Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

If Warren sells NJA, is that a good thing?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

G4dude

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Posts
1,645
Maybe it would be good. I suspect not. Also, would union contracts still be applicable under a new owner?
 
Maybe it would be good. I suspect not. Also, would union contracts still be applicable under a new owner?

Yes, CBA remains in force. It is all laid out in Section 1 of the CBA. Nothing changes.

2007 CBA said:
1.10(A) Successor Transactions
1.10(A)(1) The Agreement will be binding upon the parties hereto
and their successors and assigns. Any transaction that involves a
transfer (in a single transaction or in a series of related multi-step
transactions) to a Successor of ownership or control of the Company
and/or substantially all of its assets will be a "Successor
Transaction" and subject to this Agreement.
 
Are you sure that applies to a new owner, or just to another entity of NetJets or Berkshire? This is not my area of expertise, but I find it interesting that a buyer from the outside would be required to honor our contract.
 
Are you sure that applies to a new owner, or just to another entity of NetJets or Berkshire? This is not my area of expertise, but I find it interesting that a buyer from the outside would be required to honor our contract.
It would likely be written in the small print too. Any buyer of NJ would know there is a union in place and would assume any contracts that are in place.

SG
 
Are you sure that applies to a new owner, or just to another entity of NetJets or Berkshire? This is not my area of expertise, but I find it interesting that a buyer from the outside would be required to honor our contract.

Ever had a fixed rate mortgage? The bank gives u a mortgage at a set rate. They then SELL the contract to another lender. Same thing.

Sorry. If we r sold you will still be a NJASAP member...
 
Are you sure that applies to a new owner, or just to another entity of NetJets or Berkshire? This is not my area of expertise, but I find it interesting that a buyer from the outside would be required to honor our contract.

Yep, the whole process is laid out in Section 1.10(A) and 1.10(B). It was negotiated in 2005, written by the Wilders, and not touched in 2007 so that none of the original intent could be monkeyed with. If the Company could have used a sale to break the union it would have already been done.
 
BK can break contracts, just ask the ALPA guys at the majors, ask the UAW guys at the auto companies. And that is what would have probably happened if WB had not injected 1B+ into the organization.
 
BK can break contracts, just ask the ALPA guys at the majors, ask the UAW guys at the auto companies. And that is what would have probably happened if WB had not injected 1B+ into the organization.

Once again, you show a total lack of knowledge on just about anything Netjets. Luckily this time, what you wrote is a common misconception of how NJA remained alive in '08-'09 when it was losing money.

WB didn't inject anything. As a BH holding, NJA was able to BORROW from BH up to $2 billion. You'll probably tell me I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. There's a very big difference between having money thrown at the company to keep it alive, as your post suggests, and borrowing money to do the same. NJA was borrowing to stay alive, but actually wasn't that near bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would occur if NJA couldn't borrow anymore AND lacked the ability to repay on its outstanding loans. The economy was bound to turn around, and NJA would return to making money and paying down its debt. And that's exactly what happened.

But if BH hadn't loaned the money, RTS had plenty of connections elsewhere to get loans to keep it going. As a BH holding we got preferrential interest rates, which I'm sure made borrowing from BH more attractive than other institutions, but wasn't the only option. Your foregone conclusion that Warren's benevolence is what kept us out of bankruptcy isn't correct.
 
If selling the company would void the contract, Warren would sell it to himself.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top