Hopefully with all that excessive verbiage behind us, we can finally talk about how “risk” and “uncertainty” apply to the MOU. Although a “no” vote on the MOU was previously described by another writer as an “uncertainty,” it is actually a “risk.” Although we do not know exactly what Parker would do with a “no” vote, we certainly do know what he could do. For instance, Parker could come back with an even worse MOU (extremely unlikely as he loses all credibility in the eyes of APA, the creditors, etc.) or he does nothing (again unlikely as he is by his own words and promises trying to put together a merger. Doing nothing defies logic and good business sense and ignores the elephant in the room. It makes the creditors wonder how serious Parker is about achieving the synergies of a big airline. Parker’s ego does not want nor will he be permitted to run three separate airlines.) or he comes back kicking and screaming with an MOU (or better yet, a contract) that is more palatable to the pilot group. In my opinion, this is his only real option if he wants to hold this merger together. Too much time, money and energy have been expended by Parker and others to let it fall apart now.......... I no longer care about "what ifs"
