Haven't Heard About the Extra 4% in Equity to be Held Aside?

[Bob Owens]

Who were we paying to represent us during that process? What process? Pick one, it applies to all.
Who made the decisions on distributing the Equity? The Equity Committee Which is a subordinate body of the International Union.
Answer to both questions is "the Union".
So even if it wasn't part of the CBA it is part of the representation the members paid for.
I said the Union should pay, whether thats the Locals or the International is immaterial. I did assume that the International would not be willing to pay but added that the monies returned to the Union, International included, should be used first. Some of that money belongs to other Divisions, do you believe they're going to volunteer that. We are represented by a mostly Transit hierarchy now.

Really? Ok, tell me how much of the refund from AA belongs to each division? The fact is you cant tell me what belongs to whom.

How many other TWU members get one week of vacation, only five Holidays at half pay and don't have a DB pension or retiree medical? How many times has the 30% that we pay been used to organize dealers in Vegas or Bus Drivers on Long Island? The fact is the dues that go to the International effectively become sort of like community property. The monies are delegated according to need as determined by the International. With what we have given already even one more share of equity is excessive and regardless of where the funds come from to represent us the Union should pay for it. The refund would be a good start, and it could cover the whole cost and leave those Locals that you claim would be bankrupted solvent.

 

[NYer]

Again, what about the monies the Union got from the company to cover the costs of representing us in the 1113 process? You don't seem to want to touch that. You admit that 1113 is collective bargaining, something to don't deny the members pay for through their dues, why not use those monies to cover the costs instead of saying that each member should give shares of equity that they got in exchange for the worst deal in the industry for the next six years?

The fact is that most locals are already receiving more per capita than they were before due to the shift in costs from untaxed non-wage compensation to taxed compensation, the 7% wage increase I've received since DOS means I pay 7% more dues but changes in the medical alone triggered changes that effectively reduced my "total value" by around $9000 per year (according to the company's numbers) and thats not even mentioning the loss of the pension.

I don't agree that the Union should keep the monies they were reimbursed through the 1113 process and charge us shares of equity to represent us in a lawsuit that their decisions triggered. Our dues should cover that.

 
Touch that in what manner?
 
Oh dear. You should seem to work hard to convince yourself of your tattered arguments. We may pay more in dues, but we also have less Members AND we lost the Baker Letter, which means we pay for Officers who also gave themselves a raise and that is an expense not covered by the airline. All that is beside the point that the Equity is a mechanism of a bankruptcy process to address creditors and specific institutions and not a representational activity between the airline and the union.
 
Equity is between the creditors and the BK Court.
 
I guess you're used those that follow the words regardless whether it makes sense or not.
 
If the Members of AA don't want to use their funds derived from getting Equity, what makes you believe the other Members of the Divisions would be willing to foot the bill when they receive nothing, and especially now when the "leadership" is outside the airline division, while at the same time supporting the mediation in SWA and the ongoing negotiations in NYC Transit. If you speak to those other Divisions, especially Transit, they will say the opposite as you...."our dues shouldn't cover that."

 

[Bob Owens]

Tattered? Again, who is being sued? Even you admit that all the lawsuits name the TWU, whether it be the International or the Locals. My name isn't there but you are saying I should be willing to give up shares to pay for it, as well as every other member.

Who represented us during the C-1113 process and all other process's related to the Bankruptcy including the Equity process?

If the International determines that the Locals must pay it, much like if the courts determine that retirees are entitled to equity, so be it, thats not the issue for me. As much as you want to try and spin away from that the issue for me remains that we pay for this representation through our dues, the Union made a decision, retirees brought forth a lawsuit against the Union for the decision the Union made and the Union should pay the costs associated with that lawsuit, we should not be told that we will be directly billed through the loss of additional shares.

