My final word on US/DL

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

"lilly",

Then there is the (hypothetical) scenario that a .......UAL "better offer"(than US) is placed "under the snouts" of the DL shareholders.


Is it JUST me, that "detects" an air of INDIGNANCE on the part of DL, and their "tub thumpers"

An AIR that suggests........"Who let THEM(US) into our (southern good ol' boys) COUNTRY CLUB ??? :angry:

"I thought THEY were part of the kitchen staff"


Lilly, consider this;

"EVEN" AMERICAN AIRLINES had to deal with Donald Trump, some years back. But you did'nt see/hear Bob CRANDALL...boo hoo/ing/wailing about it !! He just methodically went about the task of "kicking (a few A$$E$) , and taking names"....End result, "(bad hair piece)-Trump, slithered AWAY.

But then again, DL was/is "NO AA", nor will they ever be !


NH/BB's

 

[Gilding the Lily]

All true, however since this filing was done before the new BK laws took effect, the judge has sole power over whether or not the 120 day exclusivity period should be extended.

So far, DL has received their extensions without objection, and that's pretty much been the case with most large filings, which is why the amended BK law limits exclusivity to 18 months from the date of filing.

While extensions have pretty much been a rubber stamp approval up to know, there hasn't been a viable party waiting in the wings with a Plan B. This time, there is, and I'm pretty certain that there will be more than a few creditors arguing against the extension.

Absolutely. Delta likely could have waited a few months before filing for bankruptcy; but the BAPCPA changes to the Code are not as favorable to large Chapter 11 cases. Thus, Delta filed in September 2005 to take advantage of the pre-BAPCPA Code, including the possibility of no-limit time extensions during the 'filing the plan' stage.

Like you said, US now has a plan that will compete for the affection of Delta creditors. In fact, some creditors, mostly unsecured, have voiced support for the merge. US will now be considered a party-in-interest and will have the ability to request a reduction in the current exclusive time table that is set to expire February 15. If nothing else, US and the creditors that support the merge will likely win a 'Motion for cause' to deny any other requests for time extensions beyond the February deadline.

Even after the deadline, Delta can still file or modify the plan; but at that point US will be able to stick its foot in the door and file a plan.

 

[eolesen]

"EVEN" AMERICAN AIRLINES had to deal with Donald Trump, some years back. But you did'nt see/hear Bob CRANDALL...boo hoo/ing/wailing about it !! He just methodically went about the task of "kicking (a few A$$E$) , and taking names"....End result, "(bad hair piece)-Trump, slithered AWAY.

Uh, you're giving Crandall a lot more credit than is deserved, Bears.

Trump's offer for AMR was at $120 a share; AMR was trading around $97 at the time. After Trump's announcement, the stock dropped to $70, at which point Trump backed away, since there was no point in paying a $50 premium on a $70 stock. While Crandall's opposition to the deal probably helped matters, it was overall opposition to leveraged buy-outs which ultimately killed the deal.

 

[ATL 73N]

But then again, DL was/is "NO AA", nor will they ever be !

And thank God for that.

 

[luv2fly]

But then again, DL was/is "NO AA", nor will they ever be !
NH/BB's

Why all the hate brotha???

 

[flyhigh]

Part of the reason AA's stock dropped is that AMR instituted it's poison pill which helped drop the value.

I think the Delta case is going to be different if nothing else. We should, if nothing else, see a case where a time extension shouldn't be granted. If it is, we'll see many motions opposing. I'm more or less looking forward to seeing the system work in a way it hasn't before in this industry. It sets precedent which is always important.

 

[SoftLanding]

1.
2.
3.
4.

1. Industry consolidation...who knows, if the government allows it, it'll happen. My feeling is it would be the smaller carriers, (AAI, ALK, JBLU, and maybe FRNT, MEH), that would see the action. This would take seats out of the system, and allow the larger carriers to control the yield.

2. Agree completely, a complete overlap. Maybe a reduction of 30'ish % would be more like it, and having to discard CLT as a hub, for this deal to get the OK from DOJ.

3. Stronger plan, maybe, but looks to me that what Delta really needs is a strong CEO. This is all about the stock price, and LCC surely is a winner. Wall Street does not care about employees, US Airways is laying ca$h on the table, and some creditors like what they see. Doug Parker does not want to expand, he has said so several times, buying/merging is obviously a way to increase size and take cost, and seats, out of the combined system and hopefully adding to the bottom line without adding seats to the system.

