Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1275886)

Clearly, discontent will remain. It doesn't sound like US Airways (or any successor) is free of potential legal liability either. Considering that, I wonder how AMR and its creditors will look upon potential legal jeopardy going forward should USAPA force something against the west and they persue a claim (which you know they will). Wouldn't surprise me to see Horton pitching that angle to the creditors to bolster his desire to emerge from Chapter 11 stand alone and then control any merge with whomeve and in the case of US Airways, in part or whole.

Alternately, you have a stalemate that might preclude any true merger of operations going forward and I wonder if ANY future acquirer of US Airways will want to ingratiate themselves into this. Perhaps Parker might have to consider a fragmentation scenario of selling one side and sticking with the other in a merger ?

Not sure of the feasability of that or if they've considered that option, but I don't see a merger resolving this as all it would seem to do would be to shift financial jeopardy to new parties. Not sure if the ROI on inheriting either an internally fragmented carrier or a single one littered with 5-10 years worth of lawsuits would be worth it.

Originally Posted by cactiboss (Post 1275889)

The term sheet was written to fix the whole issue, Parker and Kirby have said it in public. Think about what the true issue is here and you see howthe term sheet get's rid of it in short order.

Originally Posted by R57 relay (Post 1275863)

Alfa, you and I have sparred before, but I have a serious question that I would like your opinion on. I will just listen and not reply unless you have a question for me.

I'm in the middle of this mess and I have a hard time remembering all the points. I agree that a seniority list is hard to change, and a union has to have a legitimate objective and the change must be within a wide range of reasonableness. The "legitimate union objective" that I seem to remember USAPA making was that a contract containing the Nicoalu award will be a very hard thing to attain. That abandoning the Nic DOES benefit the whole group because we are falling behind the industry every day and it allows us to get a new jcba. Is that a legitimate union objective, in THIS case? Our T/A prohibits the use of the Nicolau award until we have a joint contract. We are 7 years into the merger, 5 years after the Nic award came out, 1 year after a clear referendum on the course of the union through last years officer election and we are nowhere near a jcba because of the Nicolau award. I'd say that supports that theory, but there has never been a vote on a jcba. Do we have to vote on a jcba and turn it down to legitimize that claim? Do we have to vote it down 1 time, 2 times, 3, 10? Do we have to slog through this 10 more years to prove the legitimate union objective?

It will be interesting to see the company's and AOL's response.

Thanks

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1275907)

Whose term sheet ?

If you're talking about the agreement between APA and Parker (which isn't a "term sheet" but a "conditional" labor agreement), it vaporizes if AMR management is awarded the POR and exits C11 stand alone. The only way Horton will get a consensual agreement from AA pilots if it is industy-standard (as a package) and that means it will be much better then APA's agreement with Parker. That would likely mean a post BK merge with U under AMR management control if a merger even occurs, so all bets would be off on anything worked out so far with Parker. That implies AA would even merge with U post BK, of course.

AA and U still could merge and it IS the STRONG desire for a change of management by AA pilots, but I think AA pilots would rather have a better deal and merge after C11 with management change then, then Parker's agreement inside it. That being said, if an acceptable consensual deal is unobtainable, then getting rid of this management inside C11 and choking on Parkers deal (if necessary) would be the only viable path left. At any rate, I wouldn't count too heavily on the APA to be a white knight resolving this conflict as odds are AMR may make it to the finish line, especially if they have a contract with the pilots.

Originally Posted by R57 relay (Post 1275972)

Maybe it's time for USAPA to put the Kirby proposal with the Nic out for a vote and we can all put our money where our mouth is. There is no DL contract availalbe to US pilots with this situation, absent an AA merger and even then the term sheet appears to fall short of DL.

Originally Posted by KillingMeSmalls (Post 1275755)

Would the McCaskill-Bond affect the new list?