Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
I guess they do have an interest in getting their manifesto passed since they are on AA Dime !!! VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO !!!
New Vote o Video from Local Presidents
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
You are all over the page paper tiger. Believing in your own bullshet and now believing in the companies too? Wow....lmao
Rcvd from DFW AMT 9:07 PM
APFA vice president endorses American Airlines’ last, best and final offer to flight attendants
By tmaxon
[email protected]
10:35 am on August 1, 2012 |
August 1, 2012
Dear Fellow Flight Attendants,
My initial reaction to the Company’s Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) was, “Oh, hell no!” and at first I thought I could never endorse this for membership ratification. But after careful study of the potential harm and future devastation which would occur if the offer were rejected, and the clear improvements to the 1113 term sheet, my position changed. Among the key points for me was the scheduling provisions which will be lost forever with a vote to reject. The more I read and understood the offer and the realities we face as a union, the easier my YES vote became to make and recommend.
I want more than anything to see a merger with USAirways take place during bankruptcy. It is the best plan for the flight attendants and our company. According to USAirways’ CEO Doug Parker, the fastest way to accomplish a merger is by approving this offer. Having said that, the LBFO represents the best insurance policy available to us in the event that we do not achieve a merger. The absolute worst case scenario will be realized if we reject this offer and Horton keeps control of the Company. We simply cannot afford that.
In virtually all previous airline bankruptcies, labor groups secured agreements similar to our LBFO and as you will read below there is an important reason for this. If we deliver a NO vote, the judge has two options: rule in our favor on the Company’s Section 1113 motion, or grant the Company their motion and legal permission to abrogate our contract. History shows that Courts favor the bankrupt companies in these motions almost 100 percent of the time.
If American exits bankruptcy we will resume negotiations with management. But where will we start? Since the Court will likely allow the Company to gut our entire contract, will we be starting from scratch, using the Section 1113 term sheet from March 22, the LBFO, or our pre-bankruptcy numbers? The Company has said they want to stick with the March 22 term sheet, which as you remember was an insult to our profession. But, there is no law that says they can’t sink even lower than the term sheet and knowing their tactics and the money they’ve been shelling out to bankruptcy lawyers, management can probably can stretch this argument for at least a few years. Let me repeat that: if we reject the LBFO and the Court grants the Company’s 1113 motion, management may be able to impose a contract even worse than the March 22 term sheet. All they would need is a decent economic reason, like a sudden spike in oil prices, to make the argument that more cuts are needed. We’d fight it in court, but the system favors companies like American so heavily that we can’t afford the risk. There is a better option and it is the LBFO.
If we reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s motion, our contractual status will closely resemble our Agents’. If we reject the LBFO, and the Company exits bankruptcy, we will be without a contract, without an agreement, and living under implemented language.
More to the point, we all know how effectively management dragged their feet during negotiations for the four years leading up to bankruptcy. Count on this behavior continuing as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To make matters worse, although we were once at the top of the National Mediation Board’s priority list, we have now been bypassed by other airlines’ labor groups and their negotiations.
On the other hand, our colleagues at TWU have ratified an agreement similar to our LBFO and no matter what the Company cannot later alter it. Their deal may be concessionary and tough for them to swallow, but it is still a ratified agreement and like our LBFO, it is a whole lot better than the term sheet they were handed in March.
If we reject the LBFO, you and I are at the mercy of the Company. Based upon our history and management’s behavior and actions I say, “Oh, hell no!” to this option and will vote YES for the Last Best Final Offer.
In Unity,
Marcus Gluth
Flight Attendant, IMA
Vice President, APFA
APFA vice president endorses American Airlines’ last, best and final offer to flight attendants
By tmaxon
[email protected]
10:35 am on August 1, 2012 |
August 1, 2012
Dear Fellow Flight Attendants,
My initial reaction to the Company’s Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) was, “Oh, hell no!” and at first I thought I could never endorse this for membership ratification. But after careful study of the potential harm and future devastation which would occur if the offer were rejected, and the clear improvements to the 1113 term sheet, my position changed. Among the key points for me was the scheduling provisions which will be lost forever with a vote to reject. The more I read and understood the offer and the realities we face as a union, the easier my YES vote became to make and recommend.
I want more than anything to see a merger with USAirways take place during bankruptcy. It is the best plan for the flight attendants and our company. According to USAirways’ CEO Doug Parker, the fastest way to accomplish a merger is by approving this offer. Having said that, the LBFO represents the best insurance policy available to us in the event that we do not achieve a merger. The absolute worst case scenario will be realized if we reject this offer and Horton keeps control of the Company. We simply cannot afford that.
