Ultimately if you see a unification of the big 3 (GOA, AOCA and OCA) you will see the other members of SCOBA join the party.
Since the question was about the practical - I don't think a big three merger is practical. It would likely produce some parishes, clergy and laity leaving the big three. I don't think it follows that other members of SCOBA would join either - it would likely mean an end to SCOBA. It would likely also be the 'straw that broke the camels back' with the Moscow-Constantinople standoff. The point being, even if such a merger occurred, it would just be the same old story with one jurisdiction claiming to be the only canonical Church for America while sharing the same space with other canonical jurisdictions including some having remaining canonical claims to the territory of the Americas. Until all parties are ready, then we can't call a merger of any jurisdictions 'Orthodox Unity in America' - anymore than we can call the OCA Autocephaly, reunion of MP-ROCOR, the UOCA-UOCUSA or the two Antiochian jurisdictions.
(I say that being aware that the Americas were first under the jurisdiction, pre-schism, of the Latin rite Archbishop St. Libentius I (Liawizo/Libizo) O.S.B. of Hamburg-Bremen +1013, January 4 and the crown of Olaf Tryggvason of Norway +1000, Sep 9, the Patriarch of Rome being Pope Sylvester II, +1003, May 12. Leif Ericcson's mission west to found the first Western settlements being undertaken with the express disire of King Olaf to expand the Church into the West lands amongst the Skraelings. The first recorded to find America according to the records being the Hebridean Christian Bjarni Herjulfson. I think there is just as much a valid claim there for the Americas not being 'virgin territory' for either Russian or Greek claims and so the same sensitivity as towards Western Christians in Europe need apply - ie, the Americas are 'Latin' territory as the pre-Russian mission Papal decrees for Spain and Portugal illustrate.)
This was before the financial stuff came out though, back when Bishop Nikolai was saying unity would happen by joining the OCA
Has this particular scandal changed the opinions of hierarchs, clergy and laity? I had not noticed locally. If so, then glory to God - even in sorrow some good may come.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a two way street. The AOA mission nearest me started 10 miles from one OCA parish and 15 from another. They also pulled in a number of people directly from one of the parishes.
I agree - though I don't know if the situation you describe is like that which I experienced (which I note, was quite public - accusations being made against the existing GOA, AOA, and ROCA parishes to the media.) None of the existing parishes begrudged them wanting to have OCA missions, just how it was portrayed to the media and us still in the existing parishes that the rest of us were so 'liberal', 'unwelcoming', 'not for Russians', 'not convert', 'schismatic', 'not for Americans', etc. However, that comes back to charity - I can't understand why some can throw such a fit about a new mission for folk that aren't under their jurisdiction to begin with. Yet, we have members who will throw fits about a new mission for converts, or of a different ethnicity, or Western rite - even in cities with hundreds of thousands, even millions of citizens. The assumption seems to be that all their folk are going to 'switch ethnicities or rites'. There also seems to be a lack of understanding that a city with a huge population cannot be served by a mere handful of parishes - and there are some folk (the weak again) who are less likely to come if they don't have a parish that includes them (ie, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Greek, American, Ukrainian, Hispanic, etc.). Unless there is only 120 folk in town, and all of them of the same language and culture, then having only one parish makes no sense. Part of that charity thing I brought up includes the pastoral love to serve the weak rather than kill or drive them off.