Delta and their scope!!

[Doug Parker]

WD:
I can appreciate your trying to ruffle our feathers, its all in good fun. But you're turning into that annoying little prick at the bus stop who throws snow balls at oncoming cars, then when a car stops, he runs and hides!
Besides, unless you want GL to continue to respond, please cease and desist!

737

HELLO POT - MEET KETTLE !!!!





.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

No, that is not what you said or how you started this thread. You said:

"Abstract In 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that employers can unilaterally break an existing collective bargaining contract upon filing a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. This ruling changed both the contractual responsibilities of the employer to honor the collective bargaining agreement and the rights that workers have under the National Labor Relations Act."

"Key Words bankruptcy - termination of labor contracts - Bildisco -collective bargaining."

"So you see as stated in another thread, the Delta contract means very little in BK and can be broken.




Now I realize that many Delta folks don't want to know this but fact of the matter is it's the LAW!!!!"

It appears your story is changing, now that you realize that Bildisco is no longer the law of the land. Your original assertion was that a company can unilaterally reject a contract, that's incorrect, you used the Bildisco decision to support that assertion, which further emphasizes your superficial understanding and knowledge of the bankruptcy process, then you pull an article from the archives of a judges decision to reject a contract which was not based on the Bildisco decision or the law you originally asserted. Wrong on all counts again.

Tell ya what, lets just wait and see what happens next month. I have some crow on the stove and we will see who has to eat ok??

WD.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

WD:
I can appreciate your trying to ruffle our feathers, its all in good fun. But you're turning into that annoying little prick at the bus stop who throws snow balls at oncoming cars, then when a car stops, he runs and hides!
Besides, unless you want GL to continue to respond, please cease and desist!

737

Relax man your horns are starting to show...

WD.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

WD,

Well, did the 1113c replace that out dated law? Our BK covenant states no 1113c allowed UNLESS the company (that owns us--DL or other) cannot get DIP financing to get out of BK. Any potential buyer would obviously have financing. So, what do you think now? And, did you take a shower on the day you got a perm for your hair?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Of course I did!!! You will soon be owned by AWA and the above will apply. Stop fighting, you are already bought and paid for General.

WD.

 

[spinproof]

The case involving Mesaba was an 1113(c) filing. That's the section of the bankruptcy code that was created after the bankruptcy fiascoes in the 80s in which the Bildisco decision was made. Congress changed the law and added 1113(c) so that companies would have to go before a judge and receive approval before rejecting a collective bargaining agreement. Under Bildisco precedent, the company could unilaterally impose terms without a judge's approval. Not so anymore. A judge must approve the rejection. Obviously the new law didn't go far enough, and we'll work on fixing that in the coming years with a new congress and possibly a more favorable administration in '08.

Back the PAC!!!!

A more favorable administration???? lets see ...are you referring to a Democratic administration as being more favorable? The "Democraps" controlled Congress from 1933 to 1991...what changes were made to the RLA, favorable to this industry,in those years??........chirp...chirp...chirp... When Bill Clinton was in office what RLA sweeping changes did he get passed?..........chirp...chirp...chirp....

Your misplaced trust that the left will fix our labor problems is what they count on, that and your contrabution to fight the good fight!!! The problem lies in their penchant for coming up short on delivery.

Apparently there is no shortage of gullible minions as yourself willing to believe they have your best interest in mind. Here's a flash for you "Bamby" they have their best interest in mind!

But don't feel bad, according to the last election, you're not alone in your plane of reason. There in lies the problem.

 

[FDJ2]

Tell ya what, lets just wait and see what happens next month. I have some crow on the stove and we will see who has to eat ok??

WD.

I hope you're hungry, because it has nothing to do with what happens next month or the month after that. Your original assertion was based on an obsolete court decision. You stated it was the "LAW" and quite frankly it is not.

 

[PCL_128]

Did this guy just call me a liberal in a roundabout way? You can't possibly be serious. Voted for President Bush twice, my friend. No left-wing wacko here.

A more favorable administration???? lets see ...are you referring to a Democratic administration as being more favorable?

No. It doesn't matter what party they come from. There are politicians on both sides of the aisle that are friendly towards ALPA and our issues. It's not about (D) versus (R). It's about a candidate that is friendly towards ALPA and labor in general.

The "Democraps" controlled Congress from 1933 to 1991...what changes were made to the RLA, favorable to this industry,in those years??........chirp...chirp...chirp... When Bill Clinton was in office what RLA sweeping changes did he get passed?..........chirp...chirp...chirp....

