bababouey

Hard to do a line check from coach, but maybe you know tricks he doesn’t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

senecacaptain

if bankrupt, and publicly traded on a stock exchange, nothing can stop "big money" from trying to buy the company. There is no "founder" of American Airlines with his family owning the majority of shares. CR Smith Investment Trust does not own American, etc.

a hedge fund or investment partnership could attempt to buy them. I say attempt.

there is absolutely nothing that could stop that, especially if already Ch.11

pray it doesn't, I am just sharing my opinion on this APC forum.

Flyby1206

Sure, thats possible, but not probable. PE has largely stayed away from airlines because buying an airline then means you have to run an airline. And selling off chunks of the airline isn't as easy as taking bids from competitors. US DOT/DOJ gets involved, state politics come into play, general public has an outrage, it gets very messy and their money is better spent somewhere else.

Honestly I think there's a better chance of seeing foreign ownership rules changed and IAG buying AA, or at least a large chunk of it.

rickair7777

All correct. Airlines have a big public utility aspect so if you buy one your options are limited in a lot of ways, and most of these money men just want to move chips around the board for a percentage, or break them up and sell the pieces for quick cash... running an airline is about the last thing they want to do.

Not with this administration. Hopefully.

chrisreedrules

Anything is possible. I think SkyWest is more of the 500lb gorilla in the room. As for Mesa, I heard that AA is removing more flying from them in the Q3/Q4 and they will likely see more block hours go to Envoy and SkyWest.

Excargodog

Not to mention that until flying actually returns, nothing is WORTH that much cash. Enough overseas airlines have already gone bankrupt that used aircraft prices are hugely depressed. Fo that matter, there are brand new MAX’s sitting around that have NEVER been in revenue service with the paint jobs of companies that no longer are in operation.

But by the same token, the company has to have sufficient revenue to operate and legacy decisions on everything from profit sharing to prior stock buyback to fleet renewal to number of types in the fleet are all going to play a part in who CAN continue operation.

A cheap agile startup - like Breeze - suddenly has the economic advantage over most all legacy airlines for domestic flying in this environment, simply because it has no legacy of having made decisions that - however right they might have been for the situation a year or two ago - are wrong for today.

AirBear

When it comes to gutting contracts in Chapter 11 doesn't the Union still have a right to strike under the RLA if it's a "Major Dispute"? Something like a major paycut or furlough by equipment vs. seniority? I don't think Bankruptcy Court vs. RLA has ever been ruled on by a higher court where the BK court says you can't strike but the RLA says you can. The parties have always come to a mutual agreement on concessions rather than take it that far.

Al Czervik

yes. all the power under the RLA resides with the pilots.

Tranquility

Clearly ‘tongue in cheek’.... But I’m afraid this poor sap doesn’t understand it. The 1113 process is not pleasant by any means, regardless if the union & the company come up with a compromise....

AirBear

Very true, I was at USAir for the "lost decade" of the 90's. I got curious and looked up some stuff on 1113 and strikes. In the NWA vs. AFA the NWA proposal was voted down by the AFA 55-45%. The judge then imposed it but said the AFA could strike now. The District Court reversed that decision saying:

For the reasons cited above,125 the district court concluded that § 1113 rejection does not automatically terminate Section 6 of the RLA bargaining process as the AFA argues.126 This is because if the union threatens to strike before the Mediation Board has declared an impasse, it would necessarily not be exerting “every reasonable effort” to reach a settlement under Section 2 of the RLA.127 While the court acknowledged that “reasonableness” under Section 2 is a flexible concept, what is “reasonable” must be considered in light of Congress’ policy goals in enacting § 1113.128 In this case, the court held that the threat to strike could hardly be considered reasonable, given that the bankruptcy court just concluded that the union had no “good cause” to reject the airline’s prior proposals.129 To reach the opposite conclusion and permit the union to strike without exerting every reasonable effort to reach a settlement would be contrary “to the express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and to the Code’s overall effect to a give a [debtor] some flexibility and breathing space.”

If you are really, really, bored and want to read the whole thing here it is:

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/c...45&context=blr

The phrase "no good cause" to reject is key.