![]() |
Originally Posted by Tayo826
(Post 4024832)
Why did it take this long for AA to refute this?
I’d even charitably say they are interested and simply acknowledge it’s a pipe dream, unless the Trump admin comes around to it. |
Originally Posted by RStrawberry
(Post 4024834)
It reads less like “TBNT” and more “it’s our understanding the administration wouldn’t like it, so it’s not something we are thinking about.”
I’d even charitably say they are interested and simply acknowledge it’s a pipe dream, unless the Trump admin comes around to it. |
Originally Posted by ClappedOut145
(Post 4024824)
Unless UA can drive them into Chapter 11, shed billions of debt and the make an acquisition. Even then, no thanks. No more mergers.
|
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 4024846)
I don’t think that they have been trying to drive anyone into bankruptcy, they’re just focused on knocking Delta out of the number 1 slot. To do that they have been actively chasing every available dollar of revenue, which includes price sensitive basic economy customers while also improving the brand. The LCC’s are just caught in the crossfire. Don’t think for a second that the management of the big 4 would mourn the loss of a low cost competitor, but I don’t think that they are really in their sights either.
Secondly, they aren't focused on "top spot". United is already the #1 airline in the world by every reasonable metric. More mainline planes, more passenger miles flown, and more revenue from flying passengers than any other airline in the world. Yes I'm aware American counts their RJ fleet flown by their express carriers. United has over 1,100 planes and Delta about 960. We also have nearly double the number of widebody planes than Delta has. Delta insists that "total corporate revenue" is the only metric that matters, because they make $5B a year from an oil refinery that is included in their annual passenger revenue. But absent the oil refinery revenue, Delta has less passenger revenue than United. Also being in "top spot" isn't really anything exciting because it doesn't actually mean anything other than bragging rights. Throughout the 2010s the airlines all played nice and just kept in their lanes, but as soon as Kirby took over he put his foot on the pedal and that made it harder for the little airlines because we took so many of their passengers. Its just going to get worse as Starlink is expanding (331 installs already) and we get those 500 more planes in the next 5 years. Other than the mid-late 90s, these last few years have been fun to watch a management team that's really interested in running a great airline. Too bad the last 30 years weren't like this. It would have been a lot more fun. |
Originally Posted by Tayo826
(Post 4024832)
Why did it take this long for AA to refute this?
|
Originally Posted by Uninteresting
(Post 4023280)
the midterms will effectively neuter him and all his hopes and dreams. this is a nothing burger
|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 4024610)
The law is called the "Railway Labor Act" which was amended specifically for airline mergers in 2008 under a law called McCaskill-Bond.
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 FriendlyPilot
(Post 4024610)
The law is called the "Railway Labor Act" which was amended specifically for airline mergers in 2008 under a law called McCaskill-Bond.
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 It’s clear there is no requirement for United to bring over pilots on asset purchases if they don't break the 50% threshold. It’s not "covered" under this law, which is the only law that mentions requiring integration of other airline employee groups. Contractual provisions are applicable and enforceable, as is ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy. You may have read a book or took a class at some point. But I’ll side with Cohen, Weiss & Simon and ALPA’s Representation Department attorneys over your repetitive soapbox pronouncements. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 4025158)
The defining document would be the JetBlue contract. I suspect it has good fragmentation protections. I am surprised however no one has posted it. If United were to make an offer for only a portion of JetBlue it would apply.
|
Originally Posted by jdavk
(Post 4025184)
Nope. In an asset deal the buyer is typically not automatically bound to the seller’s CBA unless it expressly assumes it.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands