*sigh*
This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the
Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined
. It is my assertion that unlike UAL and CAL, the pilots of both East and West pre-merger compensation wallowed WELL below that of legacy standards and that was due to the FRAGMENTED operations of a single entity, yet operationally split carrier. You appear to assert AA was in collapse and AA pilots careers were in decline due to furloughs (that never occurred) and was saved by US Airways, I disagreed with that.
The point was the subjectivity of opposing opinions and the fact they are essentially meaningless. If history is any teacher, the arbitrators almost universally consider that aspect (as per UAL-CAL), the only question is to what degree ?
Again, my point was that there are multiple subjective pilot opinions on each carriers pre-merger status and future and none of ours counts. The arbitrators will determine that value, if any and so why work yourself into a lather ?
Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ?
I did ?
Where have I said that and specifically WHO will they not "undermine" ?
It DOES hold up because the team that orchestrated the destruction of AA pilots pensions and (hopefully) retiree medical (the two biggest financial benefits of AA's C11) was Horton's team, not Parker's. In fact, above you reiterate my contention is WAS a "strategic" bankruptcy and not one typical of a business that had little future as a going concern. But again, WHY are you asserting something you see as certainty and then diffuse that by highlighting the its subjectivity ?
Perhaps there is a bit of SELECTIVE interpretation going on, eh ?
No, it's YOUR assertion that both carriers needed the merger EQUALLY. Others can make a viable assertion that each carriers NEED of the other was NOT equal. That's not to say both benefitted from the merge, just that what was brought to the party was not one of absolute equality. I understand your desire to see this merger as one of equals, but I don't think the arbitrators will. If you read the UAL-CAL award, you'll note that in THAT case the committees demonstrated that each carrier had strengths and weaknesses, but overall neither was superior to the other. The considerations to assist them was information THEY quantified including not only economic background, including global alliances and hubs, but economic status and prospects at merger closing date including financial status, fleet compositions and pilot staffing.
Will this panel come to the same conclusion that pre-merger US Airways was equal in all respects to pre-merger American Airlines ?
Personally, I don't think so, but they might as anything is possible. If you want to believe they were, I'm not stopping you, but I'm sorry, I just can't agree with it. Perhaps the arbitrators will agree with you on this instead of me ?
Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable they'll get this aspect of the SLI dead-bang on target.