![]() |
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
(Post 3602996)
The argument for/against the merger is still the same, just more opponents on the other side. The only change I expect is another 4-6 months added onto the timeframe to get this completed and probably run it through the Supreme Court.
The argument against two small carriers merging to become the 5th largest carrier isn't going to hold water in the long term. If this is truly the case then the government needs to unravel DL/NW, CO/UA, AA/US, WN/AT, VX/AS. |
Originally Posted by Bluediver
(Post 3603018)
Why stop there? Give back TWA, AMwest, Republic (1), Midwest and while you’re at it let’s bring back Morris Air for good measure.
|
For all the political connections JB has, I believe there are 4 huge airlines with connections and political contributions placing their thumb on the scale against approval.
|
The company can operate as 2 operating certificates. There is precedent for that (Republic, Atlas, etc.). It won't be as efficient, but they don't have to wait for a supreme court decision to actually merge. And in the meantime they could merge most of the operation, and maybe even transfer some assets to the JetBlue certificate. Annoying? Yes, but IMHO I don't think that's a deal-breaker. They WILL get the approval, eventually. Maybe it happens in late January of 2025...
|
Interesting idea. Maybe they win in court, but if the DOT won't back down they close on the sale and slowly move assets to the JB certificate?
|
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
(Post 3603089)
Interesting idea. Maybe they win in court, but if the DOT won't back down they close on the sale and slowly move assets to the JB certificate?
|
Our contract does not allow for that
|
It would be interesting to see this play out with our respective scope clauses regarding merger transactions…. We at NK have certain protections in cases of a merger, but I’d need a Rep to digest the legalese for me; lots of lawyer talk….
|
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603110)
Our contract does not allow for that
I'm pretty sure that if necessary, a temporary modification could be made with some stipulations. It is in all of our best interests that this thing go through. |
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603110)
Our contract does not allow for that
|
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603110)
Our contract does not allow for that
Hey, at least we'll get 2%. |
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603110)
Our contract does not allow for that
|
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it. im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight. no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof. |
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603152)
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it. im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight. no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof. |
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603152)
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it. im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight. no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof. Company: “We are going to do it anyway.” ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation). *sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!* ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish. |
^^^^^…..gets it
|
Originally Posted by avi8orco
(Post 3603134)
When has that ever stopped them? Guarantee you the check is already written to the MEC to fix that little inconvenience. CK will be selling us that flica waiting room and a .01 per diem raise to make that happen.
As long as they promise a Task Farce to look into Profit Sharing….. oh wait. |
Originally Posted by I was inverted
(Post 3603175)
CBA 1.0: clearly doesn’t allow focus city to focus city and focus city to international codeshare/JV.
Company: “We are going to do it anyway.” ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation). *sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!* ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish. |
Originally Posted by baseball3792
(Post 3603126)
I’m sure that it could be arranged… for a price
Oh good grief our guys would probably just ask for a cut above shirts and it’s a deal |
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 3603152)
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it. im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight. no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof. Ahhh Frank Lorenzo returns. Man if anyone even thinks that dual ops would be ok they need to be shown a history book. |
Originally Posted by SunnyFL
(Post 3602986)
So how big of a deal with the DOT chiming in they plan on blocking this does it make compared to when we thought it was only the DOJ initially? Just curious if this changes anything compared to what we originally expected with the DOJ only?
Personally, I think this is a head fake by DOJ. They are going to lose the NEA issue and want leverage to get JetBlue to compromise on that so they can save face. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3603224)
DOT hasn’t blocked a certificate transfer since deregulation. They’ll get handed their heads in court if they seriously try this.
Personally, I think this is a head fake by DOJ. They are going to lose the NEA issue and want leverage to get JetBlue to compromise on that so they can save face. |
Originally Posted by baseball3792
(Post 3603236)
I think you overestimate the intelligence and skill of these people. I think the administration told them to do whatever it takes to block the merger, so that’s what they’re going to try to do. It is probably politically popular sadly.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3603270)
A prominent court loss just before the election will not help them politically. Nor will an FAA administrator who knows little about aviation.
|
Originally Posted by JackpotAir
(Post 3603329)
I mean it looks like this administration is ready to throw in the towel on the whole “student loan forgiveness” thing early on. Blocking B6/NK might just be another fight to lose for them at this point.
|
It’s official: DOJ sues to block merger
|
|
We might as well bring back regulation at this point. We're 75% of the way there.
|
Originally Posted by avi8orco
(Post 3603417)
They’re to busy trying to put together quality lines for APR to worry much about the DOJ today…. Oh wait. |
|
Originally Posted by Forward lav
(Post 3603450)
Posturing. The government that created the big three blocking number 5 is laughable. But, then again, if you you’ve been around during the last 3 years….
|
Originally Posted by Forward lav
(Post 3603450)
Posturing. The government that created the big three blocking number 5 is laughable. But, then again, if you you’ve been around during the last 3 years….
|
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by bidnez
(Post 3603473)
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by bidnez
(Post 3603473)
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by bidnez
(Post 3603473)
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by bidnez
(Post 3603473)
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by bidnez
(Post 3603473)
Hope it goes through, I don't think JB will survive without the merger... Just the cost to fight this for years is going to be decimating.
|
Originally Posted by I was inverted
(Post 3603831)
Got any stock tips you’d be willing to share too? Thanks
|
Originally Posted by I was inverted
(Post 3603175)
CBA 1.0: clearly doesn’t allow focus city to focus city and focus city to international codeshare/JV.
Company: “We are going to do it anyway.” ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation). *sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!* ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands