JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Albert]

Talk about ironic. I just watched that about 30 minutes ago. Maybe NYer would like to comment since he was one of the negotiators in the room who accepted that language.

Well I guess I'm kissing around $6500.00 goodbye? How about you AANOTOK?

You saw it coming that's why you didn't get the Shelby GT.

 

[NYer]

Talk about ironic. I just watched that about 30 minutes ago. Maybe NYer would like to comment since he was one of the negotiators in the room who accepted that language.

Well I guess I'm kissing around $6500.00 goodbye? How about you AANOTOK?

The language was crafted by the lawyers, but there was no other way to put that together. It wasn't an item talked about across the table with the Company negotiators .

 

[WeAAsles]

The language was crafted by the lawyers, but there was no other way to put that together. It wasn't an item talked about across the table with the Company negotiators .

I know. You finally admitted what I guessed all along a few months ago remember. And I also told you right off the top of my head a way it could have been crafted but I also know the company would have been under no obligation and I'm 100% sure they wouldn't have accepted it anyway.

But your members when they hear about what Parker said are going to put a spotlight on you. My suggestion if I were you is to tell them the truth. Basically you pretty much had no choice or chance in that BK setting. How they react to your response is up to them?

Good luck.

 

[NYer]

I know. You finally admitted what I guessed all along a few months ago remember. And I also told you right off the top of my head a way it could have been crafted but I also know the company would have been under no obligation and I'm 100% sure they wouldn't have accepted it anyway.

But your members when they hear about what Parker said are going to put a spotlight on you. My suggestion if I were you is to tell them the truth. Basically you pretty much had no choice or chance in that BK setting. How they react to your response is up to them?

Good luck.

This has been explained to an excruciating detail since the very beginning. Unfortunately, the past administration entertained petitions and grievances on the matter when those vehicles were not something that would address the issue. That gave Members a false sense of something not being right rather than understanding the reality.

There is NO other way to craft that language without it violating the Trust or costing us value in some other area.

 

[WeAAsles]

This has been explained to an excruciating detail since the very beginning. Unfortunately, the past administration entertained petitions and grievances on the matter when those vehicles were not something that would address the issue. That gave Members a false sense of something not being right rather than understanding the reality.

There is NO other way to craft that language without it violating the Trust or costing us value in some other area.

Sorry man I'm not the guy you need to convince. And you really are wording things differently now then how you used to. People do have long memories and many of them still do remember you saying many times that the retirees will lose the case. That there has never been an example (In the Airline industry) where they didn't.

I'm sure I still have those comments on file in my archives if I had to dig them up?

Frankly I'm economically more than cool. The investment in LCC paid off handsomely and I'm earning substantially more than when that whole mess started.

But that's me my old friend. I'm not like everyone else and am a much more forgiving individual.

 

[NYer]

Sorry man I'm not the guy you need to convince. And you really are wording things differently now then how you used to. People do have long memories and many of them still do remember you saying many times that the retirees will lose the case. That there has never been an example (In the Airline industry) where they didn't.

I'm sure I still have those comments on file in my archives if I had to dig them up?

Frankly I'm economically more than cool. The investment in LCC paid off handsomely and I'm earning substantially more than when that whole mess started.

But that's me my old friend. I'm not like everyone else and am a much more forgiving individual.

It's so cute how you try to change the focus.

 

[WeAAsles]

This has been explained to an excruciating detail since the very beginning. Unfortunately, the past administration entertained petitions and grievances on the matter when those vehicles were not something that would address the issue. That gave Members a false sense of something not being right rather than understanding the reality.

There is NO other way to craft that language without it violating the Trust or costing us value in some other area.

Oh and BTW wasn't the trust "supposed" to be a separate entity from AA's financial assets that were under scrutiny by the court? Remember actually the company wanted out from under it due to the administrative costs. So it actually would have created value had that occurred, not led to a situation where we would have owed.

Don't worry though. I'm sure you'll have no problem getting people to believe the spin though. As many times as I've tried to explain it they still look at me like I have two heads.

Have fun.

 

[WeAAsles]

It's so cute how you try to change the focus.

It's even cuter how you act when someone corners you.

 

[NYer]

Oh and BTW wasn't the trust "supposed" to be a separate entity from AA's financial assets that were under scrutiny by the court? Remember actually the company wanted out from under it due to the administrative costs. So it actually would have created value had that occurred, not led to a situation where we would have owed.

Don't worry though. I'm sure you'll have no problem getting people to believe the spin though. As many times as I've tried to explain it they still look at me like I have two heads.

Have fun.

The Trust is a separate and protected asset.

 

[WeAAsles]

The Trust is a separate and protected asset.

Exactly. So we would NOT have owed any value had the trust been discontinued. Now IF the company had not been placing all of the funds in the trust (Like our pension) they could have claimed it as a liability if they took it through the process and claimed a need against it.

But basically as Judge Lane put it they were under stricter guidelines to prove the need for relief and that the funds had not vested.

You did read the APFA tweets on the Arbitration case right?

 

[NYer]

Exactly. So we would NOT have owed any value had the trust been discontinued. Now IF the company had not been placing all of the funds in the trust (Like our pension) they could have claimed it as a liability if they took it through the process and claimed a need against it.

But basically as Judge Lane put it they were under stricter guidelines to prove the need for relief and that the funds had not vested.

You did read the APFA tweets on the Arbitration case right?

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[WeAAsles]

This doesn't even make sense.

Good grief, never mind. Good luck explaining it to your members. I'd almost like to watch this one.

 

[bob@las-AA]

It's 08:15 and the Pay increase isn't in jetnet yet! Whiskey tango foxtrot!

 

[robbedagain]

its supposenly in the HR section if ur LUS in wings go to HR from what I have been told

 

[bob@las-AA]

Ya under rate of pay, 10:15 still nothing, whiskey tango foxtrot!