Let the mediation begin!

[NYer]

There is nothing in mediation that will force a settlement as the trial is set to being as scheduled on November 25th. The DOJ would have to make a major step backwards in order to accept a settlement since their goals are to prevent a merger from taking place.
 
Aside from that, if the airlines give major concessions that will hinder their projected revenue...guess what? They'll have to re-do the POR and once again gain the acceptance of all the Creditors. All that seems to make a settlement difficult, at the very least.

 

[jimntx]

Jacobin and NYer, good points!  Let's all keep in mind that going through mediation does not guarantee a solution good or bad like arbitration would.  The arbitrator is empowered to decide the outcome--usually binding on all parties involved.  A mediator is nothing more than a facilitator charged with trying to help the disputants find a solution that both can agree to/live with.
 
With a mediator, a valid outcome is "no agreement was reached by the disputants, and I {the mediator} see no possibility of such agreement nor a reason to continue mediation."  At that point the judge will probably say, "see you all in court on the 25th.  Have your opening arguments prepared."

 

[FWAAA]

Speaking of experts.............MAXON SPEAKS....
 
The importance of this development is that the DOJ agreed to a mediator...
They began with a flat out rejection of the merger via a lawsuit....Now we're at the mediation stage.
True it is customary in similar cases to hammer something out. They could have easily rejected mediation and proceed to trial.
"Sorry your honor, we respectfully reject the offer of mediation because we still believe this merger will lead to higher fares, less competition and reduction in routes at many airports."

 
The government agreed to a mediator because the judge ordered the parties on August 30 to agree on the identity of a mediator.   And that's somehow a newsworthy development?
 
What do you mean by "Now we're at the mediation stage"?    There's been no news that the parties have been in negotiations at all, let alone with the mediator.   
 
I understand where you're coming from.    In Section 6 negotiations (where your familiarity with mediation probably arises), mediators are brought in when negotiations get nowhere.
 
In this case, the judge set the trial date and in the same paragraph, ordered the lawyers to agree on the identity of a mediator that they could use "in their discretion."   

Now, the news has come out that they did exactly what the judge ordered them to do, and all of a sudden, some of you are assuming multiple facts not yet in evidence - namely, that the parties are negotiating with each other.    They might be, but none of the links thus far establish any negotiations.  

I didn't know that using a mediator (which both the airlines and DOJ have agreed to do) was needed to gain
"nothing short of a full injunction against the merger" an outcome Assistant U.S Attorney General Bill Baer said would be needed to protect consumers.
Maybe it is a little more "noteworthy" than some want to admit!

Like I said - none of the links establish that the airlines and the DoJ have agreed to use a mediator.   The articles do confirm that they did what they were ordered to do, which was pick one.   

 

[700UW]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-seeking-divestitures-american-us-015259276.html

 

[MetalMover]

 
The government agreed to a mediator because the judge ordered the parties on August 30 to agree on the identity of a mediator.   And that's somehow a newsworthy development?
 
What do you mean by "Now we're at the mediation stage"?    There's been no news that the parties have been in negotiations at all, let alone with the mediator.   
 

I guess this latest development is not newsworthy either...
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-seeking-divestitures-american-us-020109452.html

 

[jimntx]

There's nothing really new in the article.  Just a rehash of statements and suppositions made public previously.  Always remember that when someone in the media is quoting "an unnamed source."  That source could be anyone from President Obama down to the reporter's next door neighbor's first cousin's dog groomer's hairdresser.
 
When people can not or will not allow themselves to be quoted by name, their motives for giving you the information and the information itself, are suspect.

 

[AANOTOK]

Yes Jim, the difference in this article and the others is exactly what FWAAA said wasn't present in previous "links".
 
This article clearly states "The two sides last week agreed to use a mediator, according to a court filing."
And it also say's both sides are in discussions. These are points that FWAAA stated were not evident in the other links. As for your criticism of "unnamed sources, happens all the time and more often than not they are in the know.

 

[FWAAA]

Yes Jim, the difference in this article and the others is exactly what FWAAA said wasn't present in previous "links".
 
This article clearly states "The two sides last week agreed to use a mediator, according to a court filing."
And it also say's both sides are in discussions. These are points that FWAAA stated were not evident in the other links. As for your criticism of "unnamed sources, happens all the time and more often than not they are in the know.

The quote from the article that you bolded is false.    Poor reporting.   Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
 
The court filing did not indicate that the two sides "agreed to use a mediator."   The court filing confirmed that both sides had agreed on the identity of a mediator which they are free to use at their discretion.

 

[AANOTOK]

Really, and I guess it stating they were in talks is more poor reporting...Dang, who to trust!

 

[jimntx]

Have you seen anyone else besides Yahoo (an old, well-respected news source--at least if you need to keep up with Lady Gaga) state that they are actually in mediation?  Everyone considers Terry Maxon at the Dallas Morning News to be the Oracle at Delphi when it comes to subjects AMR, and I don't believe he has said anything other than the two sides have agreed on a mediator, as FWAAA noted.  As he also noted, agreeing on the name of a mediator and using that mediator in talks are two different activities.