The RLA has never created as many problems for us as it has under this administration. ASA has been in contract negotiations for over four years. FOUR YEARS!!! A request was made by ALPA to the NMB for a proffer of arbitration way back in October. Still no answer. The members of the NMB that this President has appointed are blatantly anti-labor and have no intention of letting the process work as it was designed. In the past we have had NMBs that were less than favorable, but never as bad as the past six years. ALPA originally wanted inclusion under the RLA because it provided protections for us and outlined a pretty reasonable framework for negotiations. That process has been twisted and deformed by this administration, so now it's time to fix it.

Apparently there is no shortage of gullible minions as yourself willing to believe they have your best interest in mind. Here's a flash for you "Bamby" they have their best interest in mind!

No doubt you're right. They're politicians, and 99.9% of them are only looking out for their best interests. That's OK though, because they depend on labor to get elected and they depend on our PAC contributions. It's in their best interest to fight for labor.


Oh yeah, almost forgot........BACK THE PAC!!!!!!!!

 

[General Lee]

Of course I did!!! You will soon be owned by AWA and the above will apply. Stop fighting, you are already bought and paid for General.

WD.

You just can't admit that you are WRONG. Classic. And, I am glad somebody else already bought us. I hope Oberstar will be the new CEO....?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Marko Ramius]

Wiskey,

You're putting the cart ahead of the horse here, and even then you assertion seems unlikely to me. For an 1113(c) to even be considered, Parker would have had to get past DL's creditor committee. For all the bluster on both sides, at this point it remains unclear as to where they are headed.

For the sake of argument, let's say Parker wins out with the creditors as you believe he will. I still don't see an 1113(c) coming. Parker doesn't like true confrontation with labor, he likes the illusion of it like the Wolfman. Just like he lets you guys believe that he'll really run two separate pilot groups if he doesn't get his cost-neutral contract, he might let the media run with the idea of filling an 1113(c) to try and scare DALPA. I don't think it will matter anyway because if Parker gets past the creditors, DALPA will change it's tune quickly which may end up being a bigger problem for you than them. Parker's plan is in the open now and it's to frag the combined carrier to appease DOJ concerns. He plans to do this over a 3-5 month period.

That would give DALPA two realistic options. Go ahead and mount a lawsuit over the labor provisions they believe Parker is violating. Popular with the troops and probably what AWALPA would do, but likely ineffective because the way the court system works for labor Parker would have already made deals to frag the combined carrier before DALPA got there day in court. You don't hear too many emergency injunctions filed in favor of labor do you? Option two and the far more likely one is that if they lose the battle with the creditors, DALPA works with Parker to make sure that they get the best deal in any frag.

Look at your own recent history. Parker has played to the UsAirways pilot group more than AWA because they are the bigger group and if he can get them to agree to what he wants all you guys can do is sit and whine because you don't have the votes to stop it. If it ain't broke why fix it? Parker will play to the biggest group here which is DAL. Why do you think he made those public statements about DALPA's contract surviving and bringing everyone's pay up to the highest level? If you read that article quoting Kirby, it doesn't seem like they care whether the divested assets come from the DL or UsAir side. Being on that official creditor's committee, DALPA will know before the rest of us if they are going to lose this battle, which puts them in position to jump the grenade. They can work with Parker, DOJ, Boeing and the other creditors to keep as many of their jobs as possible at the new DAL or make sure that they get the best frag opportunities. If Boeing is involved, you can bet WN will try and get in on this as an opportunity to put more pressure on JetBlue and AirTran.

You don't want to be fragged to a non-ALPA carrier, same would go for carriers like AA or Airtran. Your best of a bad deal would likely come from UA, CO, or maybe NW. Two of those carriers still have pilots on furlough and in a frag the # of pilots taken rarely match the actual number that were working that asset previously. So while you're still whistling about being right vs. the General and others, Parker will be shipping employees all over the industry-all in a whirlwind 3-5 month period. A period in which you still may not have a combined list or contract from your present merger with which to decide who goes where and why. Fun stuff.

My bet is that if this thing is a go(creditors), DALPA files suit loudly to make a public point and eventually settles the scope and other issues after Parker tilts the asset divestitures in a manner that is to their liking.1 113(c)? Why bother? If the boulder has gotten that far down the hill, DALPA will know there isn't much chance of stopping it in 3-5mos and that they can gain more with a change in tactics. As far as labor is concerned, it's out of our hands largely, but this thing is a mess and I don't know why you even joke about it.