4. Delta People...how happy are they really? Did they not get raped in CH 11? Like the rest of the carriers in Ch 11? The bankruptcy code was used for destroying contracts, and if anyone was to blame anyone, blame the government; the Bush Adm. did not lift a finger when pensions (especially) was destroyed...So I'm not so sure the Delta People are all that much against this proposed transaction. Parker has already said that the highest payscales would be the order of the day...(As an aside, what is waiting for

BTW, where are the counter-bids?

Should hear something soon from today's meeting(s)...


SoftLanding

 

[Gilding the Lily]

4. Delta People...how happy are they really? Did they not get raped in CH 11? Like the rest of the carriers in Ch 11? The bankruptcy code was used for destroying contracts, and if anyone was to blame anyone, blame the government; the Bush Adm. did not lift a finger when pensions (especially) was destroyed...So I'm not so sure the Delta People are all that much against this proposed transaction. Parker has already said that the highest payscales would be the order of the day...(As an aside, what is waiting for

SoftLanding

First, despite my disdain for the Bush Administration, the pension breaking was not a result of Bush's action or non-action. Rather, it was a result of the "corporate favorable" bankruptcy code that has been in effect since 1978 (even the prior codes were somewhat favorable to corporations).

The new "BAPCPA" code (in effect after the Delta filing) is not as favorable to corporations but, rather, is more lenient to consumers and employees.

Second, bankruptcy is allowed in the USA to give debtors a second chance. If the code did not allow debtors to reject contracts, then most corporations would be forced into liquidation. (If they were able to accept all the pre-bankruptcy contracts then why would they be filing for bankruptcy in the first place?)

If a large carrier was forced to liquidate, then thousands of people would be without jobs. Because so many people would flood into the job market simultaneously, it would be difficult to find another job at a comparable market rate (or maybe not find another job at all). At that point, everyone would be whining about losing their jobs and potentially their pensions. People need to understand that pension breaking is often a necessary evil to reach a greater good.

Lastly, I feel very sorry about people losing their pensions and I hope it never happens to me. But pensions are an investment... and like most investments, they carry a risk. Not only are you investing in the stocks your plan will pick; but you are also betting on your own company. You are essentially betting (investing) on the fact that your company will not become insolvent and under-fund the plan. And if a company is insolvent, for some reason, history has shown that the pension is often under-funded. I understand that most employees have placed greater faith in pensions than they have in stocks or other market-evolved investment products; but perhaps that greater faith was unwarranted.

 

[hp_fa]

Lastly, I feel very sorry about people losing their pensions and I hope it never happens to me. But pensions are an investment... and like most investments, they carry a risk. Not only are you investing in the stocks your plan will pick; but you are also betting on your own company. You are essentially betting (investing) on the fact that your company will not become insolvent and under-fund the plan. And if a company is insolvent, for some reason, history has shown that the pension is often under-funded. I understand that most employees have placed greater faith in pensions than they have in stocks or other market-evolved investment products; but perhaps that greater faith was unwarranted.

I disagree with this. Pensions, in the traditional sense, are not a risk investment by an employee. It is a promise from the employer as part of that employees compensation package. IRA's, 401K's, et.al, are different. They are an employees investment for retirement, often with employer contributions in the form of matching. In those instruments the employee does indeed take a risk, large or small, depending on how the employee chooses to invest.

 

[SoftLanding]

Just to pick on one item, true the "new' bankruptcy code is tougher on companies, but you cannot with sincerity compare a company with the avarage Joe's and Jane's.

Corporations have the big $$$, whereas the "little" people have little to fight with for their rights.

Also, most people filing, was due medical emergiencies. (And of course a small % that were overleveraged...)

And to pick up on something else, (mentioned above), if the compensation package (wages, pensions etc.) had to be destroyed, why not the top managers also? Remember, lead by example...

SoftLanding

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Just to pick on one item, true the "new' bankruptcy code is tougher on companies, but you cannot with sincerity compare a company with the avarage Joe's and Jane's.

I am not comparing a large company with an average "Joe and Jane." Rather, I am comparing the pre-BAPCPA code and the post-BAPCPA code.

And comparing the two codes, one would find that the pre-BAPCPA code was more favorable to corporations filing Ch. 11. Congress has decided that it was a bit too friendly and, thus, made some changes.

The post-BAPCPA code is also favorable to credit card companies.