I'd agree that we all just move metal, but why do you seem so excited for a deal to go through that isn't really good for you? I am sure whatever plan you saw was all about mainline vs. RJ's. Parker's aversion to widespread RJ usage has been known for a long time, it was known even before the UsAirways deal where he lamented the MDA/Republic deal. Working at America West, you should already know this but I'll say it anyway. Look at the pattern of RJ usage by Parker over the last few years. He shipped all of the 70's and many of the 50's away where they basically ended up in United Express service probably to the chagrin of your former colleagues at Air Wisconsin. He's basically stuck with the 90's because of scope issues at other carriers, so he spread them out to get them out of the way as much as possible. He sent them into non-hub stuff like Mexico and Canada service to LA, and alot of exploratory or incremental service out of Vegas to keep them out of PHX as much as could feasibly be done. Since the merger with Airways', I think he's sent a bunch of them cross country into the UsAir hubs to spread them out even farther. Again, this shouldn't be news to you and as such, why would it surprise you that Parker's merger plan with DL isn't heavily dependent on RJ's.
IOW the RJ thing should be irrelevant to you in this at this point, especially since you don't fly one. What should be relevant to you, is that your management has said that they are quite willing to fragment parts of the combined carrier. Do you know what the fragmentation percentages that trigger employees going with the assets are in the three contracts? I don't either, but that would sure be more interesting to me than bugging Delta pilots. If Parker proposes a deal that doesn't trigger a frag contractually, what do you think will happen to those surplus pilots?
Also have you considered the carriers that are in position financially to make deals with Parker on assets? AA(APA), WN(SWAPA), UA(ALPA), CAL(ALPA), B6(nada), and AirTran(NPA). If NW is going to be a player in this , now would be the time otherwise they may be too preoccupied with getting out of BK and getting exit financing to be involved. I'd be pretty worried about the fact that only two of those carriers are ALPA(fragmentation policy). Maybe the plan you saw didn't say anything about those MD-88's because he doesn't know what
specifically he'll have to divest and to whom yet. I'd be worried about the fact that AmWest Airbus' and Boeing 737 aircraft are far more compatible(engines, cockpits) with say UA's vs. UsAirways' and DAL's. You could say the same for hardball 737 classics at UsAirways and DAL and WN's fleet. I could go on, but the point is still I'd be worried about a whole bunch of things other than bugging DL pilots.
Quotes that would have me looking for the Imodium AD:
"We did not plan a $10 billion-plus offer only to have it fail to succeed on antitrust grounds," said US Airways President Scott Kirby in an interview in which he indicated that US Airways would be receptive to whatever the department proposed. "We would be prepared to deal quickly with the [DOJ] issues," he said.
The Justice Department can provide initial feedback within 30 to 60 days, but reviews are extended because companies seek to negotiate the extent of their divestitures, Kirby said. "DOJ takes a long time because companies choose to let it take a long time," he said.
It is likely that a first round of divestitures would include gates and other assets in Atlanta, and gates and slots at New York LaGuardia and Washington Reagan National airports, as well as the shuttle, Dick said.
"Then they would focus on Charlotte," he said. "I think they'd like to see Charlotte divested as a hub, but I don't think that anybody would take a large chunk of it. So I think it's a matter of paring back there."
But wait, there is plenty of time to sort this all out and you won't still be too preoccupied with seniority list and contract integrations on a previous merger to effectively deal with this right?
Washington, D.C., antitrust attorney Jim Dick, who worked four years in the antitrust division, said he would expect a three- to five-month review. "Given the amount of data the DOJ would be reviewing and the complexity, they will want to figure very carefully what they would like the combination to divest," he said.
The Justice Department can provide initial feedback within 30 to 60 days, but reviews are extended because companies seek to negotiate the extent of their divestitures, Kirby said. "DOJ takes a long time because companies choose to let it take a long time," he said. Regulators took 14 months to reject the proposed 2000 merger of US Airways with United (UAUA - commentary - Cramer's Take). That is not a precedent, Kirby said, because, "The companies chose to have the process take 14 months because United got cold feet."
You also might want to remember that while the above only listed what assets might be required to be divested by the government, it says nothing about where the accompanying airplanes if any have to come from.