whatever section of the bylaws of whatever other AFL-CIO entity for those respective groups). PitBull may have more insight on this, if she would care to elaborate on my point.
2. While we don't yet know how a potential UAIR/AWA marriage will be categorized, be it a true merger or an aquisition, it seems from the reports that I've read so far that UAIR is actually the party going out and looking for the financing. Therefore, I would conclude that UAIR is either an active merge partner (since an entity being purchased would have no reason to shop for funds to finance its takeover) or that UAIR is actually purchasing AWA (which doesn't seem to be the case and is almost laughable at this juncture).
Regards,
DCAflyer
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
xoxo said:
Just my 2 cents worth (and probably not worth that...).
In any transaction like that being reported in the media for US/HP, somebody purchases somebody. Without a purchaser, U and HP remain separate companies. And as with most things in life, the devil is in the details. The big detail in this case is probably who comes up with the money, with the second being what happens after the money is put in.
As for the "who", there are probably two obvious candidates - TPG and RSA (plus AirWis and Republic if they stay in the picture). Of course, there could be others or even multiple investors. Whoever puts up the money will have a lot of say in what happens.
The "what happens" is where it could get interesting. Most folks seem to be assuming a consolidation of operations will occur fairly quickly, but what if it doesn't. Suppose the operations are kept separage for some time, like 2-3 years? To play devil's advocate, suppose whoever called the shots decided that HP's more junior workforce (both those currently working and newhires instead of recalled furloughees) could operate cheaper than US and decided to move planes from US to HP (those 767's would work nicely for several Hawaii routes, HP could add transcon as US pulled out, etc), further downsizing US in the process. A theoretical seniority integration method might not mean anything during this interim process.
A perfect example (though it involved new aircraft being delivered) was the 737-400 that PI had coming when the US/PI merger took place - they went to US along with the hiring and promotions that they represented. In that case, the integration of employee groups happened quickly and the issue resolved itself guickly also, but imagine something like that process happening over several years with US slowly being dismantled and assets transferred to HP - even though HP could be using the US brand (picture that little decal beside the entry door saying "US Airways operated by America West").
Jim
To answer the question discussed earlier if one entity purchases the other, the answer is found in the first paragraph of the Merger Policy and Related Employee Protective Provisions of the AFA Bylaws:
The fundamental scope and purpose of this policy is to provide protections for the employment rights of flight attendants. This policy shall be applicable when two or more AFA-CWA-represented carriers engage in any merger, consolidation, acquisition of control, purchase, sale, lease or other similar transactions or arrangement between or among them, involving their previously separate airline operations or services previously performed by them as separate airlines, in a manner that may affect the seniority rights of the flight attendants (all hereinafter referred to as a "merger" for purposes of this policy).
There you have it. It's in black and white! It matters not whether UAIR purchases AWA, AWA purchases UAIR, or we meet at the altar.
The fundamental scope and purpose of this policy is to provide protections for the employment rights of flight attendants. This policy shall be applicable when two or more AFA-CWA-represented carriers engage in any merger, consolidation, acquisition of control, purchase, sale, lease or other similar transactions or arrangement between or among them, involving their previously separate airline operations or services previously performed by them as separate airlines, in a manner that may affect the seniority rights of the flight attendants (all hereinafter referred to as a "merger" for purposes of this policy).
There you have it. It's in black and white! It matters not whether UAIR purchases AWA, AWA purchases UAIR, or we meet at the altar.
So why is that provision of the contract any more ironclad than the pension portion of UAL's contract which the bankruptcy judge just ignored?
At the risk of stirring up the pot a bit more and, I suppose, calling into question some of the ideals of union brother/sisterhood...
Given that AFA merger policy pretty clearly states that date of hire is the sole criterion for determining seniority at the merged carrier, it seems to me that AWA's FA's might well be better-off by decertifying AFA as their bargaining representative (or simply breaking away from AFA) in favor of another union, along with requesting a modification in their contract to eliminate the language regarding the AFA Merger Policy. After all, it's pretty clear that AWA's flight attendant ranks are far less senior than US Airways' and they are likely to bear the disproportionate impact of furloughs precipitated by a proposed merger. I doubt that many AWA flight attendants would be terribly happy about losing their jobs so that a US flight attendant could return from furlough, either.
Given that AFA merger policy pretty clearly states that date of hire is the sole criterion for determining seniority at the merged carrier, it seems to me that AWA's FA's might well be better-off by decertifying AFA as their bargaining representative (or simply breaking away from AFA) in favor of another union, along with requesting a modification in their contract to eliminate the language regarding the AFA Merger Policy. After all, it's pretty clear that AWA's flight attendant ranks are far less senior than US Airways' and they are likely to bear the disproportionate impact of furloughs precipitated by a proposed merger. I doubt that many AWA flight attendants would be terribly happy about losing their jobs so that a US flight attendant could return from furlough, either.
