WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
And guess what Tom , Parker is your enemy not the poor American Airlines TWU mechanics, but you don't give a crap as long as you get yours, poor Tom!
Aircraft maint issues
- Thread starter conehead777
- Start date
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
I don't have to put words, your all about yourself.
Tom Talbert 1888
Senior
- Banned
- #2,733
Ok Mr Flip Flop
You are spewing out the same lines and facts a certain former stock clerk poster here did.
And why should you get equity if you weren’t at the company during the bankruptcy and didn’t give concessions during AAs BK case?
Josh Gotbaum didn’t permit AA to terminate the pensions like USAIR was able to do in 2002-05. Sorry there are winners and losers but you really hit the lotto getting to come on the AA property and keep your full DOH the career expectations of LUS in 2013 were far more bleak than that of standalone LAA in 2013 with the aggressive standalone plan Horton & Virasb were going to execute on. There are winners and losers, and I thought the IAMPF was the best thing since sliced bread?
Josh
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
You call me flip flop, went to my road shows got involved again, and realized my union isn't my enemy, What have you done to help your Association get a contract? Looks like the only thing you have done is lived off the backs of your fellow American Airlines mechanics. I was a union steward for eight years when we were the Teamsters. I didn't like everything the Teamsters did, and I don't like everything AMFA does, but at least I know they are not going to roll over and give my stuff away.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
So (curiosity) are you now saying that yes you do prefer they not let you vote on something to have your full membership decide their own destiny if SWA is not moving?
And I’m glad that you support your Union. I just hope that now you’re not going to be coming over here like swamt to attack mine?
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
Nope I will not Wezz I am not like that, you know me. I hope you guys both maintenance and ramp get and industry leading contract. When we are moving up it helps everyone. I want something to vote on. I just realized that I was acting like an asshole toward my fellow union members. And as a steward that was trained in the right way, that was wrong. In reality as union members in the airline industry we need to support each other. When we got rid of the Teamsters, I voted to keep them, but was outvoted. So be it. If American feels like your union is not representing them, then they can vote how they see fit.
Regardless of Little's title at the time, he played a role in negotiations. His predecessor Ed Kosiatek was no better either. To answer your question, yes I think we would have fared a lot better had the company declared BK than what we ended up with - at least in Aircraft Maintenance. The BK judge would at least have to take a look at the industry averages of pay and benefits while deciding where and how much to cut. We compared the cuts to our counterparts at other airlines who filed for BK, and without a doubt - we took the biggest hit. Oh and it didn't stop there, our geniuses agreed to a 5 year agreement with no "snap back" provisions.
You left out Fed Ex and UPS.
Tom Talbert 1888
Senior
- Banned
- #2,739
The judge would do no such thing.
What other airlines employees make have zero to do with any other bankruptcy case.
The judge’s role is to make sure the creditors are paid as much as possible and the company has a viable POR.
What other airlines employees make have zero to do with any other bankruptcy case.
The judge’s role is to make sure the creditors are paid as much as possible and the company has a viable POR.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
Fed Ex and UPS are not passenger Airlines and I’ve yet to see any metric to use them as any comparator. Besides Vort it’s ridiculous that you guys also want to seek out the highest you can find for your skills trade but never use any of the lowest to calculate your averages. If you really want to include Fed Ex and UPS then you also need to count your Frontier, Air Tran, Piedmont, Spirit, etc whoever.
Now if a Judge had compared only to the list I made of 7 yes at that moment in 2003 you just “might” have fared better? Maybe, perhaps? BUT a Judge also would have had to look at TOTAL Labor costs for your group which YES would have included JOBS.
Now after we did our concessions the rest of the industry started to pop in to BK Court in 2005 and cut their Labor expenses even more than AA. So would AA had to have gone back into Court again? And if they had went in in 2003 NO we would NOT have kept our Pension. That would have been gone and thrown on the PBGC ABSOLUTELY 100%. PBGC is underfunded and we eventually would get pennies on the dollar. (Check out the info in Airline Data Project) that tells the tale that we were compensated from 05 on through till the BK better than the 7 (Minus SWA)
If we had a snap back clause in those givebacks we never would have hit the metrics to trigger it anyway. And you guys may not care or were willing to start over somewhere else but no I wouldn’t want to work for Eastern Airlines Part 2.
