J.P. Morgan Initial Report on US Airways
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Oh - Air Wisconsin/Eastshore is enjoying their returns very well I suspect. Ya see, US had already taken their money so there was no way out of giving them their stock.
Republic/Wexford's investment agreement, on the other hand, was cast aside once PAR, Tudor, ACE, etc, came on board. No 20% of the equity for them....
Jim
Any notions on how much stock they got and what they paid for it
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Eastshore or Wexford? Wexford got zip - US backed out of the investment agreement with them - so paid nothing.
Eastshore ended up with 8-1/3 million shares - they sold their option to acquire more shares to PAR - and paid $15 IIRC. They were the largest shareholder initially, but PAR has since surpassed them by a wide margin.
Jim
Eastshore ended up with 8-1/3 million shares - they sold their option to acquire more shares to PAR - and paid $15 IIRC. They were the largest shareholder initially, but PAR has since surpassed them by a wide margin.
Jim
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #50
The vast majpority of the information in my last post was written by MEC Vice-Chairman Kim Snider with input from ALPA's financial and legal advisors, not USA320Pilot.
I find it iteresting that some of our prolific ALPA hardliners, which support the RC4, repeatedly used the "roll call" vote and thier control of the ALPA MEC to provide the pilot group with a concession greater than the company's "ask".
These "so called" leaders were the first people to control a MEC in the history of ALPA that gave the company a "concession" more than the ask. Regardless of what people say, the RC4 and their supporters did not have to send out the TA for vote, but they did.
It's the RC4's hand picked Negotiating Committee that negotiated the deal. In fact, I heard Negotiating Committee Chairman Doug Mowrey say equity was no big deal, except at today's prices it would be worth over $100,000 per pilot!
As MEC vice-chairman Captain Snider said, "Some have suggested that since it is possible that once again management might have tried to change a deal (after entering bankruptcy) that there was no opportunity lost by not accepting the offer of 19.33% of the Company stock. Such thinking is in a word "goofy" as no negotiator wants to be dealing from a weaker position instead of a stronger position. Additionally, anyone familiar with the bankruptcy process knows that the unsecured creditors get the "left-overs" from the process. This is important because the additional stock that the US Airways pilots would be entitled to at the 19.33% level would have simply decreased the amount of stock "left-over" from the bankruptcy process for the unsecured creditors and would not have affected the stock allocation to the new equity investors."
"As a disclaimer the following discussion corrects the major misstatements by the PHL and PIT representatives about the consequences of not accepting the Company offer, prior to bankruptcy, of 19.33% of the Company stock. This discussion will not correct every misstatement made about this issue as that would take more time and space than is practical to cover in this set of Q&As," Snider said.
USA320Pilot comments: MEC vice-chairman Kim Snider indicated the RC4's thinking was "goofy" and they had "major misstatements", which is another nice way to discuss their lack of integrity and character. Moreover, I believe there have been three separate times that former and current MEC chairman Bill Pollock and Jack Stephen (then Communications Committee Chairman) had to publicly correct the RC4's purposeful misrepresentation on the ALPA code-a-phone, which speaks loudly about the character of the PA Representatives.
Again, the majority of the comments are not mine, they're from people like Bill Pollock, Jack Stephen, Kim Snider, ALPA investment banker/financial advisor Michael Glanzer, and ALPA legal council Mike Abram from Cowen, Weiss, and Simon.
Finally, I find it interesting that a US Airways passenger like ClueByFour from his forum posts seem to know more than every ALPA National Official, every ALPA financial advisor, every ALPA legal advisor, all 3 MEC officers, and 2/3 of the MEC. I believe it's this same type of logic that caused MEC vice-chairman Kim Snider to write about "goofy" (thoughts) and "major misstatements", which severely damaged the amount of money in pilot wallets.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
I find it iteresting that some of our prolific ALPA hardliners, which support the RC4, repeatedly used the "roll call" vote and thier control of the ALPA MEC to provide the pilot group with a concession greater than the company's "ask".
These "so called" leaders were the first people to control a MEC in the history of ALPA that gave the company a "concession" more than the ask. Regardless of what people say, the RC4 and their supporters did not have to send out the TA for vote, but they did.
It's the RC4's hand picked Negotiating Committee that negotiated the deal. In fact, I heard Negotiating Committee Chairman Doug Mowrey say equity was no big deal, except at today's prices it would be worth over $100,000 per pilot!
As MEC vice-chairman Captain Snider said, "Some have suggested that since it is possible that once again management might have tried to change a deal (after entering bankruptcy) that there was no opportunity lost by not accepting the offer of 19.33% of the Company stock. Such thinking is in a word "goofy" as no negotiator wants to be dealing from a weaker position instead of a stronger position. Additionally, anyone familiar with the bankruptcy process knows that the unsecured creditors get the "left-overs" from the process. This is important because the additional stock that the US Airways pilots would be entitled to at the 19.33% level would have simply decreased the amount of stock "left-over" from the bankruptcy process for the unsecured creditors and would not have affected the stock allocation to the new equity investors."
"As a disclaimer the following discussion corrects the major misstatements by the PHL and PIT representatives about the consequences of not accepting the Company offer, prior to bankruptcy, of 19.33% of the Company stock. This discussion will not correct every misstatement made about this issue as that would take more time and space than is practical to cover in this set of Q&As," Snider said.
USA320Pilot comments: MEC vice-chairman Kim Snider indicated the RC4's thinking was "goofy" and they had "major misstatements", which is another nice way to discuss their lack of integrity and character. Moreover, I believe there have been three separate times that former and current MEC chairman Bill Pollock and Jack Stephen (then Communications Committee Chairman) had to publicly correct the RC4's purposeful misrepresentation on the ALPA code-a-phone, which speaks loudly about the character of the PA Representatives.
Again, the majority of the comments are not mine, they're from people like Bill Pollock, Jack Stephen, Kim Snider, ALPA investment banker/financial advisor Michael Glanzer, and ALPA legal council Mike Abram from Cowen, Weiss, and Simon.
Finally, I find it interesting that a US Airways passenger like ClueByFour from his forum posts seem to know more than every ALPA National Official, every ALPA financial advisor, every ALPA legal advisor, all 3 MEC officers, and 2/3 of the MEC. I believe it's this same type of logic that caused MEC vice-chairman Kim Snider to write about "goofy" (thoughts) and "major misstatements", which severely damaged the amount of money in pilot wallets.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
Do know any thing about how many shares Air Wisconsin received I have try to find info unsuccessful
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Air Wisconsin is 100% owned by Eastshore, so Air Wis didn't get any stock directly - Eastshore put in the money (as a loan which converted to equity upon BK exit) and got the stock. Part of the deal was that Air Wisconsin would be able to fly as one of our affiliate express carriers.
It was a similiar arrangement with Republic/Wexford - remember the airline called Republic wasn't in operation (no operating certificate yet) when the agreement was reached for Wexford to invest $125 million (same as Eastshore) upon BK exit. Part of that deal was the E170 sale with Republic flying them as another affiliate.
Jim
It was a similiar arrangement with Republic/Wexford - remember the airline called Republic wasn't in operation (no operating certificate yet) when the agreement was reached for Wexford to invest $125 million (same as Eastshore) upon BK exit. Part of that deal was the E170 sale with Republic flying them as another affiliate.
Jim
PITbull
Veteran
USA320,
Didn't your MECP Pollock resign this year???? Isn't it because he lacked support from the majority of the MEC (which is not a rollcall) basically senatorial voting???
Didn't Jack Stephens get voted to replace Bill?
Jack better take his hands out of his pockets and stand up straight and pay attention...otherwise, he too will be sitting on the "outside" looking in.
Didn't your MECP Pollock resign this year???? Isn't it because he lacked support from the majority of the MEC (which is not a rollcall) basically senatorial voting???