Phoenix
Veteran
xoxo said:
Well now we know it is a false rumor. Clearly, they have to figure out a way for U to buy AWA so that they can impose the sorry a s s contracts on everyone who has the priveledge of staying.
r/ Phoenix
Phoenix
Veteran
PSA1979 said:
So... that is what the contract says. It sounds really good but you have a major problem... the only thing that says that is... the contract.
r/ Phoenix
sfb said:
Shhhh. The U unions say not to worry about the small details like that . . . . just sign here and everything will be ok (for "us" that is).
PSA1979
Senior
United tried that when the US/UAL merger was being tossed around. Problem is when you decertify a union, you are stuck without representation for a period of time and then you have to negotiate a whole new contract. When you are without a union, you are at will employees and the company can impose any work rules on you. Also, whatever union was in power during the beginning of the merger/transaction's process the rules still apply for the integration.
Not a brilliant idea. Why don't we all just wait and see, no one wants to see either side take a beating, I bet the two sides together will come up with something to help everyone involved.
Not a brilliant idea. Why don't we all just wait and see, no one wants to see either side take a beating, I bet the two sides together will come up with something to help everyone involved.
The following is the outline from the AFA bylaws... basically, the process by which all seniority lists are merged:
1. Promptly after learining of management action to effect a merger, the International President (“IPâ€) notifies the MEC of each airline of their responsibility to meet and activate Union policy and procedures for the settling of seniority merger and contractual issues.
2. Each affected MEC selects two representatives to serve as merger representatives.
3. The merger representatives are responsible for determining the seniority number (the date from which each F/A accrues competitive (bidding) seniority as a F/A opn his/her current (pre-merger) seniority list. Generally, this is the date training begins. But if one airline uses another date (i.e., completion of training, commencement of duty, etc.) a number of days is determined and added to the respective F/A’s seniority. For example, at UAIR we use the training start date. But AWA might use graduation date. They would have to add a number of days (four weeks of training might equate to 26 calendar days) and that would be factored into the equation.
4. The merger reps forward a statement of their findings via certified mail to each F/A within 60 days of appointment. Notices must be posted in each domicile.
5. It is the responsibility of each F/A to verify or challenge the findings of the merger reps within 30 days of receipt and to support the protest, if any, by written statement of fact. Such protesting Flight attendants may request a hearing before the merger reps.
6. The merger reps adjudge the validity of any individual claims.
7. Upon completion of the process outlined above, shall prepare a F/A seniority list that relfects the proper relative position of the F/A’s on their respecive (pre-merger) seniority lists. Such list shall contain for each F/A: (a) seniority number; (B) name; © seniority date; (d) initial training date; (e) training days, (f) whether the F/A accrued seniority for any or all such training days and, if so, the number of days accrued.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS COMPETED BEFORE THE MERGER REPS FROM THE TWO MERGING AIRLINES MEET.
Then, the merger reps from both airlines meet to combine the two lists. If the airlines had the same policy with respect to seniority accrual during training, the merger reps will compile a merged list BASED ON THE SENIORITY LIST OF EACH FLIGHT ATTENDANT.
That is folks… the M&A policy in a nutshell. DATE OF HIRE or adjusted for training days if one airline does not accrue seniority during training.
1. Promptly after learining of management action to effect a merger, the International President (“IPâ€) notifies the MEC of each airline of their responsibility to meet and activate Union policy and procedures for the settling of seniority merger and contractual issues.
2. Each affected MEC selects two representatives to serve as merger representatives.
3. The merger representatives are responsible for determining the seniority number (the date from which each F/A accrues competitive (bidding) seniority as a F/A opn his/her current (pre-merger) seniority list. Generally, this is the date training begins. But if one airline uses another date (i.e., completion of training, commencement of duty, etc.) a number of days is determined and added to the respective F/A’s seniority. For example, at UAIR we use the training start date. But AWA might use graduation date. They would have to add a number of days (four weeks of training might equate to 26 calendar days) and that would be factored into the equation.
4. The merger reps forward a statement of their findings via certified mail to each F/A within 60 days of appointment. Notices must be posted in each domicile.
5. It is the responsibility of each F/A to verify or challenge the findings of the merger reps within 30 days of receipt and to support the protest, if any, by written statement of fact. Such protesting Flight attendants may request a hearing before the merger reps.
6. The merger reps adjudge the validity of any individual claims.
7. Upon completion of the process outlined above, shall prepare a F/A seniority list that relfects the proper relative position of the F/A’s on their respecive (pre-merger) seniority lists. Such list shall contain for each F/A: (a) seniority number; (B) name; © seniority date; (d) initial training date; (e) training days, (f) whether the F/A accrued seniority for any or all such training days and, if so, the number of days accrued.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS COMPETED BEFORE THE MERGER REPS FROM THE TWO MERGING AIRLINES MEET.
Then, the merger reps from both airlines meet to combine the two lists. If the airlines had the same policy with respect to seniority accrual during training, the merger reps will compile a merged list BASED ON THE SENIORITY LIST OF EACH FLIGHT ATTENDANT.
That is folks… the M&A policy in a nutshell. DATE OF HIRE or adjusted for training days if one airline does not accrue seniority during training.
