Is Bankrupcty a better option?

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 3:09:02 AM ual747mech wrote:



Maybe they'll pay us our vacation days and bump up the percentage of give back. I think a lot of people would rather have it this way.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Personally, I would just let them have the first retro payment or a part of it and a % cut. There really is not much difference if we give them money to return it to us in retro form.
They need money up front. This would give them a little cushion they were looking for with the vacation deal.

 

[ual747mech]

To all Ual Pilots,

Are you guyz really getting 85% of your salary while on layoff status. I don't believe it but that's what's going around. Any truth to that or are you guyz getting any pay from the Company while on layoff.

 

[Bob Owens]

UAL747Mech;
Well I think that your statement supports my arguement. In the Continental case the company unilaterally inserted its rules and slashed wages by 60%.
In the TWA case they Came to an agreement. The judge did not void the contract.Dont you think the companys initial demand was worse? However I work with some TWA guys and they say that the concessions they agreed to were a mistake, in hindsight. I might add that when the TWA mechanics came to AA they received around $400 per week more than they were earning at TWA. Clearly if TWA had folded earlier they would have been better off.
Six years of concessions is unreasonable.The agreement that the mechanics rejected was not between just the Union and the Company. It was a screw job forced upon the mechanics (and everyone else but so far the mechanics are the only ones who said NO)by the ATSB and the company. If you read between the lines the purpose of the Act is to lower wages.

How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB? How much were the Steel workers forced to give up for their government help, what about Chrysler? I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe. There are other considerations as well. At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 12:12:12 PM ual747mech wrote:

To all Ual Pilots,

Are you guyz really getting 85% of your salary while on layoff status. I don't believe it but that's what's going around. Any truth to that or are you guyz getting any pay from the Company while on layoff.
----------------
[/blockquote]

NO!

 

[mastermechanic]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 6:24:49 AM atabuy wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 1048 PM mastermechanic wrote:

Was more than just a few mechanics Jim...and we are leaving, why do you think we turned it down???
----------------
[/blockquote]
That must be the royal we since you say you will be under the 3500.
I doubt you even work at Ual.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I will be very close to that number, no royalty here...and yes jim, I really do work here, cause if I didn't, nobody would put themselves through this nightmare

 

[synchronicity]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 12:56:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:
UAL747Mech;
Well I think that your statement supports my arguement. In the Continental case the company unilaterally inserted its rules and slashed wages by 60%.
In the TWA case they "Came to an agreement". The judge did not "void" the contract.Dont you think the companys initial demand was worse? However I work with some TWA guys and they say that the concessions they agreed to were a mistake, in hindsight. I might add that when the TWA mechanics came to AA they received around $400 per week more than they were earning at TWA. Clearly if TWA had folded earlier they would have been better off.

Six years of concessions is unreasonable.The agreement that the mechanics rejected was not between just the Union and the Company. It was a screw job forced upon the mechanics (and everyone else but so far the mechanics are the only ones who said NO)by the ATSB and the company. If you read between the lines the purpose of the Act is to lower wages.

How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB? How much were the Steel workers forced to give up for their government help, what about Chrysler? I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe. There are other considerations as well. At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?
----------------
[/blockquote]

I've been reading your posts in which you interpret BK law, and have to respond.

First, you keep repeating the mantra that six years [actually 5.5] of concessions is unreasonable. This is obviously your opinion, but saying so don't make it so. I've spoken with a few corporate BK attorneys, including one who is involved with the UAL situation, and they disagree with your interpretation. I'll trust their interpretation of BK law over yours any day. You may not like the terms of the concessions, and you are free to disagree (although I might note, as many others have that YOUR future is not directly at stake here, but rather you can chime in from the sidelines without fearing the consequences), but saying I don't like this offer and saying it would be found to be 'unreasonable' by a BK judge are two totally different things.

And as for Chrysler, there were huge concessions made by the UAW, including an estimated 475 Million in wage cuts and other concessions in 1979 and a delay in pension increases and payouts in 1981.

Second, you say:
How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB?

Ever hear of Debtor in Possession financing?

Last, you say:
I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe...At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?

Although I hope for UAL's sake that you are right, that sure doesn't appear to be the case. As for the political digs at the current administration, hey, I'm no fan of them either, but so far they are showing every sign of letting UAL go into Ch. 11 without significant concessions.

I'd add that the concessions are being demanded from other parties as well as labor. UAL is looking for even more concessions (over 8 Billion over the next 5.5 years) from assorted lenders and vendors.

Now, we could argue that the government SHOULD extend assistance to the airlines without demanding considerable cost concessions. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

As to your refrain of how many contracts have actually been abrogated, you might realize that people come to agreements rather than have the contract abrogated because even a bad agreement is better than no agreement at all! Given that the law would allow a contract to be abrogated, it is in the parties interests to reach some agreement.

Anyway, to summarize my main point: your continued insistence that the 5.5 year contract length, either by itself or in conjunction with other factors, renders the current concession offer unreasonable in bankruptcy, is incorrect according to the attorneys I have talked to who work in the field. This means that, if IAM 141-M were to reject this offer in bankrupcty, a BK judge would be able to abrogate the contract.

But I'm sure you know far more about BK law than actual attorneys who specialize in corporate bankruptcies. If so, you really should consider changing fields, as those guys make a lot more than mechanics. Heck, they make a lot more than pilots, even the 25 year captains flying 747-400's!

