Splash,

Refer to my post above. DPA would be completely overwhelmed and incapable of handling anything on the level of what ALPA dealt with in the previous decade. That sort of expertise is very cutting edge and very expensive.

At the end of the day history should show ALPA chose to negotiate strategically to maximize the benefits to the greatest number of members. Rather than risk the matter in the hands of a Judge, they negotiated consensual agreements.

Certainly some economic gains such as pensions would have been lost in the bankruptcy. The money simply was not there to save them. I believe ALPA was very effective in maximizing what they could get (again I stress protecting current members).

They negotiated away scope BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY THE TREND. They did not have to. Again, they saw a way to monetize a part of the contract deemed to be of little value to current members. Again, they maximized the potential recovery as best they could. But know, based on the law, scope was protected. (if scope wasn't protected in bankruptcy then it would have had no value when it was sold).

What still concerns me is that the views of ALPA leadership have still not changed when it comes to selling job protection. There is no real difference between contract 2012 and bankruptcy. Both are bargaining events.