Just like I've told the company in the past when mechanics signed the FSC OT list. Management said I don't know who is going to pay them because thats not in MY budget, I said American Airlines is going to pay them and I don't care whose budget it comes from. So whether the Locals or the International or some combination of both pay it really isn't the concern as of now, right now is whether do individual members get stuck with an additional cost above and beyond their tax deductible dues or does the Union pay the cost of defending the decision the Union made.

Keep trying to spin it into more than that but that is the subject. If you want to move on to a different issue first close out this one by admitting that the Union is liable for the decisions made that lead to the lawsuit because there is no point in discussing who within the Union is going to pay if you don't even agree to that. We could call it an 'exercise'. The assumption of this exercise is that you agree that the Union is liable for the decisions they make and the question then becomes "do the Locals or the International become liable?" Yes or no do you agree to participate in this exercise?

 

[Bob Owens]

All that is beside the point that the Equity is a mechanism of a bankruptcy process to address creditors and specific institutions and not a representational activity between the airline and the union.
 
Equity is between the creditors and the BK Court.
 

Nice spin. Bottom line, the Union was our representative, in this case to the Creditors Committee. The Union never requested any sort of Special Permission to be our representative on the Creditors committee and they never even asked us who we wanted sitting on that committee. If you recall the Mike Allen Video he asked the appointed TWU Rep on the Creditors Committee what made him qualified to be there as our representative.
I was later called out by Jim Little and Mark Richard for not bringing Mike Allen up on charges for making that video. This was witnessed by the entire AMR delegation.

The union acted as our representative and made decisions on our behalf, we pay them a fee for that, the Union is being sued by retirees who disagree with the decisions the Union made, the Union should cover the costs of defending that decision as they would any other type of lawsuit against the Union.

 

[NYer]

Tattered? Again, who is being sued? Even you admit that all the lawsuits name the TWU, whether it be the International or the Locals. My name isn't there but you are saying I should be willing to give up shares to pay for it, as well as every other member. Your name may not be there, but the representatives of the Equity Committee are also named in one of the suits, including Local 591's own Peterson.

Who represented us during the C-1113 process and all other process's related to the Bankruptcy including the Equity process? We already went over that.

If the International determines that the Locals must pay it, much like if the courts determine that retirees are entitled to equity, so be it, thats not the issue for me. As much as you want to try and spin away from that the issue for me remains that we pay for this representation through our dues, the Union made a decision, retirees brought forth a lawsuit against the Union for the decision the Union made and the Union should pay the costs associated with that lawsuit, we should not be told that we will be directly billed through the loss of additional shares. You're free to have your opinion, even if it is wrong.

Just like I've told the company in the past when mechanics signed the FSC OT list. Management said I don't know who is going to pay them because thats not in MY budget, I said American Airlines is going to pay them and I don't care whose budget it comes from. So whether the Locals or the International or some combination of both pay it really isn't the concern as of now, right now is whether do individual members get stuck with an additional cost above and beyond their tax deductible dues or does the Union pay the cost of defending the decision the Union made. Quite obviously, that decision has been made and has been consistent with how the other unions have handled the question of the additional expenses related to the Equity. Admirably, the APFA has even publicized how much Equity it took for them to pay their own expenses in the first distribution. (First distribution "25,790 shares to cover APFA fees and expenses...30 Day Distribution--3,279 shares to cover APFA fees)

Keep trying to spin it into more than that but that is the subject. If you want to move on to a different issue first close out this one by admitting that the Union is liable for the decisions made that lead to the lawsuit because there is no point in discussing who within the Union is going to pay if you don't even agree to that. We could call it an 'exercise'. The assumption of this exercise is that you agree that the Union is liable for the decisions they make and the question then becomes "do the Locals or the International become liable?" Yes or no do you agree to participate in this exercise? Liability comes with guilt, not accusations. Anyone can claim wrongdoing and unless it is proven, then it is nothing more than just finger pointing. This case will more than probably be thrown out of Court in May or June since this issue is a "minor" issue and the recourse to resolve such issues has not been exhausted.
 