-synchronicity

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 12:56:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:

UAL747Mech;
Well I think that your statement supports my arguement. In the Continental case the company unilaterally inserted its rules and slashed wages by 60%.
In the TWA case they "Came to an agreement". The judge did not "void" the contract.Dont you think the companys initial demand was worse? However I work with some TWA guys and they say that the concessions they agreed to were a mistake, in hindsight. I might add that when the TWA mechanics came to AA they received around $400 per week more than they were earning at TWA. Clearly if TWA had folded earlier they would have been better off.
Six years of concessions is unreasonable.The agreement that the mechanics rejected was not between just the Union and the Company. It was a screw job forced upon the mechanics (and everyone else but so far the mechanics are the only ones who said NO)by the ATSB and the company. If you read between the lines the purpose of the Act is to lower wages.

How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB? How much were the Steel workers forced to give up for their government help, what about Chrysler? I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe. There are other considerations as well. At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hey Bob! Stop it your too much, lol. Go take ur conspiracy theory somewhere else, lol. Boy, ur 1 big propaganda machine aren't u, lol. You're never gonna be satisfied no matter what huh, jeez!! Have u ever been called a Spin Dr? I think you better stop cooking up ur spin and deal w/the facts.

You c Bob, it's like this, in the Continental case Lorenzo asked for concessions but the unions said no, so he asked the court to reject all the contracts. In TWA's case TWA and the unions came to an agreement just like what happened at US Air. So who got screwed more in those cases Bob? So u c Bob we can resist pay cuts like in Continental but who do u think is going win in Bankruptcy Court, even with the current law? I believe what the unions here are saying that it's better to take this crappy deal than the crappier deal in BK. Court.

 

[spacewaitress]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 3:37:42 PM ual747mech wrote:
...Have u ever been called a Spin Dr? I think you better stop cooking up ur spin and deal w/the facts.
----------------
[/blockquote]
The guy is consumed with self-interest and has no business framing the debate on this (United) board...shame on everyone who continues to indulge him. He's a child.

 

[lstwhknight]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/26/2002 1:53:20 PM UAL24 wrote:

wts54,

You got some balls suggesting you are taking a "massive" paycut. You think 6% is massive? Wait till the BK judge gets done with you. Typical IAM crap.
----------------
[/blockquote]
We got 50% paycuts and vacation cut from 6 weeks to 1 week.Also all retirement lost.That was the Lorenzo take over.The union also was voted out.
After 10 years some of the retirement was recovered,and wages increased slowly.The company loved not having a union and making all the rules.Mechanics walked off the job at 10 cent raises.Turn over was huge.After 15 years of no union,the company still screwed everyone.Finally the teamsters got voted in.
The company had 15 years to play fair,but never did.Execs filled thier pockets with cash and bailed out.Only to be replaced with more gold diggers.We went thur BK twice.More paycuts etc,with prosmises of returns in better days.Better days where slow in coming like 19 years slow.
Retirement was company stock,which we watched turn to zero.Employees lost tens of thousands of dollars they put in stock for retirement,finally the company said sell your stock to them as it was going to zero anyway.I rode it out till it was zero,what the hell I lost 10 grand already,why should I sell my last hundred dollars to the company.With my luck It would have shot back up to 10 k if i sold it for 100.
What I am saying in all of this is it only gets worst,dont dump your union or youre done for.Really read the contacts,don't jump to give up anything without some real solid wording on paper as to when and what you get back.Otherwise you'll see management bail out with pockets full.and you standing there holding an empty bag.
Wish you all Lots of Luck,as having lived it,I wouldnt want to see others get screwed like we did.Good luck from 1 Continental mechanic to all you at United.

 

[lstwhknight]

You c Bob, it's like this, in the Continental case Lorenzo asked for concessions but the unions said no, so he asked the court to reject all the contracts. In TWA's case TWA and the unions came to an agreement just like what happened at US Air. So who got screwed more in those cases Bob? So u c Bob we can resist pay cuts like in Continental but who do u think is going win in Bankruptcy Court, even with the current law? I believe what the unions here are saying that it's better to take this crappy deal than the crappier deal in BK. Court.
---------------------------------------------------

You forgot the part where frank lorenzo brought in scab mechanics by the busload from across the country,and the IAM union was on strike for 2 years.
I think the goverment has changed the laws to prevent that from happening again.but then they can always farm it out overseas like frank did.Lorenzo sold everything cal had,leased everything else.cal had nothing left,the way cal survived was not paying debts and lowballing fairs,lowballing pay,robbing retirement funds.

 

[UAL777flyer]

Folks, don't get too flustered with BobOwens viewpoint. He's an AA employee with his own agenda. He realizes that his employer will soon be traveling the same labor cost-cutting road that UA is presently on.

 

[Steiner]

Folks, don't get too flustered with UAL777flyer's viewpoint. He's an UAL employee with his own agenda. He realizes that his employer will soon be traveling the same labor cost-cutting road that USAirways is presently on.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Hugs and kisses, and hope your pom-poms don't fray.

 

[UAL777flyer]

My only agenda is the survival of my company and for it to prosper, so that myself and all my fellow employees can prosper along with it.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 1246 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

My only agenda is the survival of my company and for it to prosper, so that myself and all my fellow employees can prosper along with it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Since when is working for less considered 'Prospering?

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 2:24:56 PM ITRADE wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 2:23:00 PM Bob Owens wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/2/2002 1246 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

My only agenda is the survival of my company and for it to prosper, so that myself and all my fellow employees can prosper along with it.
----------------
[/BLOCKQUOTE]

Since when is working for less considered 'Prospering"?



[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]


[/P]Is everything so black and white???

Its called short-term belt tightening to ensure long-term survival.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Is six years short term?
Are you saying that the mechanics only shot at survival is to give the company everything they want?