 

[spinproof]

No doubt you're right. They're politicians, and 99.9% of them are only looking out for their best interests. That's OK though, because they depend on labor to get elected and they depend on our PAC contributions. It's in their best interest to fight for labor.


Oh yeah, almost forgot........BACK THE PAC!!!!!!!!

You would be much better off putting money into any mutual growth fund than wasting it on any Political Action Committee!Especially one run by ALPO!!!

Better still go to Vegas and let it ride on Black!! You have a great chance of doubling your money where as any donation to ALPO will go directly to help elect Hillary and any Democrate that says "I'm a friend of labor" it will not increase you bottom line one cent!!! it will of course help those employed by ALPO increase their bottom lines and lets be candid here, theirs comes before yours!

ALPO's motto should be "66,000 giving 2% is little enough to pay for little enough".

 

[General Lee]

Wiskey,

You're putting the cart ahead of the horse here, and even then you assertion seems unlikely to me. For an 1113(c) to even be considered, Parker would have had to get past DL's creditor committee. For all the bluster on both sides, at this point it remains unclear as to where they are headed.

For the sake of argument, let's say Parker wins out with the creditors as you believe he will. I still don't see an 1113(c) coming. Parker doesn't like true confrontation with labor, he likes the illusion of it like the Wolfman. Just like he lets you guys believe that he'll really run two separate pilot groups if he doesn't get his cost-neutral contract, he might let the media run with the idea of filling an 1113(c) to try and scare DALPA. I don't think it will matter anyway because if Parker gets past the creditors, DALPA will change it's tune quickly which may end up being a bigger problem for you than them. Parker's plan is in the open now and it's to frag the combined carrier to appease DOJ concerns. He plans to do this over a 3-5 month period.

That would give DALPA two realistic options. Go ahead and mount a lawsuit over the labor provisions they believe Parker is violating. Popular with the troops and probably what AWALPA would do, but likely ineffective because the way the court system works for labor Parker would have already made deals to frag the combined carrier before DALPA got there day in court. You don't hear too many emergency injunctions filed in favor of labor do you? Option two and the far more likely one is that if they lose the battle with the creditors, DALPA works with Parker to make sure that they get the best deal in any frag.

Look at your own recent history. Parker has played to the UsAirways pilot group more than AWA because they are the bigger group and if he can get them to agree to what he wants all you guys can do is sit and whine because you don't have the votes to stop it. If it ain't broke why fix it? Parker will play to the biggest group here which is DAL. Why do you think he made those public statements about DALPA's contract surviving and bringing everyone's pay up to the highest level? If you read that article quoting Kirby, it doesn't seem like they care whether the divested assets come from the DL or UsAir side. Being on that official creditor's committee, DALPA will know before the rest of us if they are going to lose this battle, which puts them in position to jump the grenade. They can work with Parker, DOJ, Boeing and the other creditors to keep as many of their jobs as possible at the new DAL or make sure that they get the best frag opportunities. If Boeing is involved, you can bet WN will try and get in on this as an opportunity to put more pressure on JetBlue and AirTran.

You don't want to be fragged to a non-ALPA carrier, same would go for carriers like AA or Airtran. Your best of a bad deal would likely come from UA, CO, or maybe NW. Two of those carriers still have pilots on furlough and in a frag the # of pilots taken rarely match the actual number that were working that asset previously. So while you're still whistling about being right vs. the General and others, Parker will be shipping employees all over the industry-all in a whirlwind 3-5 month period. A period in which you still may not have a combined list or contract from your present merger with which to decide who goes where and why. Fun stuff.

My bet is that if this thing is a go(creditors), DALPA files suit loudly to make a public point and eventually settles the scope and other issues after Parker tilts the asset divestitures in a manner that is to their liking.1 113(c)? Why bother? If the boulder has gotten that far down the hill, DALPA will know there isn't much chance of stopping it in 3-5mos and that they can gain more with a change in tactics. As far as labor is concerned, it's out of our hands largely, but this thing is a mess and I don't know why you even joke about it.

