interesting to read the APA talk about McCaskill-Bond.
"Airline industry seniority integrations are for some strange reason that we can't put our finger on are now governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which became law in... 2007. McCaskill-Bond requires a “fair and equitable” integration of seniority lists and includes thank goodness a provision for a negotiated settlement between the parties so we don't get screwed like those TWA guys!"
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-20-2012 at 03:56 PM.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
interesting to read the APA talk about McCaskill-Bond.
"Airline industry seniority integrations are for some strange reason that we can't put our finger on are now governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which became law in... 2007. McCaskill-Bond requires a “fair and equitable” integration of seniority lists and includes thank goodness a provision for a negotiated settlement between the parties so we don't get screwed like those TWA guys!"
While many think an APA/USAPA tie up would be a huge cluster, I think it would be far better for AA and USAir than either's present trajectory. USAPA would be swiftly and easily done away with and the new SLI would be quickly implimented and the combined airline would get on with things. APA facing Ch 11 or worse and USAPA pits deep in an unwinnable quagmire, an AA/USAir tie up may be the best and maybe even only way out for both.
If they can fight off the scope grab 88 seater fantasy it would be a huge win for them and everyone else. I'd call management's bluff on that too by the way. There is no way they will scuttle a deal of this magnititude that they would otherwise do over 88 seaters going to the cut throats or not. The amount of savings is just inconsequential compared to the big picture. For pilot jobs and the common type pressures of 130+ seaters such a bone headed, myopic stratedgy would eventually result in, I'd go all in and risk 1113 or even Ch 7 over something management doesn't have the stones to do if it came down to it over that issue.
A stock buy back takes outstanding shares off the market. On one hand it makes the remaining shares more valuable but on the other hand it reduces the number of shares required for a controlling stake.
ALK is doing a stock buy back and they split there shares about six weeks ago.
As for B6, not sure it would be worth DAL acquiring them. Too much slot divestiture to keep them under a majority threshold in NYC. There are other issues too. Time will tell of course.
If HAL gets any more HND slots DAL has to buy em.
As for the chess match on global alliances, there is sure to be some shifting that will occur.
I also suspect that even though this agreement between Parker and the AMR unions is public, USAPA was unaware, and there will be a little bit of disunity as a result. There is always opportunity in disunity. I suspect there will be a lot more to this story. If UAL or others start going after assets this could get interesting.
This year is going to be another interesting year.
Recently, Alaska annouced a stock buy back program and or split???. If I remember correctly, someone had explained how that makes it less expensive/easier to purchase as they accumulate more of their own shares.
I did not pay attention to it at the time and don't have time to research it. Running kids off to practice.
ACL.. can you chime in if its so? You and Bar are sharp on these issues.
A stock buy back makes the remaining outstanding shares worth more. For example.. Let's say you have 100 shares that represent 50% of the outstanding shares of a company. That would mean that there are 200 shares outstanding. If the company buys back 50 shares, your shares are now worth 67% of the company. If the company is earning $2000 or (EPS of $10/share) prior to the buyback, the earnings on your shares are now higher ($13.33) because the share pool has been reduced. Your stake in the company is now worth much much more. Warren Buffett 101. Value investing. He LOVES stock buybacks of companies he owns.
While many think an APA/USAPA tie up would be a huge cluster, I think it would be far better for AA and USAir than either's present trajectory. USAPA would be swiftly and easily done away with and the new SLI would be quickly implimented and the combined airline would get on with things. APA facing Ch 11 or worse and USAPA pits deep in an unwinnable quagmire, an AA/USAir tie up may be the best and maybe even only way out for both.
If they can fight off the scope grab 88 seater fantasy it would be a huge win for them and everyone else. I'd call management's bluff on that too by the way. There is no way they will scuttle a deal of this magnititude that they would otherwise do over 88 seaters going to the cut throats or not. The amount of savings is just inconsequential compared to the big picture. For pilot jobs and the common type pressures of 130+ seaters such a bone headed, myopic stratedgy would eventually result in, I'd go all in and risk 1113 or even Ch 7 over something management doesn't have the stones to do if it came down to it over that issue.
That's probably the winning argument in the end. I've been trying to think today (before reading this APA publication) what it was that Parker could have said to APA that would have won them over to his point of view in the light of getting into the Airways SLI mess. It seems like there are some encouraging things in here for the AA pilots, but it also looks like a lot of over-promising too (ie. 100% furlough guarantee?!). If I'm APA, I don't believe half of this stuff, but then I come back to what else am I left with? Standalone AA makes little sense to me now that there are a couple of mega carriers out there.
Anyway, this letter sounds like APA is holding Parker's water. Or should I say koolaid. Maybe it's a different flavor than they've had for a very long time. And maybe that's all it takes. Again though, koolaid or not, how else do they avoid getting slaughtered in this bankruptcy?
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
