SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #31
Even more difficult than finding a merger/acquisition partner/victim of any size or color is getting the pilots to not only solve their outstanding seniority issues but formulate how another group of pilots can be integrated in addition. Even if some spectacular opportunity came along (someone else's BK or whatever) how does US overcome the leprosy that is its pilot dispute? Sure would be a shame to miss out on some real growth because the flyboys are having too much fun shoveling money at lawyers and hissy fitting on the internet...
Or is there any conceivable way that an m/a could somehow be used as an opportunity to end the deadlock?
Well if you operate the acquisition as a subsidiary like PSA, then you delay any pilot issues until the USAPA "thing" works itself out. With the way things are in Pilotville, DP will be on Social Security when it's finally settled.
I've thought about this and it would seem to me that US could do a work around as long as they are the controlling management. IMO, US would have to set itself up as a Holding Company which they sort of do now. US Airways Group own US Airways, PI & PSA. Only US is having a PPM (Pilot Pissing Match), so if AA goes BK and US Airways Group is the acquiring company, then AA pilots don't get integrated and they make more money which would likely continue even after a BK buzz cut. Second thing US Airways Group does is set up another corporation that would allow them to integrate IT departments, Customer Service, Ground support & Mtc. They could call it US Airways Group Services and all non Inflight employees are employed by this entity. It would be a captive outsourcing company.
Now if DP is smart, the haircut the AA pilots get would bring them down to a contract that US Group would extend to US once the PPM is over. Then some number of years later your integrate the carriers. You fund this merger by selling off American Eagle as part of a prepackaged BK. just a thought.
@ Jester, you recall correctly