House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy Chairman Henry C. "Hank" Johnson (D-Ga.) today issued the following statement upon receiving a joint response from United and Continental Airlines to questions posed by the House Judiciary Committee about their proposed merger.
We appreciate United and Continental Airlines providing an initial response to our written questions in advance of their testimony in the Congress about their proposed merger. Unfortunately, in our view many questions remain unanswered in several important respects:
First, we are concerned that the companies did not provide specific information concerning the job reductions that may occur in the Houston area as a result of the merger and the subsequent transfer of the headquarters. Merely stating to the Committee that they expect "relatively few job losses" is not sufficient given the current state of the economy.
Second, in our judgment, the companies also failed to provide sufficient assurances regarding its intentions with regard to its airline hubs. Some have speculated that the merger will lead to the closing of one or more hubs, which would have a devastating impact on flyers and businesses in affected communities. We asked if the companies would commit to retaining all of its hubs. The companies refused to do so, instead saying that they needed to "maintain the flexibility to make business decisions."
Finally, the companies refuse to provide adequate assurances that they will protect the benefits of all union employees if and when the merger occurs and the workforces are combined. Specifically, we asked the question of whether, when the workforces are combined, if the company would guarantee that the company would offer employees the higher of the two companies’ salary structures and benefits. We further asked the companies to guarantee that no employee's pension plan would be reduced or eliminated. Unfortunately, in our view, the companies promised only to negotiate a salary structure and benefit package "best for the combined company as a whole." This does not provide sufficient assurance that the companies are committed to protecting the salaries and benefits of their hardworking, union workforces.
We expect the companies to provide much more detailed answers to the Committee's questions when they appear before us next month at a hearing on June 16th.