What role did Jim Little play in 2003? Not saying he wasn’t there in some capacity? I really don’t know? (And I’m glad to have at least even my Frozen Pension today)
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
There was something I recall in the AMR BK where Judge Lane did have to tread cautiously to not give AA an unfair advantage against its competitors. (Fed Ex and UPS were never mentioned as such)
Tom Talbert 1888
Senior
- Banned
- #2,742
Other airline labor costs have zero baring on what would happen in Chapter 11, we've been their twice at US and even had our CBA abrogated.
Comparing labor costs to give one airline an advantage over another is not the Judge's role in bankruptcy.
Because our labor costs were lower than the other majors and we had three rounds of concessions in two different chapter 11 cases.
Here is a link to the 2005 changes, there is no mention of what you speak of.
http://www.fullertonlaw.com/newsletters/117-bankruptcy-reform-act-of-2005
And there were no changes to the 1113 Process.
Comparing labor costs to give one airline an advantage over another is not the Judge's role in bankruptcy.
Because our labor costs were lower than the other majors and we had three rounds of concessions in two different chapter 11 cases.
Here is a link to the 2005 changes, there is no mention of what you speak of.
http://www.fullertonlaw.com/newsletters/117-bankruptcy-reform-act-of-2005
And there were no changes to the 1113 Process.
Last edited:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
I’m not going to attempt to retrace and locate the precise language that Judge Lane used and for what particular issue it may have entailed since with the thousands and thousands of pages of documents I’d have to sift through it would be a nightmare.
I clearly and succinctly recall his comments on not being able to give AA an unfair competitive advantage through the BK Court process.
Other Airlines and their BK processes were obviously uniquely different to AA since AA was the only BK to ever give a 100% return through shares on any losses to creditors.
Tom Talbert 1888
Senior
- Banned
- #2,744
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=369ecb29-48d1-4125-9ce9-e5a16bb37203
Here is what your judge stated.
"Was American’s Proposal Fair and Equitable?
Section 1113(b)(1)(A) requires a debtor’s proposal to treat all affected parties “fairly and equitably.” Generally, a debtor can satisfy this requirement by demonstrating that the proposal treats the union fairly compared to the burden imposed on other stakeholders. The APA argued that the proposal was not fair and equitable because (i) American had improperly valued the savings associated with changing the pilots’ maximum scheduled flying time; (ii) American had not considered an additional $21 million of lost pilot wages that would likely result from the increased use of regional jets; and (iii) the proposal did not take into account the concessions that the APA had agreed to in 2003 to help American avoid bankruptcy.
The court rejected these arguments finding that American’s approach to valuing projected savings from changes in flying time was generally consistent with the valuations utilized in previous airline bankruptcy cases. The additional $21 million of lost wages was speculative. Finally, the court acknowledged the APA’s 2003 sacrifices, but found that American’s proposal sought similar across the board concessions from all of its unions. As a result, the court held that the proposed uniform cuts to all of the unions was fair and equitable."
"
Did American Bargain in Good Faith?
Section 1113(b)(2) requires a debtor to negotiate in good faith after making a proposal to its unions. The APA argued that American did not negotiate in good faith. In support of this contention, the APA stated that American (i) did not change its “ask” from the original proposal; (ii) refused to negotiate over specific terms such as sick leave and maximum flying time; and (iii) requested concessions over and above those requested by American in its prepetition negotiations with the APA. The court held that although American did not make many changes to its proposal during negotiations, it did make some changes that satisfied the good faith requirement. Most notably, the court held that American’s decision to freeze its pension plans instead of outright termination was “particularly significant.” Accordingly, even though the total dollar amount of concessions remained unchanged, and some provisions in the proposal were non-negotiable, American’s willingness to modify its position on the pension plans demonstrated that American was negotiating in good faith. The court also held that comparisons to prepetition negotiations were inappropriate because “those proposals were designed to be acceptable to the unions, as opposed to fully addressing the company’s financial issues.”
In summary, the court found that American’s proposal generally satisfied the section 1113 requirements and that “rejection of the [CBA] is necessary for American to successfully reorganize.” However, the court found that the proposed changes to the furlough and codesharing provisions were not justified."
