On the DoT transfer, the post-merger structure doesn’t require certificate transfer to my knowledge (I may have missed something). I understand the ultimate plan is to consolidate the entities, but that becomes a timing issue in 18-24 months rather than impacting the merger.
Is your understanding different? If not, why factor this DoT block risk into probabilities?
as a reverse triangle merger, my understanding is both entities can continue to operate while merger can also proceed. However I recognize how unusual this is, if DoT makes that move, we will be in a uncharted territory, thus I assign 5-10% odds to cover "unknown unkonwn" so to speak. you shall certainly adjust to your fitting. Cheers.
Thanks for the update, Siyu, great work, as always.
I am long SAVE but one sticking point I have, at least in theory, is what would a "reasonable" remedy be? There doesn't seem to be an obvious answer in the same way there was with a case like SPB/ATVI etc. I agree that we could think of many, perhaps countless, technical remedies that would nullify DOJ concerns but in the same way that I believe Judge Young doesn't want to issue the permanent injunction the DOJ requests because of its dogmatic nature, I think he would also be hesitant to create a 'regulated' market by crafting a solution that required 'x' seats on 'offending' routes on JBLU planes to be unbundled/basic etc not because that wouldn't work, but because who would do the monitoring? What would the reporting mechanism be? While I obviously think the DOJ is being over the top with their dogmatic views, I do have some empathy that there doesn't appear to be a particularly 'clean' solution. Would you disagree? Do you see a relative clean solution that Judge Young could actually get on board with if it were presented to him?
I agree. my "cheat" answer is it takes some one with greater wisdom than me (like Judge Young) to figure out a less-regulated solution that address public interest deficit so to speak.
say if the harm is considered short-term (say 2-3 years), then a relatively clean solution is to delay the effective transition (that deemed as harmful to consumers) for a period of time, like Jetblue said during the testimony the airplane conversion itself takes 12-18 months.
On the DoT transfer, the post-merger structure doesn’t require certificate transfer to my knowledge (I may have missed something). I understand the ultimate plan is to consolidate the entities, but that becomes a timing issue in 18-24 months rather than impacting the merger.
Is your understanding different? If not, why factor this DoT block risk into probabilities?
Cheers
A/C
as a reverse triangle merger, my understanding is both entities can continue to operate while merger can also proceed. However I recognize how unusual this is, if DoT makes that move, we will be in a uncharted territory, thus I assign 5-10% odds to cover "unknown unkonwn" so to speak. you shall certainly adjust to your fitting. Cheers.
Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for the update, Siyu, great work, as always.
I am long SAVE but one sticking point I have, at least in theory, is what would a "reasonable" remedy be? There doesn't seem to be an obvious answer in the same way there was with a case like SPB/ATVI etc. I agree that we could think of many, perhaps countless, technical remedies that would nullify DOJ concerns but in the same way that I believe Judge Young doesn't want to issue the permanent injunction the DOJ requests because of its dogmatic nature, I think he would also be hesitant to create a 'regulated' market by crafting a solution that required 'x' seats on 'offending' routes on JBLU planes to be unbundled/basic etc not because that wouldn't work, but because who would do the monitoring? What would the reporting mechanism be? While I obviously think the DOJ is being over the top with their dogmatic views, I do have some empathy that there doesn't appear to be a particularly 'clean' solution. Would you disagree? Do you see a relative clean solution that Judge Young could actually get on board with if it were presented to him?
I agree. my "cheat" answer is it takes some one with greater wisdom than me (like Judge Young) to figure out a less-regulated solution that address public interest deficit so to speak.
say if the harm is considered short-term (say 2-3 years), then a relatively clean solution is to delay the effective transition (that deemed as harmful to consumers) for a period of time, like Jetblue said during the testimony the airplane conversion itself takes 12-18 months.