Originally Posted by
TheManager
I am not saying that DPA would do it differently, I am saying that DALPA should have.
The selling point I hear from DPA proponents is that DPA is "different." I say it isn't. I'm asking proponents to prove that it is, and give me the exact strategy DPA plans to use in situations like this.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
1. Same BK code and court system, is it not?
Yes.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
2. Same RLA that the contracts and enforcement of them fall under, is it not?
Yes.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
3. Same 1113C process, is it not?
No. The process must be within the statute. The judge is given very wide discretion. That discretion made the difference between Hawaiian's trip to court, and Delta's.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
4. Both airlines were in rerceivership, were they not?
Yes. Not the same type of receivership, though, because the trustee's
relationship to the creditors was different.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
So, you tell us what the judge and the circumstances were that caused DALPA to take such a different tack and strategy during the process and then to sell it as the best option in the road shows, because they did.
The judge (Faris) made it very clear that the geographic uniqueness to the situation in Hawaii made it necessary to make sure neither Hawaii-based airline gained an advantage during the process. Remember, the SAME JUDGE was handling
both Ch 11 cases at the same time!! That made the Hawaiian Ch 11 case
very different than Delta's.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
OK. Got to go. Not trying to get the last word but it is Halloween and I have a young ones costume to get ready....and there is football on even if it is NFL. Later.
Have fun! Enjoy the time with your kids.