 

[Bob Owens]

 

Tattered? Again, who is being sued? Even you admit that all the lawsuits name the TWU, whether it be the International or the Locals. My name isn't there but you are saying I should be willing to give up shares to pay for it, as well as every other member. Your name may not be there, but the representatives of the Equity Committee are also named in one of the suits, including Local 591's own Peterson.

 

Yes in their capacity as Union representatives, consistent with what I've been saying, they are suing the Union for a decision the Union made. The "union" includes locals, Committees and the International.

 

If the International determines that the Locals must pay it, much like if the courts determine that retirees are entitled to equity, so be it, thats not the issue for me. As much as you want to try and spin away from that the issue for me remains that we pay for this representation through our dues, the Union made a decision, retirees brought forth a lawsuit against the Union for the decision the Union made and the Union should pay the costs associated with that lawsuit, we should not be told that we will be directly billed through the loss of additional shares. You're free to have your opinion, even if it is wrong.
 

Well this whole debate is about opinion, legally the Union can pawn the costs off on their members, the law allows it, the Constitution allows it and everyone is entitled to have their opinion on what they think is the right thing to do. Saying "your wrong" is an immature cop out.
 

Quite obviously, that decision has been made and has been consistent with how the other unions have handled the question of the additional expenses related to the Equity. Admirably, the APFA has even publicized how much Equity it took for them to pay their own expenses in the first distribution. (First distribution "25,790 shares to cover APFA fees and expenses...30 Day Distribution--3,279 shares to cover APFA fees)
 

Didn't the other Unions end up with more shares per person than we did? They also didn't end up dead last in the industry. We went in at the bottom with a Pension and retiree medical and came out still at the bottom without a pension, without retiree medical (and still without the things we gave up in 2003 to "save" those items that our peers who went through BK kept) and work-rules that even Delta would not impose on their non-union mechanics. So in light of the superior performance of their Unions its not surprising that their members didn't mind absorbing those costs. Our performance both before and during the C-11 process was abysmal.
 

Keep trying to spin it into more than that but that is the subject. If you want to move on to a different issue first close out this one by admitting that the Union is liable for the decisions made that lead to the lawsuit because there is no point in discussing who within the Union is going to pay if you don't even agree to that. We could call it an 'exercise'. The assumption of this exercise is that you agree that the Union is liable for the decisions they make and the question then becomes "do the Locals or the International become liable?" Yes or no do you agree to participate in this exercise? Liability comes with guilt, not accusations. Anyone can claim wrongdoing and unless it is proven, then it is nothing more than just finger pointing. This case will more than probably be thrown out of Court in May or June since this issue is a "minor" issue and the recourse to resolve such issues has not been exhausted.
 

 
li·a·ble  (lī′ə-bəl)
adj.
1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable
 

Who said anything about Guilt or wrongdoing? Once again, the discussion is whether or not the Union should pick up the legal; fees , which there will be even if it is thrown out, or should the members be forced to absorb those costs by getting less equity?
 
The Union took on the responsibility of being our representatives during the equity process. They didn't ask, they stepped right in, hired who they wanted to and appointed who they wanted to. And unlike the APA or APFA those who made those decisions were not voted into office by the people they represent at AA. Then the International delegated the decision making process as far as eligibility to the Equity committee, was it the right thing to do? Yes. But they are still 'responsible" -since you do not like the other word, for the results of that committee. As I said before, Little could have stepped in at any time, he was never bashful before such as with the "Without further ratification" move back in 2003. They cant delegate out 'responsibility" for the decisions made by "the Union", and they should not relegate out the costs associated with those decisions on the members.
 
My objection is that we paid for representation, they made the decisions, not saying I disagree with them, but right or wrong they made it as representatives of the Union, the cost to defend that decision should also be borne by the Union. You may not agree, but you have not put anything forward of substance that validates your opinion of what is the right thing to do to, obviously nothing I've said will change your opinion, but then again I don't really care what your opinion is I just wanted you to put it out there, as I did, and let the readers come to their own conclusions and my opinion, is that more people that read this will agree with me than with you. 
 
