One of the arguments I've heard from the "yes" voters is that the company will just refile the 1113(c) and force it down our throats anyway. This goes against what the company has publicly stated. The company has stated that they do not intend to refile the 1113. They have also stated that we would be wound down, and the only question then is over the time frame.

It doesn't seem likely to me that the company would bother with wasting time trying to cut our costs by force when we are certainly getting shut down by Delta. What would be their justification, if the company has a termination date regardless of cost? How could a judge justify imposing draconian cuts, when doing so will not extend the life of the company? The judge does have discretion, but he needs a foundation to stand on.