Afa News

[ClueByFour]

The S.1113© statute has never been tested in court, the bankruptcy judge has great latitude, and if he allows "self help", US Airways said it would liquidate the company.

During a formal reorganization the judge's primary responsibility is to the creditors and to return the company to solvency.

No. It's to maximize creditor return. If a liquidation does that (and it's increasingly clear that very well might be the case for the creditors in the US case), he'll convert it to a Chapter 7.

During the S.1113© hearing the judge has two options: he can rule in favor of the company or the union. The company's motion prevents a strike and after the S.1113© process is complete then the RLA would apply. Thus, if the judge rules in favor of the company's motion, there will be no strike and further negotiation would occur, under the guidance of the Department of Labor and the NMB (according to US Airways' motion).

As with all motions, the judge goes not have to grant it in whole--witness the S1113(e) motion.

 

[JS]

There are only two ways that all airline employees (excluding those laid off) can be paid the same as they were in early 2001, and they are:

1) force all carriers currently in Chapter 11 out of business (eliminating thousands of airline jobs)

2) hand airlines direct operating subsidies


There is only *one* way for all airline employees to be paid the same as they were in early 2001 as well as all laid off employees to be rehired at early 2001 pay rates, and that is #2 above -- direct operating subsidies from the taxpayers.

Re-regulation will only result in more layoffs, because higher prices mean fewer passengers, and that means fewer employees will be needed.

Taxpayers are not going to foot the bill, so it's either retain existing jobs at lower pay, or shove people into the unemployment line to supplement pay of the remaining employees.

Ranting or whining is not going to change economic FACTS.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As with all motions, the judge goes not have to grant it in whole--witness the S1113(e) motion.

[post="201840"][/post]​

Interesting thought, Clue. The company is requesting a single order that would 1- abrogate contracts, 2- reduce retiree benefits, and 3- terminate DB pensions.

Despite the conflicting/untested nature of the 1113c process, there is one area where we have a history with this judge and motions by this company - termination of pensions. That is one of the motions filed in BK 1 that this judge didn't grant.

Jim