Marko,

Your bet this thing is a "go"? Nah. Delta just gave "more power" (extra SAY)to the Creditor Committee for a reason, probably assurance the USAir things goes away. They wouldn't give the Committee that extra power for nothing. My guess is that the Creditor Committee demands Bethune become the new CEO (to protect their investment), and that we have some agreement to merge with NWA after we exit from BK. That is much more likely IMO. There is NO WAY USAir will get approval here. Here is the article that came out yesterday.



By Paritosh Bansal

NEW YORK, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Delta Air Lines revised some conditions in its reorganization plan on Friday, giving creditors a larger say in its future, and indicated it would soon present its analysis of a takeover bid by US Airways Group to its board.

Delta (DALRQ.PK: Quote, Profile , Research), which is the target of an unsolicited $10.2 billion takeover offer from US Airways (LCC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), has said that it wants to exit bankruptcy protection as an independent carrier, but it needs the support of its creditors to succeed.

In the revised plan of reorganization filed on Friday, the airline gave its official creditor committee more say in requirements for approval of the plan, changing some clauses that were earlier to be decided solely by the company to include the opinion of the creditors' committee.

"It looks like the creditors' committee is trying to have more input into it," said Joe Capobianco, a partner in the New York law firm, Reisman, Peirez and Reisman. "That's probably been negotiated by the creditors' committee to get more say into the situation."

Atlanta-based Delta rejected a Nov. 15 takeover offer from US Airways, but the rival pushed ahead with its bid and raised its offer by about 20 percent earlier this month. Delta, the No. 3 U.S. carrier, said its management and advisers were studying the increased bid, but it reiterated that it still intended to exit bankruptcy independently. Delta's management and advisers are currently evaluating the revised US Airways proposal, in anticipation of making a further presentation to Delta's board of directors in the near future," the airline said in a revised disclosure statement, filed in a New York bankruptcy court. Delta, which has been operating under bankruptcy protection since September 2005, also recommended that creditors vote for it to exit Chapter 11 independently. Under its own plan, the airline projected 62 percent to 78 percent recovery for certain unsecured holders of impaired claims, or debt that would not be repaid in full. For its Comair subsidiary, it projected 76 percent to 100 percent recoveries for such creditors.Delta assumes that unsecured creditors hold about $14.2 billion in claims, and about $800 million against Comair. Holders of at least two-thirds in dollar amount and more than one-half in number of impaired claims must approve the plan. The court also needs to approve any plan. The airline also said that it no longer plans to have an equity rights offering, which would have allowed creditors to buy additional shares in the reorganized company. The airline said it plans to list shares of the new company on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Mach8Forest]

Abstract In 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that employers can unilaterally break an existing collective bargaining contract upon filing a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. This ruling changed both the contractual responsibilities of the employer to honor the collective bargaining agreement and the rights that workers have under the National Labor Relations Act. The purpose of this article is to show the conditions under which a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding will lead to the termination of a labor contract. Our results suggest that (a) legal rulings that reduce the costs of bankruptcy will increase the number of contractual dissolutions and (b) a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is more likely to occur when a firm operates in a climate of uncertain expectations.

Key Words bankruptcy - termination of labor contracts - Bildisco -collective bargaining.

So you see as stated in another thread, the Delta contract means very little in BK and can be broken.

Now I realize that many Delta folks don't want to know this but fact of the matter is it's the LAW!!!! Obestar can't help you!!!

WD.

Take a look at TWA and what happened with our contract and scope! It is not going to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling of comfort.
Mach8

 

[Marko Ramius]

Marko,

Your bet this thing is a "go"? Nah.

General,

Actually I don't have a bet on if this thing is a go or not. As I said in my post, despite the bluster from both sides it's not clear yet where the committee as a whole lies-they have been silent thus far on the revised offer. I guess it's not clear, but I try to keep my comments focused on what could happen if they get past the creditors. That's why I put creditors in parenthesis in the line about it being a 'go'. No creditors, we all go back to our regularly scheduled programming. Wiskey seems to think that it'll be all good and that it will just be time to make jokes about wearing black double breasted suits in the desert. As you know, I think it would be a big fragmentation in that case to satisfy Justice, and Kirby just admitted as much. To me DALPA has the upper hand in that scenario.

 

[General Lee]

General,

Actually I don't have a bet on if this thing is a go or not. As I said in my post, despite the bluster from both sides it's not clear yet where the committee as a whole lies-they have been silent thus far on the revised offer. I guess it's not clear, but I try to keep my comments focused on what could happen if they get past the creditors. That's why I put creditors in parenthesis in the line about it being a 'go'. No creditors, we all go back to our regularly scheduled programming. Wiskey seems to think that it'll be all good and that it will just be time to make jokes about wearing black double breasted suits in the desert. As you know, I think it would be a big fragmentation in that case to satisfy Justice, and Kirby just admitted as much. To me DALPA has the upper hand in that scenario.

