Because the LOA is likely to be deemed an unsecured executory contract and, in any bankruptcy action, the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to reject any executory contract where it is in the best business judgment of the debtor-in-possession to do so. D-I-Ps practice slash-and-burn agriculture when it comes to executory contracts. They don't want to pay out any more than they have to

If the ALPA call to action law passes then all contracts will be bankruptcy proof, including early outs!

Copy thanks...but didn’t some of that law language change since the last BK? Forgive my ignorance on the subject.

Also, would the “Call to Action” ALPA has been pushing cover this in BK?

The severance language may address the issue. Have to read the fine print

I'm not saying it is a forgone conclusion but......it is an easy target to reduce costs. Who’s gonna fight to keep it? Dalpa?

Sorry for the negativity but probably be a cold day in H E double hockey sticks before that passes and gets signed. Besides it will probably be too late if it does eventually pass.

Denny

I just turned 62 and I'm not taking it. The medical insurance for two years only is a deal killer, so is the lack of BK protection. I can sit reserve as a 330A and pretty much not work very much...

I am 60 so the package does not look very good with 3 years pay and insurance for only 2. Having said that I will probably sign up since I will have until August to revoke. No harm in keeping the option open till the last minute.

So unfortunately the initial take numbers may not be accurate.

With the revocation option at a later date, it’s really a nobrainer to sign up and see where you stand. The real decision will have to be made sometime in the second half of August.

Denny

Not to try to one up you, but......."The initial take numbers will be highly inaccurate".