Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
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.
Like I said, this was the easy way, but they could have done it with out these provisions as well. They would have just restructured the corporation or waited on the final financial transaction until they could have gotten SOC. The way they did it, and we allowed it was the easiest, but there were other avenues available if we wanted to play hard ball.
Also, if you forget, you were granted about 3,500 shares, and taken off of the pay raise metric that could have been reset depending on profitability. Go look at the contract comparison. The way we were paid when you were hired, and how those raises were not just applied, but the determination of if they stuck, sucked. Getting rid of that was huge.
Simply put, we and the company took the easier softer way. I wanted more too, but the reality is we were less than 12 months from exiting CH11. Fact.