Ok, I see your stance now. Well, it would seem to me that there has to be a reason DL management would allow the creditor committee more SAY. I don't think they would give that up for free. If USAir were to take control, I think you are right, there would have to be a large fragmentation, IF the DOJ approved deal and decided not to sue. I just don't see that happening, but I guess we'll see.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PCL_128]

You would be much better off putting money into any mutual growth fund than wasting it on any Political Action Committee!Especially one run by ALPO!!!

Sorry, but I stopped reading after you referred to ALPA as "ALPO." Grow up.

 

[xanderman]

Ok, I see your stance now. Well, it would seem to me that there has to be a reason DL management would allow the creditor committee more SAY. I don't think they would give that up for free.

Golden parachutes negotiated. Check. Creditors Committee more say in how this deal goes down. Check.

Maybe this is the opposite of what you believe it is for GL. Maybe this is the ice begining to cave...

Just a thought. I don't really believe this deal will get done. But I wanted to play devils advocate...

Andy

 

[General Lee]

Golden parachutes negotiated. Check. Creditors Committee more say in how this deal goes down. Check.

Maybe this is the opposite of what you believe it is for GL. Maybe this is the ice begining to cave...

Just a thought. I don't really believe this deal will get done. But I wanted to play devils advocate...

Andy

Well, it is always good to have a devil's advocate Andy. But, why would DL management say anything if things were caving? I doubt that. They made it known in public that they were going to give the Creditor Committee more SAY. That, to me, is a public admission that "we will allow you to do whatever you want if you make sure certain things DON'T happen (like USAir)." I still think the creditor committee will want Bethune to run the show, to protect their investment. And, we have heard, thanks to my continuous posts of quotes, that Bethune doesn't necessarily propose a marriage of two carriers that shouldn't be married. He also still believes in Consolidation. So, I think there will be a merge after we exit BK with NWA, and Bethune could be the supreme leader.....


And how do you know Golden Parachutes have been negotiated? You put a check next to it, like you know it has happened. Yes, they will make money in the end with new stock or options etc, but we have no idea if they are negotiating that now.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Marko Ramius]

Well, it would seem to me that there has to be a reason DL management would allow the creditor committee more SAY. I don't think they would give that up for free.
Bye Bye--General Lee

I don't have a clue on any of that. It's just flightinfo, so I guess can offer an armchair guess though. United, UsAirways(I & II), and ATA all filed their reorganization plans simultaneously with their announcements of exit financing. DL & NW filed plans with the intent of getting the financing later. DL had to file it's plan earlier than they would have liked as part of it's efforts to stave of this hostile takeover. Their announcement simply says they have offers and plan to roll 2.1bil of DIP financing into that deal in the future.

Much of the final delay in the last big airline bk(UA) was working out details with creditors ahead of the exit plan/financing filing. Maybe they needed more time to get some stuff worked out with creditors in order to get access to an exit financing deal? That could be one of the 'gets' for giving the creditor committee more say. An actual exit financing deal would go a long way towards shutting Parker down. Another could be what Xanderman said, perhaps there is dissent in the committee and they are trying to stave it off.

If any of this is correct, NW filing their plan now looks smart as they get the jump on Parker going after them if he loses at DL. IGoing to conspiracy theory level, you could say that Parker's Feb. 1 deadline gives him the opportunity to make a run at NW ahead of their Feb. 15th disclosure deadline. With only two weeks though, he'd probably fail miserably.

 

[FDJ2]

Marko, you're playing chess, while others on here are playing checkers.

Seriously, very thoughtful posts. You seem to grasp that there are several layers to this onion.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

I hope you're hungry, because it has nothing to do with what happens next month or the month after that. Your original assertion was based on an obsolete court decision. You stated it was the "LAW" and quite frankly it is not.

The LAW is simple here partner, the company can save it'self by asking the courts to set aside your contracts PERIOD END OF STORY!!!! You are fighting so hard against something that you have no control over. Let it be and what happens happens...

WD.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

You just can't admit that you are WRONG. Classic. And, I am glad somebody else already bought us. I hope Oberstar will be the new CEO....?