So here is my summation of the debate;
 
I said the Union should pay the legal fees because these fees are the direct result of decisions made by the Union and we pay them to do this for us.
 
You say the members should pay because equity has nothing to do with the CBA and that's how other Unions did it. -(But the TWU is the only Union being sued)
You also said that the members should pay because the Locals cant afford to pay and the other divisions wont allow International funds to be used, you also said that the refund AA sent the Union belongs to other divisions of the TWU.
You also said that the Unions aren't guilty of anything so they are not liable for the decisions that the Union made.
 
Legally the law allows them to do what they are doing, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it. You agree with taking members equity shares to pay these expenses, I don't. I feel we have lost too much already at the hands of Little and Videtich and this is salt in the wound.  We pay higher dues now for a contract that's even more inferior than the 2003 agreement. These costs should come out of the equity that we built up in the Union treasuries, not from our Equity stake that we were given in exchange for one years worth of concessions on a six year deal. 
 
Either way, its the members money right?

 

[Gman10]

If the TWU would have told us they were "HOLDING" 14% of the equity from the beginning there would have been a riot. But as we all know the TWU likes to ease it in rather than jam it in all at once. They let us get used to the idea then change it during the course. We have seen this process during all contract negotiations. It seems to work and there is no reason to change that tactic. Rememember "RESTORE and MORE" Ha Ha.
I agree with Bob that in the end the TWU will find a way to keep/use all the equity they can and convince the members that it was in our best interest. We keep coming back/staying for more.

 

[NYer]

Yes in their capacity as Union representatives, consistent with what I've been saying, they are suing the Union for a decision the Union made. The "union" includes locals, Committees and the International.

 
Well this whole debate is about opinion, legally the Union can pawn the costs off on their members, the law allows it, the Constitution allows it and everyone is entitled to have their opinion on what they think is the right thing to do. Saying "your wrong" is an immature cop out.
 
Didn't the other Unions end up with more shares per person than we did? Didn't the APA lose a larger value than we did, therefore getting a larger return? Didn't the APA get a smaller percentage than we did and have a payout based on earnings? Didn't the APFA disqualify more Members than we did, like those on ID or on an overage leave? Didn't the other unions also put aside a percentage of the Equity to pay expenses? Yes, to all.
 
They also didn't end up dead last in the industry. We went in at the bottom with a Pension and retiree medical and came out still at the bottom without a pension, without retiree medical (and still without the things we gave up in 2003 to "save" those items that our peers who went through BK kept) and work-rules that even Delta would not impose on their non-union mechanics. So in light of the superior performance of their Unions its not surprising that their members didn't mind absorbing those costs. Our performance both before and during the C-11 process was abysmal. You're changing the subject, as you usually do when losing an debate.
 
 
li·a·ble  (lī′ə-bəl)
adj.
1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable
 

Who said anything about Guilt or wrongdoing? Once again, the discussion is whether or not the Union should pick up the legal; fees , which there will be even if it is thrown out, or should the members be forced to absorb those costs by getting less equity? Semantics...anyway you put it the Members will be paying the freight, either with Equity, dues or a special assessment. Your true objective is to have someone else pay some of the freight in order to us to keep more to ourselves. If the International pays it, then that means the 100K Members contribute towards it rather than just those in AA. If that's what you want, then just say it. Since everyone worked so hard to eliminate the airline folks from the International, what are the chances that the Transit folks will want to help pay the freight.
 
The Union took on the responsibility of being our representatives during the equity process. They had no choice, since the airline was the entity that took us into bankruptcy making the TWU as creditor.
 
They didn't ask, they stepped right in, hired who they wanted to and appointed who they wanted to. And unlike the APA or APFA those who made those decisions were not voted into office by the people they represent at AA. Then the International delegated the decision making process as far as eligibility to the Equity committee, was it the right thing to do? Yes. But they are still 'responsible" -since you do not like the other word, for the results of that committee. As I said before, Little could have stepped in at any time, he was never bashful before such as with the "Without further ratification" move back in 2003. They cant delegate out 'responsibility" for the decisions made by "the Union", and they should not relegate out the costs associated with those decisions on the members. YOU, more than anyone would rail when a decision was made without consultation from the Presidents. NOW you want them to do exactly what you complained about? Since you didn't like the decision made by the Equity Committee, which was made up of Local Presidents, it is now Little's fault because he didn't act like a dictator? And after they all left, was anything changed? It could have been.
 
My objection is that we paid for representation, they made the decisions, not saying I disagree with them, but right or wrong they made it as representatives of the Union, the cost to defend that decision should also be borne by the Union. You may not agree, but you have not put anything forward of substance that validates your opinion of what is the right thing to do to, obviously nothing I've said will change your opinion, but then again I don't really care what your opinion is I just wanted you to put it out there, as I did, and let the readers come to their own conclusions and my opinion, is that more people that read this will agree with me than with you. I haven't put any thing of "substance" to validate my opinion? YOU get to determine whether an argument against YOUR contention has substance? C'mon, that doesn't even pass your own twisted sense of logic. The mere fact you've been dancing around this subject matter with little 'ol me, gives it substance and credence.
 
So here is my summation of the debate;
 
I said the Union should pay the legal fees because these fees are the direct result of decisions made by the Union and we pay them to do this for us. The legal fees, one way or another comes from our dues. Your argument is really that the fees or expenses should be shared by all the Members of the TWU in order to dilute our exposure. Don't dance around it, just say it.
 
You say the members should pay because equity has nothing to do with the CBA and that's how other Unions did it. -(But the TWU is the only Union being sued) The APA was taken to an Arbitration by their Members who disagreed with their process. The APA won that Grievance. As far as the lawsuit, anyone can sue for just about anything. The test will be when the decision is made and I believe it will be dismissed because those suing didn't follow the internal process to dispute their claims, it can also be that it could be dismissed because of the merits of the arguments made by the plaintiffs...which they don't have.
 
You also said that the members should pay because the Locals cant afford to pay and the other divisions wont allow International funds to be used, you also said that the refund AA sent the Union belongs to other divisions of the TWU. Never SAID any of this. It is the interpretation of statement made. I never said the Members should pay because the Locals can't afford to. You made the claim that the Locals weren't sued, I corrected that statement since one of the suits mentions the Locals and if some of them are held liable, then it could bankrupt them. Your response was to just raise the dues. The funds being returned from the BK will reimburse the International AND the Locals for their expenses related to the BK. You suggested they be used to pay for the Equity expenses.
 
You also said that the Unions aren't guilty of anything so they are not liable for the decisions that the Union made. That doesn't even make sense.
 
Legally the law allows them to do what they are doing, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it. You agree with taking members equity shares to pay these expenses, I don't. I feel we have lost too much already at the hands of Little and Videtich and this is salt in the wound.  We pay higher dues now for a contract that's even more inferior than the 2003 agreement. These costs should come out of the equity that we built up in the Union treasuries, not from our Equity stake that we were given in exchange for one years worth of concessions on a six year deal. I have to give you credit. If we would just have followed your guidance and gone into liquidation instead of agreeing to this CBA, we wouldn't be here arguing about a few dollars. And on the other hand, since we didn't listen that time then it was a great idea to consolidate the Locals since some were in financial straits and would not have been able to afford what you now suggest to be done. Since 591 is in better financial shape, they would be in a better position to pay these fees and even raise dues....something that was avoided when the new 591 gave themselves raises. (I presume that raise came from Members dues)
 
Either way, its the members money right?
 
I apologize, I went off topic...didn't I. =)

 

[DallasConehead]

What a freakin mess.

The union leadership is just like the company,, mismanage it- blame the people (retirees)- take the money from the workers, give themselves a raise.

Next!!

 

[NYer]

If the TWU would have told us they were "HOLDING" 14% of the equity from the beginning there would have been a riot. But as we all know the TWU likes to ease it in rather than jam it in all at once. They let us get used to the idea then change it during the course. We have seen this process during all contract negotiations. It seems to work and there is no reason to change that tactic. Rememember "RESTORE and MORE" Ha Ha.
I agree with Bob that in the end the TWU will find a way to keep/use all the equity they can and convince the members that it was in our best interest. We keep coming back/staying for more.

 
The first 5% was placed due to past cases and the thought was it would cover all costs. The second 5% arose from one of the lawsuits in which they claim their share would be 10% of the total and that is where the second 5% came from. The last 4% came, again from the plaintiffs, and their attempt to file an injunction that would have stopped all further distributions until these cases were settled.
 
Lawsuit #1: "Under the draft Equity Distribution Plan, 5% of the Equity Distribution would be reserved to settle certain expenses, including administrative expenses, eligibility appeals, inaccuracies, and litigation costs...A preliminary injunction is appropriate to preserve the status quo while this litigation is pending. Because TWU plans to reserve only 5% of the Equity to settle expenses,
including administrative expenses, eligibility appeals, inaccuracies, and litigation costs, and approximately 10% of TWU Members employed by American accepted an Early Out or Standin-Stead, TWU’s reserve will not be sufficient to satisfy the claims of the Early Out/SIS Plaintiffs and the Class.
 
Lawsuit #2: "Accordingly, Powell and the Class seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from making any distribution of the TWU Equity pending the resolution of this suit and the Class’s rights to the TWU Equity.
 
Lawsuit #3: "TWU would suffer no hardship or prejudice from a modest delay in the Equity Distribution while this dispute is resolved. Nor would a fair distribution of the TWU Equity to all TWU Members, including Plaintiffs and the Class, cause TWU any hardship.
 
....In order to prevent a delay on the further distribution in its entirety the defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to Judge Orricks' Order, which states:
 
"As part of its Equity Distribution Plan, TWU planned to set aside 5% of the shares it would receive from American as a “reserve” for covering errors, challenges to the Plan and administrative expenses for the Plan. American intends to complete issuance of equity to its unsecured creditors 120 days from the first issuance of equity, about April 9, 2014. In their complaint, Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek a preliminary injunction barring TWU from issuing all of the equity it receives to ensure that shares would be available for issuance to Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class if a class action is authorized by the Court."
"In view of the foregoing, TWU and Plaintiffs have agreed and hereby stipulate as follows:"
"Upon receipt of the day 120 distribution of equity from American, TWU will hold in its American Airlines equity distribution trust account shares equaling 14% of the total number of shares it received from American. These shares will be held to satisfy the potential claims to shares of members of the proposed class in the event that plaintiffs prevail on the merits of their claims and on their motion for class certification, as well as for possible appeals that may yet be filed and cannot be satisfied out of the day 120 distribution, and for administrative and legal expenses related to the trust account and the litigation."
 
...."Based on these assurances, plaintiffs will not seek a preliminary injunction barring TWU from issuing the equity it receives from American."

 

[AANOTOK]

 
"The second 5% arose from one of the lawsuits in which they claim their share would be 10% of the total and that is where the second 5% came from".

It's a damn good thing they didn't claim their shares would be 30-40-50% in their lawsuit, we wouldn't have needed to worry about the TWU keeping 14%, they would have kept it all. I guess I need to thank the EO's for not claiming more, you might have just saved us a few shares.
 
So what is it NYer, the Equity Committee or the International that you are part of??

 

[Vortilon]

 
The first 5% was placed due to past cases and the thought was it would cover all costs. The second 5% arose from one of the lawsuits in which they claim their share would be 10% of the total and that is where the second 5% came from. The last 4% came, again from the plaintiffs, and their attempt to file an injunction that would have stopped all further distributions until these cases were settled.
 
