New Vote o Video from Local Presidents

[Bob Owens]

Facts, facts, facts. That's what I got.

The APA, APFA, and TWU experts all disagree with your arguments. That's not fear, that's fact.

The APA , APFA and the rest of the TWU are in a different place. How come you wont answer any simple questions? You come here spout off accusations that are false and make up things as you go. Facts? Please. Just because you claim to have facts does not mean they are facts. Show us the language that will save the 2000 jobs you claim we will save by voting yes.

 

[Bob Owens]

So we got Bob's "expert" opinions and that we can "fight" for a better deal if we vote no.

Bob we would have made more than UA if we had voted yes back in 2010. Thanks for the recommendation expert.

Once again "who" would be making more than UA? Nobody on days, afterrnoons, Title II or the bases. The only workers that would have seen the $1.50 MRT would have been those who start between 8pm and 4 am. If the company started them at 1959 then nobody would get it, plus you aslo forgot to factor in Vacation, Holidays and Sick Time, once those things were factored in then nobody at AA would be making more than UAL and they start negotiations next month. Facts, where are your facts? Those things are all pay, Spin is what you have, nothing but spin.

Ok, ready for your next round of "false facts".

 

[Rogallo]

when we kill the profession they will want the same from their guys.

Exactly

 

[Overspeed]

Once again "who" would be making more than UA? Nobody on days, afterrnoons, Title II or the bases. The only workers that would have seen the $1.50 MRT would have been those who start between 8pm and 4 am. If the company started them at 1959 then nobody would get it, plus you aslo forgot to factor in Vacation, Holidays and Sick Time, once those things were factored in then nobody at AA would be making more than UAL and they start negotiations next month. Facts, where are your facts? Those things are all pay, Spin is what you have, nothing but spin.

Ok, ready for your next round of "false facts".

Bob, you are snapping out now.

You compare only smaller things but not the big things. UA has no outsourcing cap in their contract and currently outsource all of AO. So when you compare UA AO mechanics to AA AO mechanics ours make $33 and theirs make...zero. Those wages and benefits they don't pay AO because it is outsourced to Korea and China helps pay for that $16K (dubious at best) is funded by all that outsourcing. And isn't that what you really want? To offload TUL who you complain "holds you back" in JFK.

All UA AO outsourced...that's a fact.

 

[Overspeed]

The APA , APFA and the rest of the TWU are in a different place. How come you wont answer any simple questions? You come here spout off accusations that are false and make up things as you go. Facts? Please. Just because you claim to have facts does not mean they are facts. Show us the language that will save the 2000 jobs you claim we will save by voting yes.

It's called Art 1 and the associated LOM. The work plan was discussed with you and the work that is outsourced will prevent the loss of 2,000 jobs. Is that number exact? Of course not. Will AA shrink more in the future? Maybe. Will it grow? Maybe. If people that the early out the number that are laid off will go down. If the contract gets abrogated, the HC loss will go up.

Job security language is great but it does not protect the number of jobs, just those that are here before the date. Without an outsourcing cap, AA can shrink the work force and still maintain the job protection date. Another fact.

Critical thinking Bob, think.

The APA, APFA, and TWU attorneys and experts all agree that the contracts will get abrogated. You apparently are smarter than all of them.

 

[Overspeed]

You are correct when you say that this is bankruptcy, not typical section 6 negotiations.

But you are incorrect when you say that voting no confirms AA's arguments in court. That is wrong as a matter of law, as the negotiations that have taken place since the motion to abrogate was filed are irrelevant to the section 1113 motion. The judge will grant the motion or deny the motion based on the evidence, and negotiations since that motion was filed are not relevant evidence.

But discussion in court that AA has been trying to work with the TWU since filing is. Both sides brought up the past prior to BK filing in court. Bob and others bring that up frequently as the basis for the argument that "we" have given enough and therefore should not give more. You are right that the judge will not consider the past as a basis of granting or denying the motion. That has been one of my points to Bob. 2003 concessions that have put us where we are at today will not make the judge deny the motion on the basis of pay parity in the industry. The judge is not there to make the pay rates market rate.

 

[700UW]

FWAAA your actually wrong.

I was on the Negotiating Committee at US Airways during the second chapter 11 case. Negotiations didnt take place until after the company filed their Section 1113 C motion.

Everything that transpired in negotiations was introduced into the hearings for the abrogation motion.

 

[Mr Red]

But discussion in court that AA has been trying to work with the TWU since filing is. Both sides brought up the past prior to BK filing in court. Bob and others bring that up frequently as the basis for the argument that "we" have given enough and therefore should not give more. You are right that the judge will not consider the past as a basis of granting or denying the motion. That has been one of my points to Bob. 2003 concessions that have put us where we are at today will not make the judge deny the motion on the basis of pay parity in the industry. The judge is not there to make the pay rates market rate.

He is their to rule on a company in DIRE STRAIGHTS !
Largest Aircraft Order in History
Largest revenue Gain in History of Company
33 Million Profit June
Almost 6 BILLION in Bank
BANKRUPT....REALLY!

 

[FWAAA]

FWAAA your actually wrong.

No, I'm actually correct and you're incorrect.

I was on the Negotiating Committee at US Airways during the second chapter 11 case. Negotiations didnt take place until after the company filed their Section 1113 C motion.

Mistakes made by US in its second bankruptcy are not evidence that I'm incorrect. As I'm sure you're well aware, section 1113 requires that the employer negotiate with the union prior to abrogation. In AA's case, that negotiation took place for several years prior to the bankruptcy filing but the relevant negotiations took place after Nov 29 but prior to the filing of the 1113 motion. Those are the negotiations that were introduced into evidence during the multi-week hearing on AA's 1113 motion.

Negotiations that have taken place after the conclusion of that hearing are good, but they're irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the motion to abrogate. Judge Lane will decide that motion (if there are labor groups that don't reach agreements) on the basis of the evidence before him, and that evidence does not include any negotiations that have taken place since the hearing.

Overspeed asserted that post-hearing rejections of AA's LBOs would reflect poorly on AA's unions, and bolster AA's case. That is incorrect. Do you disagree?

Everything that transpired in negotiations was introduced into the hearings for the abrogation motion.

That's right - thanks for making my point for me. Negotiations that happened after the hearing were not (obviously) evidence introduced into the hearings. Couldn't be, since the hearings were concluded.

 

[700UW]

Actually they were introduced to the Judge because he held off his ruling because of negotiations continued with all the unions. So the Judge took the on going negotiations into consideration and held off ruling on the abrogation.

 

[Bob Owens]

But discussion in court that AA has been trying to work with the TWU since filing is. Both sides brought up the past prior to BK filing in court. Bob and others bring that up frequently as the basis for the argument that "we" have given enough and therefore should not give more. You are right that the judge will not consider the past as a basis of granting or denying the motion. That has been one of my points to Bob. 2003 concessions that have put us where we are at today will not make the judge deny the motion on the basis of pay parity in the industry. The judge is not there to make the pay rates market rate.

You just dont get it, abrogation or not I'm not going to vote away another six or more years. If they abrogate we continue to negotiate, and when the members force the TWU to get us in front of a PEB (because I dont think the government will allow any of the big three to go on strike)the PEB does consider all those things, especially market rates. So let them impose for now, good luck getting the guys to produce more.

 

[High Speed Steel]

You just dont get it, abrogation or not I'm not going to vote away another six or more years. If they abrogate we continue to negotiate, and when the members force the TWU to get us in front of a PEB (because I dont think the government will allow any of the big three to go on strike)the PEB does consider all those things, especially market rates. So let them impose for now, good luck getting the guys to produce more.

I don't think you get it! With abrogation you will be voting away 6 or more years....Your contract will be gone, and there is no timeline to negotiate a new one. Have you notified your members about the Tom Roth video, the Sharon Levine video, and Don Videtich counter to 565 President Peterson's letter to his members? Your 562 members may be interested in what the other side has to say...just saying

 

[whatajoke]

Low Grade Alluminum are you a tulsa person.

 

[TWU informer]

I don't think you get it! With abrogation you will be voting away 6 or more years....Your contract will be gone, and there is no timeline to negotiate a new one. Have you notified your members about the Tom Roth video, the Sharon Levine video, and Don Videtich counter to 565 President Peterson's letter to his members? Your 562 members may be interested in what the other side has to say...just saying

You keep spewing that crap but even the company restructuring website seems to differ and claim only the proposals made can be changed. Not the complete contract like you keep fear mongering here.


What Happens When the Judge's Decision Is Made?
If the court permits the employer to terminate the CBA, the company's proposed contract changes are implemented. The company may implement only those proposals made during the 1113 negotiations - it cannot make changes outside of those proposals.

• The duty to bargain continues and the parties return to negotiations for a new agreement.
• A union is permitted to strike only if released from bargaining by the NMB.

If the Judge rules that the company's 1113 proposal is not both fair and equitable and reasonably necessary for the company's reorganization, the current CBA remains in force.

 

[TWU informer]

Also from the company website. So AA turned a $102 million profit in June.
How many think the "likelihood and consequenced" of liquidation even exist?

The Balance of Equities Must Clearly Favor Rejection; Courts consider:

• The likelihood and consequences of liquidation if rejection was not permitted;
• the likely reduction in the value of creditor's claims if the CBA remained in force;
• the likelihood and consequences of a strike if the CBA was voided;
• the impact the changes will have on the collective bargaining unit as a whole and the individuals in the unit, including a consideration of those employees' wages and benefits compared to those of others in the industry; and
• the good or bad faith of the parties in dealing with the company's financial dilemma. If the judge believes the company may liquidate absent rejection of the CBA, the court may favor rejection