Brundage prefers arbitration

[Hopeful]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/20/2053855/brundage-binding-arbitration-beats.html


Of course he prefers arbitration over a picket line. Even if an arbitrator decides on a contract that is NOT favorable to the company, the company can always file for bankruptcy...Same with a strike....it's a win win for the company...I'll still take my chances with an arbitrator unless the company begins bargaining in good faith.
He also forgot to mention that the reality is that AA execs have not shared in the pain.

How convenient of him.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

I can see it now, the arbitrator rules, it isn't the "Concession Christmas list" they had hoped for and they elect to file bankruptcy to void the contracts and dump the pensions.

Arbitration means nothing anymore.The US Air pilots didn't like their Binding Arbitration results and made an end run around it, does anyone seriously think AA wouldn't?

Lose control or not, they simply will not accept a contract that doesn't favor them on every outstanding article.

 

[eolesen]

Two thing to consider....

1) If the two sides come to an agreement in arbitration, there's a fair chance that if the company subsequently files for bankruptcy, the judge will find the arbitrated contract to be sufficient

2) if the union considers arbitration, they need to get the company to agree to a "will not arbrogate" clause similar to what Hawaiian offered its unions

 

[Hopeful]

Two thing to consider....

1) If the two sides come to an agreement in arbitration, there's a fair chance that if the company subsequently files for bankruptcy, the judge will find the arbitrated contract to be sufficient

2) if the union considers arbitration, they need to get the company to agree to a "will not arbrogate" clause similar to what Hawaiian offered its unions

Possibly true....But the company can always deem what an arbitrator ruled unfavorable to them even if they already agreed to binding arbitration. They can always layoff employees to offset increased costs with a arbitrator ruling.
The company has been insisting on a ZERO-cost contract from all its unions. Anything less for the AArogant management will be met with vengeance and spite work.

 

[The Goose]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/20/2053855/brundage-binding-arbitration-beats.html


Of course he prefers arbitration over a picket line. Even if an arbitrator decides on a contract that is NOT favorable to the company, the company can always file for bankruptcy...Same with a strike....it's a win win for the company...I'll still take my chances with an arbitrator unless the company begins bargaining in good faith.
He also forgot to mention that the reality is that AA execs have not shared in the pain.

How convenient of him.

I still believe the desired end result is a bankruptcy filing to put the company on a "more even footing" with its competitors.

Everything done by (mis)management so far points to that.

 

[FWAAA]

I'll still take my chances with an arbitrator unless the company begins bargaining in good faith.

How could you possibly accept an arbitration decision? Won't the arbitrator have been bought and paid for by AA? Multiple times the president of your local has alleged here that judges are crooked and paid off by the winning side.

He also forgot to mention that the reality is that AA execs have not shared in the pain.

How convenient of him.

How much executive pain would have been enough?

 

[Hopeful]

How could you possibly accept an arbitration decision? Won't the arbitrator have been bought and paid for by AA? Multiple times the president of your local has alleged here that judges are crooked and paid off by the winning side.

I'll take my chances with an outsider.

How much executive pain would have been enough?

how about NO PUPS... NO BONUS PAYMENTS .....JUST THE MEASLY AIP PAYOUTS EVERYONE ELSE GETS.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

I still believe the desired end result is a bankruptcy filing to put the company on a "more even footing" with its competitors.

Everything done by (mis)management so far points to that.

If that were indeed their aim, why not simply give the TWU what they're asking for?

Let everyone slap each other on the back for a week or two over their "victory", then right into bankruptcy court to get it all back and then some.

I think the contract(s) for the the TWU are already signed and sealed, they have yet to be revealed to us.

 

[nbmcg01]

I still believe the desired end result is a bankruptcy filing to put the company on a "more even footing" with its competitors.

Everything done by (mis)management so far points to that.

I disagree. I think AA is like the ultimate control freak and they will do almost anything to avoid relinguishing control. Bonuses capped, books opened, courts telling the big brass how to operate..Besides, they don't have to file BK because the unions always "roll".

 

[Boomer]

Two thing to consider....

1) If the two sides come to an agreement in arbitration, there's a fair chance that if the company subsequently files for bankruptcy, the judge will find the arbitrated contract to be sufficient

2) if the union considers arbitration, they need to get the company to agree to a "will not arbrogate" clause similar to what Hawaiian offered its unions

___________________________________________________________

As of now, the US Flagged Air Carriers rule all of the fields covered by both Bankruptcy and the RLA:

1) Almost every motion to impose contracts under Sect. 1113 of the BK Code has been honored by the Federal BK Judges; and, as others have argued, even Sect. 1113 Letters to Unions are subject to judicial review and waiver;
2) Motions to revoke securitization of Bonds by air carriers have been approved by the BK Judges in the case of UAL;
3) Unions under the RLA have had their rights to self-help subordinated to the Air Carriers right to reorganize under the provisions of the BK Code despite the goal of the RLA being the maintenance of the status-quo until release to self-help by the NMB for both parties;
4) The only securitization of debtholders in the air carrier industry to have been upheld by the BK Courts is the EETC, Enhanced Equipment Trust Certificate; and to date, no Union has ever owned an EETC subject to BK Judicial review: so one never knows how the courts would rule.

My point is that AMR obviously prefers arbitration when they are faced with a condition whereby the arguements before the Arbitrator will be judged by the bargaining history that resulted in the case being referred, by mutual consent, to binding arbitration rather than release to self-help.

The TWU never asked for full restoration as an end state of their multi-year negotiations with AMR: AMR always positioned themselves as seeking further concessions as a result of maintaining in-house maintenance, a defined pension benefit and retiree medical. The Arbitrator will look at the closing positions of the parties as being the last, best, final offer and split the baby: it is highly likely that we could end up with a worse contract that we are currently under.

The only hope for a better contract for the Maintenance and Related is a Presidential Emergency Board, and, Congressional Intervention that imposes a contract with terms beneficial to the membership.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I don't think AA has spent so much time and resources since 2002 to avoid bankruptcy just to go there now. It remains the worst-case scenario option for reasons several of you have already stated.

As for binding arbitration, I don't see how this is of any more benefit to the company than the union. It's a surrender of control to a third-party, and the company is at just as much risk of the unions winning huge pay raises as the unions are of getting a crappy new contract. It's a lot better than a potentially company-ending strike.

 

[Bob Owens]

It's a lot better than a potentially company-ending strike.

You can say that because you dont work under this contract.