|
Originally Posted by Bluediver
(Post 4024526)
This again? This isn’t how it works. You are not even trying to quote actual federal law. You are posting wrong information and changing the law to fit your narrative.
|
Originally Posted by Bluediver
(Post 4024526)
This again? This isn’t how it works. You are not even trying to quote actual federal law. You are posting wrong information and changing the law to fit your narrative.
Here is direct language from the Law: (4) the term “covered transaction” means— (A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which (B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of— (i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or (ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. Here is the specific section on the Congress website. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim Its clear there is no requirement for United to bring over pilots on asset purchases if they don't break the 50% threshold. Its not "covered" under this law, which is the only law that mentions requiring integration of other airline employee groups. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 4024606)
How about this then……. While an acquisition of assets under the limit wouldn’t trigger a merger under Federal law, a fragmentation policy would still play a significant role. It’s true that a merger of a certain size wouldn’t trigger a merger under federal law, and that a fragmentation clause between the pilots of another airline and their employer isn’t binding on UA in a potential deal. It is also true that the fragmentation clause would prevent the airline trying to sell assets from entering any agreement that doesn’t require pilots to go with the deal, therefore making it relevant. Fragmentation clauses can be a double edged sword. They can potentially protect jobs, but they can also repel potential buyers by adding to the complexity and cost of a potential deal. My guess is that in the case of JB, it’s just added cost making even a limited acquisition unlikely.
ALPA Fragmentation policy only addresses the seniority integration if United brings over pilots, etc. Its never been used. Ever. |
American says thanks but no thanks.
https://news.aa.com/news/news-detail...4/default.aspx FORT WORTH, Texas — American Airlines Group Inc. (NASDAQ: AAL) today issued the following statement: We appreciate the leadership and strong support of President Trump, Secretary Duffy and numerous other leaders in the Administration who have demonstrated expertise and an ongoing commitment to continue to improve the world’s best aviation industry. American Airlines is not engaged with or interested in any discussions regarding a merger with United Airlines. While changes in the broader airline marketplace may be necessary, a combination with United would be negative for competition and for consumers, and therefore inconsistent with our understanding of the Administration’s philosophy toward the industry and principles of antitrust law. Our focus will remain on executing on our strategic objectives and positioning American to win for the long term. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the Administration as it takes steps to strengthen the broader airline industry. |
Originally Posted by elps
(Post 4024704)
|
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 4024719)
Thank god. Now we just need JB to say no thanks and life can go on as usual.
|
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 4024719)
Thank god. Now we just need JB to say no thanks and life can go on as usual.
|
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 4024719)
Thank god. Now we just need JB to say no thanks and life can go on as usual.
|
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 4024805)
Think the roles are reversed regarding JB. They are wanting to be acquired and it’s UA saying no thanks.
|
Originally Posted by elps
(Post 4024704)
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:54 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands