More Time for Judge Lane

[Glenn Quagmire]

Would this be the same strike in which the TWU, AFL-CIO organized a scab job fair to replace striking AMFA workers at NWA?

Yes, one in the same.

 

[TWU informer]

Would this be the same strike in which the TWU, AFL-CIO organized a scab job fair to replace striking AMFA workers at NWA?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

Listen to what the TWU says, not what the TWU does.

The part the TWU doesn't get is the "what goes around, comes around" part of the equation.
They have no idea that as long as they lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate for their survival, thet are destined to FAIL!

 

[Bob Owens]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

Listen to what the TWU says, not what the TWU does.

The part the TWU doesn't get is the "what goes around, comes around" part of the equation.
They have no idea that as long as they lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate for their survival, thet are destined to FAIL!

"TWU members" need to understand what goes around comes around and ignore people like Overspeed that dont suffer the negative effects when Unions cant put aside their differences and fight the real enemy. Those who organized the Scab Job Fair and rejoiced at the fall of AMFA at NWA and presided over our decline did not see their Vacation reduced, nor did they see their sick pay cut, Holidays cut , no not even a paycut (when things get tight they lay off even though they tell us to take pay cuts to save jobs) so for them what goes around doesnt always come around, at least not in this life.

 

[737823]

Bob, do you believe the IAM would be better than TWU were a merger to occur with USAir?

Josh

 

[MCI transplant]

From someone who has been a member of both, "better than the TWU"?---- Yes! But "best chose?----- No!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Looking back at other mergers, US/HP was a BK merger, with HP buying US while it was in BK. (and US also wanted to do the same with Delta and failed(thank God))

Actually, the US/HP merger was part of the POR although the two sides agreed on the merger while US was in bankruptcy. The merger actually happened the day US emerged from bankruptcy. That was also Parker's plan for his dream of a US/DL merger.

The closest to two carriers merging while one was in bankruptcy that I can think of was Republic/Frontier. In that instance, Republic did provide DIP financing (i.e. didn't acquire F9 but loaned it money which was exchanged for stock at the end of BK) with the merger also happening upon F9's exit from bankruptcy.

There may have been some small carriers that merged while one was in bankruptcy and in the olden days the CAB may have arranged mergers when a carrier was in bankruptcy. In "modern times", merging while one carrier is actually in bankruptcy is something of a can of worms. Notice that like in the AA case, the holding company and all the U.S. corporate divisions enter BK together to prevent creditors from seizing assets that aren't protected by bankruptcy laws. So actually acquiring a company while it's in bankruptcy puts the acquirer's assets at risk unless it also declares BK, which it may not qualify for.

Jim

 

[Frank Szabo]

... snip

So actually acquiring a company while it's in bankruptcy puts the acquirer's assets at risk unless it also declares BK, which it may not qualify for.

Jim

I invite you to show me in the CFR where any qualification re: a business bankruptcy filing exists. There are no qualifications - even a financially healthy company can file for bankruptcy although that would be a stupid thing to do.

When the union people were required to sign confidentiality agreements to "see the company's books and see that they could file for bankruptcy" in 2003, I knew (and said, at that time) that was a lie, simply because I had read the law - it was obvious the company was hiding something else. It turned out they didn't want the executive $46 million dollar slush fund exposed until after the voting as the "deadline" for the vote was one day prior to the drop=dead date for filing the quarterly report with the SEC that ultimately exposed the funding of executive retirements.

Read the law - there are no qualifications re: the financial condition of any person (C 13 or C 7) or entity (C 11 or C 7) filing for bankruptcy but any petition can be tossed be the judge on its lack of merit.

 

[BoeingBoy]

My fault for bad phrasing. You're right that any company can file for bankruptcy. Succeeding in getting a Judge to allow anyone to go through bankruptcy with the protections that that provides is another story, as you say, and there are penalties for fraudently filing for bankruptcy protection. Generally, the test is having more liabilities than assets, also called insolvency. Hence the requirement to file schedule A with the bankruptcy petition, which gives total assets and liabilities among other things. Anyone or any entity filing for bankruptcy protection having plenty of assets to cover liabilities won't get far with a Judge. That is what I had in mind when I used "qualify" - not qualify to file but qualify to get the protections that bankruptcy provides.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

Actually, the US/HP merger was part of the POR although the two sides agreed on the merger while US was in bankruptcy. The merger actually happened the day US emerged from bankruptcy. That was also Parker's plan for his dream of a US/DL merger.

The closest to two carriers merging while one was in bankruptcy that I can think of was Republic/Frontier. In that instance, Republic did provide DIP financing (i.e. didn't acquire F9 but loaned it money which was exchanged for stock at the end of BK) with the merger also happening upon F9's exit from bankruptcy.

There may have been some small carriers that merged while one was in bankruptcy and in the olden days the CAB may have arranged mergers when a carrier was in bankruptcy. In "modern times", merging while one carrier is actually in bankruptcy is something of a can of worms. Notice that like in the AA case, the holding company and all the U.S. corporate divisions enter BK together to prevent creditors from seizing assets that aren't protected by bankruptcy laws. So actually acquiring a company while it's in bankruptcy puts the acquirer's assets at risk unless it also declares BK, which it may not qualify for.

Jim

I guess USAIR/ America West was the one mentioned by Akins Thursday.

I agree with Frank, there is no means test for Corporations to file BK, and thats a disgrace. AA had over $4 billion in cash, no problem getting finance, the new aircraft are financed, they pay us less than any other major carrier pays their mechanics yet they havent been thrown out of the court. I think the court is step by step broadening C-11 reorganization from a means where a distressed company can attempt to reset high costs to a competative level to what amounts to a "Candy Store for Corporate America" where they can go in and get whatever they want simply because they want it. For the judges its job security, the debtor is the customer, workers arent, our needs are of no consequence to the court, past decisions where they dance around 1113 have made that clear, to paraphrase the Kmer rouge "To consider you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss". If they can give AA what they want in BK, and they grow like they say they want to grow, by over 20%, it would entice the other carriers back in, Competitors could even file if they are showing profits and mimic AAs arguements. They could do like Hostess and make it clear that they are only going in to go after labor but unlike Hostess, whose unions have the right to defend themselves by going on strike if the company imposes new terms Airline Unions are legally prohibited from defending themselves. They could claim that although they are still profitable they are not as profitable because AA has much lower labor costs and over the long term the disadvantage would harm the other creditors (banks , Rich people, peers of the Judges), profits notwithstanding, and if they cant reach the same level of profits at AA they will eventually dissapear.

AA was argueing that they need the cuts they were asking for to "maintain liquidity" at "levels the Analysts recomend" for airlines due to their sensitivity to economic or other events, I think 20% was the number they threw out there, not because they were in immenent danger of not being able to pay their debts. I dont know if any carrier maintains such levels but thats how they were responding to Roths statement that what AA was asking from the mechanics and stock clerks was "gross overkill" .

 

[Bob Owens]

Duplicate

 

[Flying low]

I guess USAIR/ America West was the one mentioned by Akins Thursday.

I agree with Frank, there is no means test for Corporations to file BK, and thats a disgrace. AA had over $4 billion in cash, no problem getting finance, the new aircraft are financed, they pay us less than any other major carrier pays their mechanics yet they havent been thrown out of the court. I think the court is step by step broadening C-11 reorganization from a means where a distressed company can attempt to reset high costs to a competative level to what amounts to a "Candy Store for Corporate America" where they can go in and get whatever they want simply because they want it. For the judges its job security, the debtor is the customer, workers arent, our needs are of no consequence to the court, past decisions where they dance around 1113 have made that clear, to paraphrase the Kmer rouge "To consider you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss". If they can give AA what they want in BK, and they grow like they say they want to grow, by over 20%, it would entice the other carriers back in, Competitors could even file if they are showing profits and mimic AAs arguements. They could do like Hostess and make it clear that they are only going in to go after labor but unlike Hostess, whose unions have the right to defend themselves by going on strike if the company imposes new terms Airline Unions are legally prohibited from defending themselves. They could claim that although they are still profitable they are not as profitable because AA has much lower labor costs and over the long term the disadvantage would harm the other creditors (banks , Rich people, peers of the Judges), profits notwithstanding, and if they cant reach the same level of profits at AA they will eventually dissapear.

AA was argueing that they need the cuts they were asking for to "maintain liquidity" at "levels the Analysts recomend" for airlines due to their sensitivity to economic or other events, I think 20% was the number they threw out there, not because they were in immenent danger of not being able to pay their debts. I dont know if any carrier maintains such levels but thats how they were responding to Roths statement that what AA was asking from the mechanics and stock clerks was "gross overkill" .

This almost sounds like what Gary Kelly is thinking. I remember reading him saying that their labor just might be to high once/if we come out of this mess.

 

[Bob Owens]

This almost sounds like what Gary Kelly is thinking. I remember reading him saying that their labor just might be to high once/if we come out of this mess.

Thats why I say if the Judge does abrogate and the company imposes we should engage in self help anyway and although we do not deserve it all the other unionized workers in the industry should join us because they will be next.

I called for similar action back in 2002, with USAIR but nobody was listening.

 

[Overspeed]

"TWU members" need to understand what goes around comes around and ignore people like Overspeed that dont suffer the negative effects when Unions cant put aside their differences and fight the real enemy. Those who organized the Scab Job Fair and rejoiced at the fall of AMFA at NWA and presided over our decline did not see their Vacation reduced, nor did they see their sick pay cut, Holidays cut , no not even a paycut (when things get tight they lay off even though they tell us to take pay cuts to save jobs) so for them what goes around doesnt always come around, at least not in this life.

First thing I do work the line. I have suffered negative effects, I lost a week of vacation, holidays, and sick pay just like you. I work the floor. Bob you will not suffer any negative effects from your recommendations to vote no but you definitely will bask in the glory after we get pay raises once the judge does away with overhaul. All those overhaul, line, and facility jobs lost so you could further your personal agenda of higher line pay at the expense of everyone else's job.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As Frank said when correcting my poor choice of words, anyone can file a bankruptcy petition but if they're solvent (assets greater than liabilities) they'll get laughed out of the courtroom.

Jim

 

[TWU informer]

This almost sounds like what Gary Kelly is thinking. I remember reading him saying that their labor just might be to high once/if we come out of this mess.

The fact that the other carriers will have to return to BK or get voluntary concessions to match those that AA is seeking, is exactly why the 36 month and 48 month compensation average/review in the last best offer is worthless. By the time 3 years goes by the others will have been raped out of pay also, and the average will worthless.