Didn't Jack Stephens get voted to replace Bill?
Jack better take his hands out of his pockets and stand up straight and pay attention...otherwise, he too will be sitting on the "outside" looking in.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #55
PITBull:
PITBull said: "Didn't your MECP Pollock resign this year???? Isn't it because he lacked support from the majority of the MEC (which is not a rollcall) basically senatorial voting??? Didn't Jack Stephens get voted in inseated? Jack better take his hands out of his pockets and stand up straight and pay attention...otherwise, he too will be sitting on the "outside" looking in."
USA320Pilot answers: No, that is not what happened during private caucus outside of the meeting. The PA Representatives wanted Bill Pollock removed from office because Bill went public regarding the PA Reps. dishonesty and misrepresentation, which cost the pilot group millions of dollars according to ALPA's advisors.
The PA Representatives “roll called’ a change to ALPA policy to state a partial term was in essence a full term, which meant Bill could not run again.
When the PA Representatives did not have the senatorial votes to elect Doug Mowrey MEC chairman a political compromise was struck to have Jack Stephen become the new MEC chairman.
Jack is an excellent choice to be the MEC chairman…just like Bill Pollock was. Jack is an honest hard working individual who will be an excellent leader.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
PITBull said: "Didn't your MECP Pollock resign this year???? Isn't it because he lacked support from the majority of the MEC (which is not a rollcall) basically senatorial voting??? Didn't Jack Stephens get voted in inseated? Jack better take his hands out of his pockets and stand up straight and pay attention...otherwise, he too will be sitting on the "outside" looking in."
USA320Pilot answers: No, that is not what happened during private caucus outside of the meeting. The PA Representatives wanted Bill Pollock removed from office because Bill went public regarding the PA Reps. dishonesty and misrepresentation, which cost the pilot group millions of dollars according to ALPA's advisors.
The PA Representatives “roll called’ a change to ALPA policy to state a partial term was in essence a full term, which meant Bill could not run again.
When the PA Representatives did not have the senatorial votes to elect Doug Mowrey MEC chairman a political compromise was struck to have Jack Stephen become the new MEC chairman.
Jack is an excellent choice to be the MEC chairman…just like Bill Pollock was. Jack is an honest hard working individual who will be an excellent leader.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
You know Internet slander is a suable offense.
There you go again making false accusations.
PITbull
Veteran
USA320,
I am sure the pilots will be expecting great representation from Jack. Hopefully he will do much better than his predessor.
Otherwise, the East members will be looking to the West MECP for representation once intergration occurs.
I am sure the pilots will be expecting great representation from Jack. Hopefully he will do much better than his predessor.
Otherwise, the East members will be looking to the West MECP for representation once intergration occurs.
supercruiser
Advanced
The bottom line is guys like USA320Pilot and obviously many more like him would have voted yes for ANYTHING presented, and that was clearly telegraphed to Jerry Glass and the rest of US management well before any "tentative agreement." The pilots truly responsible for the weak agreement that they now live under are USA320Pilot and all the others that voted in favor of it, not any individual ALPA rep or negotiator. In retrospect, the extremely weak and fractured US pilot group should have "gone ugly early" as Garland Jones recommended, as negotiations were just a futile exercise in crafting a worse agreement, which Jerry Glass enjoyed immensely.
supercruiser
supercruiser
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Which was one of Bill's many miserable failures as MEC Chairman.....
It's no accident that the MEC chairman only has a vote when a tie needs to be broken (unless he/she has a votie as a LEC rep). It's because the role of the MEC chairman isn't to take sides in disagreements or air the dirty laundry in public.
The role of the MEC Chairman is to lead the MEC reps to a consensus decision on the issues, whether he/she agrees with that decision or not. It's then his/her job to be the "face" behind that decision, whether it's to the pilots, the company, or the public, even if he/she disagrees with that decision.
Bill came to believe he was the MEC and forgot that he was supposed to represent the MEC. Ego does that to some people.....
Jim