Lawsuit #1: "Under the draft Equity Distribution Plan, 5% of the Equity Distribution would be reserved to settle certain expenses, including administrative expenses, eligibility appeals, inaccuracies, and litigation costs...A preliminary injunction is appropriate to preserve the status quo while this litigation is pending. Because TWU plans to reserve only 5% of the Equity to settle expenses,
including administrative expenses, eligibility appeals, inaccuracies, and litigation costs, and approximately 10% of TWU Members employed by American accepted an Early Out or Standin-Stead, TWU’s reserve will not be sufficient to satisfy the claims of the Early Out/SIS Plaintiffs and the Class.
 
Lawsuit #2: "Accordingly, Powell and the Class seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from making any distribution of the TWU Equity pending the resolution of this suit and the Class’s rights to the TWU Equity.
 
Lawsuit #3: "TWU would suffer no hardship or prejudice from a modest delay in the Equity Distribution while this dispute is resolved. Nor would a fair distribution of the TWU Equity to all TWU Members, including Plaintiffs and the Class, cause TWU any hardship.
 
....In order to prevent a delay on the further distribution in its entirety the defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to Judge Orricks' Order, which states:
 
"As part of its Equity Distribution Plan, TWU planned to set aside 5% of the shares it would receive from American as a “reserve” for covering errors, challenges to the Plan and administrative expenses for the Plan. American intends to complete issuance of equity to its unsecured creditors 120 days from the first issuance of equity, about April 9, 2014. In their complaint, Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek a preliminary injunction barring TWU from issuing all of the equity it receives to ensure that shares would be available for issuance to Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class if a class action is authorized by the Court."
"In view of the foregoing, TWU and Plaintiffs have agreed and hereby stipulate as follows:"
"Upon receipt of the day 120 distribution of equity from American, TWU will hold in its American Airlines equity distribution trust account shares equaling 14% of the total number of shares it received from American. These shares will be held to satisfy the potential claims to shares of members of the proposed class in the event that plaintiffs prevail on the merits of their claims and on their motion for class certification, as well as for possible appeals that may yet be filed and cannot be satisfied out of the day 120 distribution, and for administrative and legal expenses related to the trust account and the litigation."
 
...."Based on these assurances, plaintiffs will not seek a preliminary injunction barring TWU from issuing the equity it receives from American."

 
 
You can tapdance all you want NYer; fact is, the way this whole equity distribution process is going down stinks.  The international is already on shakey ground with the AMTs at AA as it is.  This only solidifies most of our negative opinions about the TWU, and the unqualified parasite weasles that run it.  Year over year, we see the international give themselves raises for poor performance - not unlike airline executives.  Bottom line is, we the membership have had enough of the TWU contstantly screwing things up - at the cost of the membership.  This deal should have been iron clad - to protect the memberships equity shares! The only people making out on this deal, will be the ambulance chasers.  Thanks again TWU, and TWU apologist - NYer!

 

[1AA]

What a freakin mess.

The union leadership is just like the company,, mismanage it- blame the people (retirees)- take the money from the workers, give themselves a raise.

Next!!

Next?? Kick the TWU out!!

 

[1AA]

 
 
You can tapdance all you want NYer; fact is, the way this whole equity distribution process is going down stinks.  The international is already on shakey ground with the AMTs at AA as it is.  This only solidifies most of our negative opinions about the TWU, and the unqualified parasite weasles that run it.  Year over year, we see the international give themselves raises for poor performance - not unlike airline executives.  Bottom line is, we the membership have had enough of the TWU contstantly screwing things up - at the cost of the membership.  This deal should have been iron clad - to protect the memberships equity shares! The only people making out on this deal, will be the ambulance chasers.  Thanks again TWU, and TWU apologist - NYer!

+1

 

[NYer]

It's a damn good thing they didn't claim their shares would be 30-40-50% in their lawsuit, we wouldn't have needed to worry about the TWU keeping 14%, they would have kept it all. I guess I need to thank the EO's for not claiming more, you might have just saved us a few shares.
 
So what is it NYer, the Equity Committee or the International that you are part of??

 
Neither.