The judge has said that he'll render the decision no later than Aug 15, and delaying that decision would require AA's consent. Since the judge does not impose the term sheet (only abrogates the current agreement, permitting AA to impose its terms), the judge could certainly rule by Aug 15 yet AA could wait another couple of weeks or couple of months before imposing its terms. And not because it's worried that mass walkouts would occur - rather, it would give the workgroups one last chance to negotiate agreements before AA imposes its terms.
And why wouldnt AA give consent again. like June 6, June 22 and June 29th? Sure the Judge needs their consent but how wise would it be for AA to say "no I need it now?" (OK, heres your answer-motion denied.)
Seems to me that negotiating leverage would decline substantially if the other side is holding a judicial order permitting it to impose its terms upon the workgroups, but I'm certain that many will disgree.
Not really, whats the difference? Either way we are at the bottom. If we accept we are stuck for at least 6 years, if we reject its still open.
Sometimes the threat is worse than the punishment. AA doesnt even enforce what it can do, so they abrogate and now try to put in place rules that the guys are against without the excuse of "you guys accepted it". Like I've said, "powder keg, let them provide the spark".
And, of course, there's that other possibility, the one where the judge denies AA's motion and refuses to abrogate the agreements, but that's a longshot. There aren't very many other cases where the debtor failed to get the 1113 relief they requested.
Are there any other cases where an Airline enterred BK with over $4 billion in cash, 500 new airplanes on order (which make up most of the debt, and workers who lag the industry in pay, benefits, workrules ect? Back to my original question, has a Judge ever abrogated the Pilots, Flight Attendants and mechanics contracts all at once? I know why you wont answer the question. Because if one group holds out and all the others accept it, all other things being equal, the lone group that gets abrogated appears unreasonable, after all everybody else accepted the offer, so that group comes under pressure from other work groups to settle however if the three major groups all reject it that dynamic which puts pressure on the holdout to settle is not there and the likleyhood that abrogation will force acceptance diminishes, as does the likelyhood for abrogation or implementation in the event of abrogation. Facing one group is one thing, facing the pilots, Flight Attendants and Mechanics, three large groups which cant be outsourced readily is another.
Lets say the Judge does abrogate, the RLA still is in place, what would be the legal reasoning for the NMB to determine that after four years of negotiations, three in mediation , an 1113 filing, three rejections via membership vote and abrogation-or not- that an impasse does not exist? In order to retain any credibility the NMB would have to release, after all abrogation already released one party. I'm not saying that they would let us strike but they have to follow the process, the next step would most likely be a PEB. Thats how its been done in the rails for years and before you bring up AMTRAKs 8 year deal let me fill you in on a few things, first of all the only some of the contracts were 8 years amendable, and they didnt push too hard because they had COLAs which gave them pay increases all along. The PEB also ruled for full retro saying that to do otherwise rewards the company for delaying negotiations and as it is they got an interest free loan off the backs of their workers.