Bob Owens

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Member Since 09 Sep 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 04:49 PM

Find content

Community Stats

Group Registered Member
Active Posts 10,332
Profile Views 12,521
Member Title Veteran
Age Age Unknown
Birthday Birthday Unknown
Gender
Male

Contact Information

80 Excellent

Friends

Bob Owens hasn't added any friends yet.

Latest Visitors

southwind
22 May 2012 - 15:41
NYer
21 May 2012 - 17:49
737823
21 May 2012 - 17:46
Flying low
21 May 2012 - 07:28
Boomer
20 May 2012 - 07:19

In Topic: TERM SHEET DURATION........

Yesterday, 04:49 PM

FWAAA, on 23 May 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

The bankruptcy judge does not impose permanent terms under 1113c.    As a general rule, debtors (including AA) are free to reject any executory contract, but labor contracts can be rejected by the debtor only if the debtor satisfies 1113c.  If the judge determines that the debtor has satisfied 1113c, then AA may reject the labor agreements.   If that happens, the judge imposes nothing.   The debtor - AA - is free to impose its terms, and case law interprets that to mean the term sheets.

About the bolded portion:  One of the requirements of 1113c is that the parties attempted to negotiate changes to the labor agreements.   If AA had refused to do so, then it could not possibly satisfy the provisions of 1113c.

IMO, you have sold your members a bill of goods.   You have repeatedly posted that rejecting TAs and then the LBO would result in better offers down the line.   So far, that hasn't happened.    You have repeatedly posted that abrogation sends the parties to immediate section 6 negotiations and that the members will not have to live with the term sheets for six years.   On that one, I think you'll again be proven incorrect (although it's likely that AA will continue to negotiate so it won't have to impose the term sheets).

For nearly six months now, it's been posted that bankruptcy means concessions - either approved by the membership or imposed by the company following abrogation under 1113c.

For those of you who have stuck around for the last nine years hoping that things would get better - it's obvious that they are not going to get better.    That became crystal clear for most on November 29, 2011.    AA's employees have now had nearly six months to prepare resumes and seek better opportunities.   For those still on the payroll - what the hell are you waiting for?

Check the record before you make accusations. I've repeatedly said we must keep voting No until we get a better deal and we will not get the best deal before the 11th hour of the 29th day. I still hold that to be true. We must prepare to battle the company, if they impose we must shut them down, wether the courts like it or not. If everyone else who has contracts imnposed in a one sided process can do it then we must assert our rights to be treated equally under the law.

In Topic: TERM SHEET DURATION........

Yesterday, 04:42 PM

CMH_GSE, on 23 May 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I believe it's already been stated that the judge in this case will not impose a final "tweaked" offer, he will only impose the March 22 term sheets, the "untweaked" version.

No, the Judge either abrogates or he doesnt. When he makes his decision he will decide whether or not we had good reason to reject based upon the March 22nd term sheet. You have to remember the intent. The Intent was for the company to approach the unions with what was necissary, they are not supposed to ask for things that are not necissary. So if the company does like AA did and asks for everything, and therefore helps the Unions show they have good reason but then negotiates something less ridiculous, the judge should only look and see if they were justified in rejecting the terms presented.

In Topic: TERM SHEET DURATION........

Yesterday, 04:25 PM

Hopeful, on 23 May 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

You need to debate 700UW on this one. I believe he experienced first hand this issue.

At this point I don't know what the judge can, will, won't, can't do with respects to abrogation.
I am no expert.
From here on end, since I am no expert like others here, I will return to this forum when either an agreement is reached or on June 22 when the judge makes his ruling.
I am no longer going to give my opinion nor am I going to listen to others opinions like they are right from Chapter 11 text books.

I will wait for the one person who will decide things....And that's the judge!
If a lawyer cannot give a definitive answer to a simple question, then who is anyone else here to speak as if they are end all?

No need to debate him he is being an ass, he supported all the concessions at USAIR and is probably here hoping we do the same to make him look better for supporting concessions there.

The issue actually came up in discussion today between the Pilots lawyer and the company. They were talking about the labor concessions and the term. The Pilots lawyer indicated that theres a good chance that their Business plan may have to be adjusted and clearly stated to the Company witness that there will be no imposing of a six year term.. She said "Are you aware that if the 1113 is granted that it does not impose a new contract?"
Company witness "Yes, I'm aware."

If there is no contract there is no term.

I hear that some are claiming thats not the case but look at what the motion is, its to abrogate. There is no contract so there is no six year term. 700UW may be getting confused between an 1113(e) motion, where a Judge can impose changes to the contract but they are temporary till they either negotiate changes or the judge abrogates and an 1113c motion to abrogate. With $4.8 billion and climbing the company would be hard pressed to prove their case for an 1113(e), thats why they didnt bother. Like I said I see nothing in the law that gives the Judge the right to impose upon workers anything other than temporary changes.

In Topic: TERM SHEET DURATION........

Yesterday, 09:30 AM

Hopeful, on 23 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Ok, I will take your word based on your experience with this.

Does everyone NOW realize that we might be stuck with the term sheets for six years anyway?

Show me where a Judge has authority to do that. Under 1113(e) it says he can impose temporary terms but show me where it says he can impose permanent terms. If they could then why would there even be a requirement top bargain.

Show me one example of a non-consentaual deal that was put in place by the court outside of 1113(e) .

In Topic: Delta Pilots get 29% pay raise will this affect the APA

22 May 2012 - 06:40 AM

Hopeful, on 22 May 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

I agree.....Also, people need to keep in mind Delta's bankruptcy is far behind them.

It was brought up in court yesterday. Of course its relevant because it speaks to what the market rate is for Pilots. remember that BK was to abrogate contracts with onerous terms, not to simply allow companies to lock in low pay rates for long terms. If AA gets what they want Deltas second BK wont be far ahead of them.