Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
We had the leverage of corporation, but they could have gone around that and called our bluff. They could has structured NWA as a holding company differently if we wanted to play hard ball, and we had no history of a viable corporation. Em the facts, and even with the facts we got something. We had a section 6, but not in the traditional sense. Now we are approaching a full section six, and our leverage is given though that, and the corporation we helped create. Big difference. UCAL gets their section 6 and the merger at the same time. We did not.
In the PWA they had to make the provision that as of Oct08 or the signing of the contract that Section 1 didn't apply to NWA.
So had they made NWA a holding company wouldn't it have been a violation of Section 1 without the provisions of the new PWA? And what about NWA's Section 1?
What kind of setup could they have done that would have allowed NWA and DAL to exist under a holdings company?
Because whatever it is, it's disappointing to think our Section 1 may have allowed it as it does the RAH setup, which I'm still assuming most if not all of us detest no matter which way we sit on the DPA/ALPA debate.