Originally Posted by
DrivinTheDash
The single element of the APA proposal that gives me pause, and that I would consider "controlling the situation," is paragraph 16:
This provision, it seems to me, gives APA wide latitude to modify almost everything being agreed to without input/approval/consent of the USAPA side of the house. In the US/HP merger, there was a provision for separate ratification of the JCBA, and, I believe, for changes to the transition agreement. That is, even after SCS was declared, the TA could not be changed without agreement of both east and west. I would be very comfortable with this proposal if paragraph 16 were changed to require consent of both sides of the house to agree to changes after SCS. For example:
A very good point. The 2005 specifically allowed amendments by all parties that signed it. The West always argued SCS did not change that and the company always supported that position.