Conclusion
Although the court denied American’s motion to reject the CBA, it did so on very narrow grounds (limited only to two specific problems with the proposed terms). The court’s analysis provided the APA with only a small window of opportunity to negotiate some settlement. American’s swift response to the decision appears to be an indication that it intends to reject the CBA. The court’s decision also had an immediate impact on American’s negotiations with its flight attendants’ union. In a communication to its members, APFA characterized the decision as a “blistering indictment of the labor unions” and urged its members to ratify American’s proposal.
Judge Lane followed a very similar course to that pursued by Judge Drain in the recent Hostess decision denying Hostess’ efforts to reject its CBAs with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, but making clear that the Debtors had met the standards for termination of a CBA, except with respect to certain specific issues. Judges in the Southern District of New York have laid out a road map for debtors to terminate or modify CBAs under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, but Debtors will need to ensure that all aspects of the proposed plan are necessary for reorganization."
Here is what your judge stated.
"Was American’s Proposal Fair and Equitable?
Section 1113(b)(1)(A) requires a debtor’s proposal to treat all affected parties “fairly and equitably.” Generally, a debtor can satisfy this requirement by demonstrating that the proposal treats the union fairly compared to the burden imposed on other stakeholders. The APA argued that the proposal was not fair and equitable because (i) American had improperly valued the savings associated with changing the pilots’ maximum scheduled flying time; (ii) American had not considered an additional $21 million of lost pilot wages that would likely result from the increased use of regional jets; and (iii) the proposal did not take into account the concessions that the APA had agreed to in 2003 to help American avoid bankruptcy.
The court rejected these arguments finding that American’s approach to valuing projected savings from changes in flying time was generally consistent with the valuations utilized in previous airline bankruptcy cases. The additional $21 million of lost wages was speculative. Finally, the court acknowledged the APA’s 2003 sacrifices, but found that American’s proposal sought similar across the board concessions from all of its unions. As a result, the court held that the proposed uniform cuts to all of the unions was fair and equitable."
"
Did American Bargain in Good Faith?
Section 1113(b)(2) requires a debtor to negotiate in good faith after making a proposal to its unions. The APA argued that American did not negotiate in good faith. In support of this contention, the APA stated that American (i) did not change its “ask” from the original proposal; (ii) refused to negotiate over specific terms such as sick leave and maximum flying time; and (iii) requested concessions over and above those requested by American in its prepetition negotiations with the APA. The court held that although American did not make many changes to its proposal during negotiations, it did make some changes that satisfied the good faith requirement. Most notably, the court held that American’s decision to freeze its pension plans instead of outright termination was “particularly significant.” Accordingly, even though the total dollar amount of concessions remained unchanged, and some provisions in the proposal were non-negotiable, American’s willingness to modify its position on the pension plans demonstrated that American was negotiating in good faith. The court also held that comparisons to prepetition negotiations were inappropriate because “those proposals were designed to be acceptable to the unions, as opposed to fully addressing the company’s financial issues.”
In summary, the court found that American’s proposal generally satisfied the section 1113 requirements and that “rejection of the [CBA] is necessary for American to successfully reorganize.” However, the court found that the proposed changes to the furlough and codesharing provisions were not justified."
Conclusion
Although the court denied American’s motion to reject the CBA, it did so on very narrow grounds (limited only to two specific problems with the proposed terms). The court’s analysis provided the APA with only a small window of opportunity to negotiate some settlement. American’s swift response to the decision appears to be an indication that it intends to reject the CBA. The court’s decision also had an immediate impact on American’s negotiations with its flight attendants’ union. In a communication to its members, APFA characterized the decision as a “blistering indictment of the labor unions” and urged its members to ratify American’s proposal.
Judge Lane followed a very similar course to that pursued by Judge Drain in the recent Hostess decision denying Hostess’ efforts to reject its CBAs with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, but making clear that the Debtors had met the standards for termination of a CBA, except with respect to certain specific issues. Judges in the Southern District of New York have laid out a road map for debtors to terminate or modify CBAs under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, but Debtors will need to ensure that all aspects of the proposed plan are necessary for reorganization."
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,471
- 5,260
That was not the area that I recall Judge Lane stating that he could not give AA an unfair advantage against its Major competitors.
But I want to thank you for locating that piece as it does refute (Judge Lane) the consistent argument on these threads where Aircraft Mechanics continue to make the false claim that they were treated more harshly on cuts in 2003 than other Labor groups were.
It’s easy to start to believe a false narrative when you hear it repeated enough times. (Why Fake News is so prevalent today)