 

[swamt]

Yes Jim, the difference in this article and the others is exactly what FWAAA said wasn't present in previous "links".
 
This article clearly states "The two sides last week agreed to use a mediator, according to a court filing."
And it also say's both sides are in discussions. These are points that FWAAA stated were not evident in the other links. As for your criticism of "unnamed sources, happens all the time and more often than not they are in the know.

You beat me to it.  Little does FW realize they (DOT and the carriers) have been in talks even before the suit was filed, and this is why the suit was filed as the carriers didn't want to give anything up at all.   You really couldn't ask for a better timed article to come out...

 

[FWAAA]

All I'm asking is for people to think critically.   
 
Here is some actual news, as the story actually quotes someone in the know:
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department is looking for divestitures at key airports throughout the United States as a condition for dropping a lawsuit aimed at stopping the proposed merger of US Airways and American Airlines , U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday.
 
Holder said that talks with the companies, whose merger would create the world's largest airline, were ongoing and that he hoped for an agreement before a trial begins on November 25.

"We are fully prepared to take this case to trial" if settlement is not reached, Holder said.

 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-americanairlines-usairways-antitrust-20131104,0,817445.story

 

[jimntx]

Swamt..And, where is the source of your information that the talks have been going on since before the suit was filed?  There have been suppositions (here on AirlineForums and elsewhere) that the reason for a suit was that DP told them to go jump in the lake when they tried to get divestiture concessions from him.  However, I've never seen conclusive evidence of such talks.  The article quoted by FWAAA above indicates talks (since the filing of the suit) are ongoing.  By the way, the DOT (Department of Transportation) is the government agency that filed a suit or that needs to be convinced of the value of the merger.  It is the DOJ (Department of Justice) that has objections to the merger.  Big difference. 
 
Also note...talks between the DOJ and the parties are not the same as the alleged mediated talks.  Did you notice that Eric Holder made no reference to the mediator?  Just to the talks.  Sometimes news reports are more important for what they don't say as for what they do say.

 

[swamt]

Swamt..And, where is the source of your information that the talks have been going on since before the suit was filed?  There have been suppositions (here on AirlineForums and elsewhere) that the reason for a suit was that DP told them to go jump in the lake when they tried to get divestiture concessions from him.  However, I've never seen conclusive evidence of such talks.  The article quoted by FWAAA above indicates talks (since the filing of the suit) are ongoing.  By the way, the DOT (Department of Transportation) is the government agency that filed a suit or that needs to be convinced of the value of the merger.  It is the DoJ (Department of Justice) that has objections to the merger.  Big difference. 

Sorry mistyped, meant DOJ.  Jim, I was just confirming that I have read it over and over in all different articles.  Yes, I know you can't just believe everything you read.  But, you can bet the carriers would rather have an "agreed to" settlement rather than a court imposed one.   It is common practice for these little "sources" to leak information, and why is it you never ever hear of these "sources" getting fired for the leaks?  Because they are set to leak them to get the market to move.  No I can't prove this either, but we all know the leaks are planed, otherwise there would be people fired for the leaks.  Also 99% of the time the sources are correct in the end...

 

[swamt]

Swamt..And, where is the source of your information that the talks have been going on since before the suit was filed?  There have been suppositions (here on AirlineForums and elsewhere) that the reason for a suit was that DP told them to go jump in the lake when they tried to get divestiture concessions from him.  However, I've never seen conclusive evidence of such talks.  The article quoted by FWAAA above indicates talks (since the filing of the suit) are ongoing.  By the way, the DOT (Department of Transportation) is the government agency that filed a suit or that needs to be convinced of the value of the merger.  It is the DOJ (Department of Justice) that has objections to the merger.  Big difference. 
 
Also note...talks between the DOJ and the parties are not the same as the alleged mediated talks.  Did you notice that Eric Holder made no reference to the mediator?  Just to the talks.  Sometimes news reports are more important for what they don't say as for what they do say.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department is pressing for divestitures at airports throughout the United States as a condition for dropping a lawsuit aimed at stopping a proposed merger of US Airways (LCC) and American Airlines (AAMRQ.PK), U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday.
Holder said that talks with the companies, whose merger would create the world's largest airline, were ongoing and that he hoped for an agreement before a trial begins on November 25.
 
They are out there gentlemen.  Pretty sure Eric Holder is good enough, and he says the "ongoing" talks.  I was the one that said all this was going to happen from the get-go.  I was the first that also stated there would be very large divestures requested for the merger to go thru, which very well may be too large for the carriers to agree to, and may very well take their chances in court, but they would rather agree to a deal outside of court.
Terry will chime in after getting more info verified as he is that well respected.  I am guessing he will be called by the airlines (especially AA) once they want to give a comment on the divestures being requested.  Happy reading as this will get very interesting now thru and beyond Nov 25th...Trust me...