APA getting a tad nervous?
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
Flying the line just like any other pilot.
Heard a pilot say today that the APA is going on strike, I know you can't go on strike until released by NMB. But he seems to think that a strike is legal as long as the union doesn't sanction it.
To me that sounds a lot like restriction of output, but I don't want to call this guy a moron if there is something I don't know.
To me that sounds a lot like restriction of output, but I don't want to call this guy a moron if there is something I don't know.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Good luck with that. Ask the guys how well that went in 1997.
It went well E.
If we hadn't, Carty would have run the Reno pilot's for a much longer time on the seperate certificate and probably would have tried the same with TWA. Figure AA running several codeshare carriers under the AMR banner with little print saying "operated by reno/twa somewhere on the tail.
The failure was not settling the fine. APA should have cut a check to the court like a bad bet on 18 holes and assessed the membership to cover the cost over a two year period. It would have been about $3500-$4000 per pilot. I call that beer money. Instead we paid well more than that to settle it in 2003.
Funny thing is people think AA has an unlimited free reign to do whatever they want under the vise of the goverment as of yesterday. Sounds like we work for Air Cubana with the threat of making Raul upset.
We'll see if they manage motivation or try to get the goverment to do it. Mabe they can get a good seat on the floor in CLT tonight, it's the same mentality.
If we hadn't, Carty would have run the Reno pilot's for a much longer time on the seperate certificate and probably would have tried the same with TWA. Figure AA running several codeshare carriers under the AMR banner with little print saying "operated by reno/twa somewhere on the tail.
The failure was not settling the fine. APA should have cut a check to the court like a bad bet on 18 holes and assessed the membership to cover the cost over a two year period. It would have been about $3500-$4000 per pilot. I call that beer money. Instead we paid well more than that to settle it in 2003.
Funny thing is people think AA has an unlimited free reign to do whatever they want under the vise of the goverment as of yesterday. Sounds like we work for Air Cubana with the threat of making Raul upset.
We'll see if they manage motivation or try to get the goverment to do it. Mabe they can get a good seat on the floor in CLT tonight, it's the same mentality.
Super FLUF
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 206
I think the operative question would be - "What changes would have made the TA pass?"
My top 3:
1. Complete contractual language. You can't sign a contract without knowing exactly what you are signing. You wouldn't even do this with a cable TV contract much less a multi-year deal that controls your pay and family life.
2. Duration (6 years) was unacceptable. 6 years means 6 years plus another 4 years of AA management dragging their feet = 10 year contract.
3. A monetized claim for termination of the A-fund. The 13.5% doesn't mean #### unless you know what you will be getting for it. Will it be worth $500,000? Will it be worth $10? Nobody would even begin to say, and every time the APA faithful dared guess, the value kept coming down by the 10's of thousands. Some even said it "could" be worth ZERO.
***
Those were my major beefs. I could go on and on about things that were not so much of a "cut" as they were punitive. i.e. the new company sick policy. IIRC it was several pages long and had some third party (sick nazis) calling to harass you and see if it was a "legitimate" sick call. Let me guess....it would be like dealing with United Health Care. No sickness would ever be "legitimate" and you would never get sick pay.
Then there was a section that said that APA can never publicly criticize management for executive pay and bonuses. WTF? Please explain to me how this has anything to do with corporate restructuring and extracting "savings" needed for AA to be a viable going concern.
Lastly, I don't think that DAL's new contract and UAL's CLA did any favors to the LBFO passing. It would have been different if we would be a little behind in pay, but trailing 30 or more percent for 6-10 years was completely unacceptable.
The ball is now in management's court. We are not asking for the world. If they push this place to the point of parallels with Eastern, that is their own fault. This deal could have been done yesterday.
Lets see if I understand this; the pilots turned their contract down partially because it didn't have complete contractural language. The APA told them to turn it down.
The twu had incomplete contractural language in their tenative agreement, but the twu told their rank and file to buy it. (and they did, by.. was it less than 50 votes?)
Do you guys think that the twu is NOT looking out for the best interests of the rank and file that they represent?
Surely not !
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
The UCC approval is for all intents and purposes necessary. I believe that if the UCC doesn't approve the POR it doesn't go to the unsecured creditors for a vote and that vote constitutes the offical approval or disapproval of the POR. It would be very unusual for the judge to approve a POR that the unsecured creditors disapproved or vice versa.
As a technical note, all creditors and shareholders have a vote, but secured creditors are presumed to vote in favor of the POR and shareholders are presumed to vote against the POR so they don't actually cast a vote.
There is a second complicating factor. The vote on the POR is decided by the amount of claims voting for or against, not the number of claimants Over 50% of the value of claims in favor of the POR and it is approved. Thus a relatively small number of unsecured creditors can determine the outcome.
Jim
Do you mean the four years they already dragged their feet (2008-2012) or the four years they will drag their feet next time (2018-2022)?
There's nothing in the bankruptcy code or the bankruptcy rules that requires that the UCC approve of the POR before the vote, but as BoeingBoy said, it is customary. And as a practical matter, if the UCC rejects the Plan, the debtor will modify it to get the UCC approval. Most Plans are accompanied by a letter or other communication from the UCC indicating that the Committee is in favor of the Plan - that certainly helps sell the plan to the unsecured creditors.
I think it's half of the unsecured claimants (by number) and two-thirds of the dollar value of the claims to approve. But you're right - in a case involving numerous small unsecured claimants, if enough of them reject the Plan, you might get 2/3 of the dollar value but less than half the claimants. And then you modify. Sometimes it takes 3, 4, 5 or more Amended Plans before enough sign on.
The attorney, Jack Butler, later clarified in media reports that creditors know that American can, indeed, emerge from bankruptcy without a signed deal with pilots.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-airways-shares-american-merger-164953224.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-airways-shares-american-merger-164953224.html
I'm pretty sure APFA opened negotiations in 2008 but again how much negotiating actually took place is another matter entirely.
Josh
Similar threads
