The provisions require the company attempting to negotiate in good faith, and proving that the modifications are necessary for the successful restructuring of the estate.
It won't take much to show that having a lowered cost structure commensurate or lower than its peers will improve the likelihood of the company surviving.
We can probably argue for years about what negotiating in good faith constitutes, but in the end, the judge gets to decide if there was a reasonable attempt by the company to find a consensual solution.
My opinion is that the company may appear to some to only be going thru the motions, since their position hasn't changed much from when contract openers started, but they only have to engage in discussions.
There's no requirement for the union to do anything, but I don't see where they're doing themselves any favors by choosing to look for legal loopholes, instead of trying to find some common ground.
The more games they play, the more likely I see it being for the judge to pencil whip the box that says "good faith discussions were attempted but unsuccessful".
I can't recall a case where a bankruptcy abrogation was appealed, and while an extreme outcome, it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen here given some of the other attempts in this proceeding...
But that will also cost the unions more money, and my guess is that the unions have already resigned themselves to the fact that the term sheets really are the best they can hope for. By stonewalling, they know they can avoid being held accountable to the same degree the union leaders in 2003 were, which meant being replaced for the APA and APFA leadership, but driving the union into bankruptcy would also leave them open to being replaced...