Bye Bye--General Lee

What am I wrong about?? Tell me. The truth is simple, as I have explained to your comrad F2 any company in BK can seek to have contracts terminated in an effort to save it'self. Ask and ye shall recieive. Now Delta won't have to do that because you guys are going to give concessions to starve off this takeover. You are going to set the industry back even further all to support a losing plan with lost management. Now say that ain't so General, If Delta were such a good bet on it's own you would be in the situation you are now. Poor management plain and simple.

Now do what you and F2 always do "How many times was AWA or AAA in BK?" Yeah but we are not now and making big money!!! Delta's stand alone plan is crap and grossly over estimated. They don't stand a chance to make those numbers alone and you all know it. So give back to the company and set us all back...

WD.

 

[General Lee]

What am I wrong about?? Tell me. The truth is simple, as I have explained to your comrad F2 any company in BK can seek to have contracts terminated in an effort to save it'self. Ask and ye shall recieive. Now Delta won't have to do that because you guys are going to give concessions to starve off this takeover. You are going to set the industry back even further all to support a losing plan with lost management. Now say that ain't so General, If Delta were such a good bet on it's own you would be in the situation you are now. Poor management plain and simple.

Now do what you and F2 always do "How many times was AWA or AAA in BK?" Yeah but we are not now and making big money!!! Delta's stand alone plan is crap and grossly over estimated. They don't stand a chance to make those numbers alone and you all know it. So give back to the company and set us all back...

WD.

Bethune doesn't think so, and told Parker that. So, Parker raised the bid. Then Bethune said he wouldn't propose marriage for two airlines that aren't right for each other. Now DL gives more "say" to the creditors--which means they will do what is necessary (maybe choose a new CEO) to keep their investment worth something (instead of watching it go down the toilet with Parker and Co.).

As far as where we have come since BK, we have done very well. Our current management is NOT the same as the management who took us to BK. Those guys (Leo, Fred Reid, Michele Burns, etc) are ALL GONE. Grinstein took over because he was the figure head, and he fired many people that were not working out, and set up a team to get us where we are today.(We made a nice profit in the 3rd quarter, and are set to make more) You can dispute that all you want, but it is true.

Bethune sees the value, and that is who the creditor committee is listening to. You and Parker will see the DL opportunity slip away, and then NWA will slip away too, probably merging with us. The others will follow (CAL/UA), and you will be smashed eventually, with AA (now the biggest) becoming a distant third in size, really dwarfing you guys.

Keep trying to tell us about BK law, that law is old as others have pointed out. Even Kirby said they would allow the DL contract if they got that far. You just won't give up, which is why we enjoy this so much. Keep it up.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Wiskey Driver]

Bethune doesn't think so, and told Parker that. So, Parker raised the bid. Then Bethune said he wouldn't propose marriage for two airlines that aren't right for each other. Now DL gives more "say" to the creditors--which means they will do what is necessary (maybe choose a new CEO) to keep their investment worth something (instead of watching it go down the toilet with Parker and Co.).

As far as where we have come since BK, we have done very well. Our current management is NOT the same as the management who took us to BK. Those guys (Leo, Fred Reid, Michele Burns, etc) are ALL GONE. Grinstein took over because he was the figure head, and he fired many people that were not working out, and set up a team to get us where we are today.(We made a nice profit in the 3rd quarter, and are set to make more) You can dispute that all you want, but it is true.

Bethune sees the value, and that is who the creditor committee is listening to. You and Parker will see the DL opportunity slip away, and then NWA will slip away too, probably merging with us. The others will follow (CAL/UA), and you will be smashed eventually, with AA (now the biggest) becoming a distant third in size, really dwarfing you guys.

Keep trying to tell us about BK law, that law is old as others have pointed out. Even Kirby said they would allow the DL contract if they got that far. You just won't give up, which is why we enjoy this so much. Keep it up.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Two things,

First I can't catch up as long as you keep posting. Second I would agree that the offer needed to be raised for airways to stay in the running however the over inflated est. that DAL values itself is way off and we both know it. UAL is bigger and SWA is far more powerful yet DAL states that they are worth more than both?? Yeah right give me a break. Maybe and it's a strong maybe at that 11 billion but even that is over rated to some degree.

BTW Kirby and Parker both in the past have made statements that had no real value. I would caution you against pinning your hopes on their sound bites!!!

WD.

 

[spinproof]

Sorry, but I stopped reading after you referred to ALPA as "ALPO." Grow up.

Grow up???Oh do I have it wrong? I thought the acronym stood for Attorneys Litigate Pilots Obsess ...or is it Acquiesce.. thats all I see happening.. by being a member of this organization since 2001 I've lost several years seniority pay but they only charged me $12,000.00 for the effort!!!!! What a deal!!!

 

[800Dog]

Now do what you and F2 always do "How many times was AWA or AAA in BK?" Yeah but we are not now and making big money!!! Delta's stand alone plan is crap and grossly over estimated. They don't stand a chance to make those numbers alone and you all know it. So give back to the company and set us all back...

WD.

Obviously you and I have very different views as to what "big money" is. FedEx and UPS make "big money". USAir does not in my opinion. If Delta emerges on its own, USAirways profits will look like chump change compared to Deltas. If not, I will eat some of that crow. Doubt there will be much left after you are finished.

 

[FDJ2]

The LAW is simple here partner, the company can save it'self by asking the courts to set aside your contracts PERIOD END OF STORY!!!! .

Sometimes it doesn't always work out that way. Regardless, I see you are changing your story, again. You stated that it was the "LAW" that a company could "unilaterally" break a contract, now you are saying they have to go to a judge and ask the court to break a contract. Well at least you've learned something. The drivel that you originally posted was incorrrect and not the law as you wrongly asserted.

If a company asks a judge to set aside a CBA that they recently asked that same judge to approve as part of a reorganization plan, a CBA the judge approved and the company assumed post petition, I wonder what the criteria might be for a judge to allow a CBA to be broken under those circumstances? A question obviously beyond your limited understanding, but give it a try WD, your response is always worth a good laugh. You haven't been right on one thing yet, why break a perfect record now. :laugh:

 

[FDJ2]

What am I wrong about??

Just about everything, but now that I've schooled you some you're begining to learn. Unfortunately you have a long way to go son.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

Sometimes it doesn't always work out that way. Regardless, I see you are changing your story, again. You stated that it was the "LAW" that a company could "unilaterally" break a contract, now you are saying they have to go to a judge and ask the court to break a contract. Well at least you've learned something. The drivel that you originally posted was incorrrect and not the law as you wrongly asserted.

If a company asks a judge to set aside a CBA that they recently asked that same judge to approve as part of a reorganization plan, a CBA the judge approved and the company assumed post petition, I wonder what the criteria might be for a judge to allow a CBA to be broken under those circumstances? A question obviously beyond your limited understanding, but give it a try WD, your response is always worth a good laugh. You haven't been right on one thing yet, why break a perfect record now. :laugh:

I see that in dealing with you I must carefully choose my words. It should have been implied that court approval was necessary however you are scared and I can understand that. Fact is that with the asking of the courts your contracts mean nothing. Keep telling yourself I am wrong and maybe one day you will believe it. Now go ask TWA how that works and I am sure you still won't understand. Must have something to do with your limited thinking capicity . Now changing story in that now is there??

In any event I wish all of you the best in your stand alone plan seeing as how you feel that your plan will make you even more profitable that SWA. Wow from BK to industry best, we all need your management team:laugh:

WD.

 

[FDJ2]

I see that in dealing with you I must carefully choose my words.

No, you just have to stop talking out of your ignorant arse.

It should have been implied that court approval was necessary however you are scared and I can understand that.

You didn't imply anything, you quoted an obsolete decision and stated it was the LAW, which it is not. Are you going to quote Bildisco to us again and state it's the law?:laugh:

Fact is that with the asking of the courts your contracts mean nothing.

Source? OOOppps, I'm asking too much of you.

Now go ask TWA how that works and I am sure you still won't understand.

Explain it too me, if you can? Somehow I think you can't. Again, just way above your level of understanding.

 

[Wiskey Driver]

Obviously you and I have very different views as to what "big money" is. FedEx and UPS make "big money". USAir does not in my opinion. If Delta emerges on its own, USAirways profits will look like chump change compared to Deltas. If not, I will eat some of that crow. Doubt there will be much left after you are finished.

Profitable all last year, how about you guys??? Sure Fed and UPS will be that's a given but of the pax air carriers only a few made a profit and DAL was not on that list. I can't wait and now I wish for your stand alone more than ever as your numbers are an outright lie to the shareholders. Good luck with that Enron move of over stating the numbers...

WD.