In virtually all previous airline bankruptcies, labor groups secured agreements similar to our LBFO and as you will read below there is an important reason for this. If we deliver a NO vote, the judge has two options: rule in our favor on the Company’s Section 1113 motion, or grant the Company their motion and legal permission to abrogate our contract. History shows that Courts favor the bankrupt companies in these motions almost 100 percent of the time.
If American exits bankruptcy we will resume negotiations with management. But where will we start? Since the Court will likely allow the Company to gut our entire contract, will we be starting from scratch, using the Section 1113 term sheet from March 22, the LBFO, or our pre-bankruptcy numbers? The Company has said they want to stick with the March 22 term sheet, which as you remember was an insult to our profession. But, there is no law that says they can’t sink even lower than the term sheet and knowing their tactics and the money they’ve been shelling out to bankruptcy lawyers, management can probably can stretch this argument for at least a few years. Let me repeat that: if we reject the LBFO and the Court grants the Company’s 1113 motion, management may be able to impose a contract even worse than the March 22 term sheet. All they would need is a decent economic reason, like a sudden spike in oil prices, to make the argument that more cuts are needed. We’d fight it in court, but the system favors companies like American so heavily that we can’t afford the risk. There is a better option and it is the LBFO.
If we reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s motion, our contractual status will closely resemble our Agents’. If we reject the LBFO, and the Company exits bankruptcy, we will be without a contract, without an agreement, and living under implemented language.
More to the point, we all know how effectively management dragged their feet during negotiations for the four years leading up to bankruptcy. Count on this behavior continuing as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To make matters worse, although we were once at the top of the National Mediation Board’s priority list, we have now been bypassed by other airlines’ labor groups and their negotiations.
On the other hand, our colleagues at TWU have ratified an agreement similar to our LBFO and no matter what the Company cannot later alter it. Their deal may be concessionary and tough for them to swallow, but it is still a ratified agreement and like our LBFO, it is a whole lot better than the term sheet they were handed in March.
If we reject the LBFO, you and I are at the mercy of the Company. Based upon our history and management’s behavior and actions I say, “Oh, hell no!” to this option and will vote YES for the Last Best Final Offer.
In Unity,
Marcus Gluth
Flight Attendant, IMA
Vice President, APFA
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
Why did United bolt?
ST Aerospace agreed to buy the Tampa PEMCO facility in mid-June:
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/10740029/st-aerospace-secures-370m-worth-of-new-contracts-in-2q2012
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_19_2012_p01-02-468803.xml
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/10740029/st-aerospace-secures-370m-worth-of-new-contracts-in-2q2012
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_19_2012_p01-02-468803.xml
Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
Did you read the article they've only been around since 2008 and are bankrupt !another MRO bites the dust !
Flying low
Veteran
- Jul 19, 2011
- 629
- 232
Cheaper in China/Mexico???
Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
Dothan was where video was taken,I can see why they are DONE !!!
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Most likely because they have a reduction of aircraft and routes due to the merger with CO and that CO has in-house capacity for airframe that UA did not.
I believe the term is "synergies" and when mergers happen duplicate staff, routes, and facilities are resized to the new airline. That is exactly what would happen if AA and US merge. If anyone is of the belief that US is the white knight that will save our jobs one needs to think back to TWA and know there will be blood.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #283
With a NO vote we continue to negotiate under section 6 of the RLA, however the company can impose the terms that it proposed to the court. If the company refused to meet we could demand to be released per the RLA. Nothing In BK law says we have to wait till after they exit. One the Judge rules 1113 is done, concluded and they have no say in the Section 6 process.
So here we are, petitioning for a release citing the fact that we have been negotiating for over 4 years, rejected one TA and two ultimatums that were put foprward in BK, the courts have abrogated. or not, and the company refuses to meet. On what grounds would the NMB stand in refusing to allow the process to advance to the next step? To do so would be unprecidented and could endanger continued participation in the process by Labor in Transporet. Remember that the NMB is just supposed to mediate between the parties, whether or not we actually get to self help is determined by the President who gets two options, allow self help or defer to a PEB. Nowhere in ther does it say they can defer indefinately.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #284
UALs contract does not allow narrow bodies to be outsourced overseas.
LBOII has no such provisions.
This was a good move on the part of the UAL Mechanics, hwho got their deal the day the Judge was to release his decision, the company moved on a lot of things at the last minute.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #285
For once we agree as far as USAIR. As far as UAL bolting, after talking to one of the UAL Negotiators he said that Quality and Cost issues drove the work back in house.Their language prevents them from outsourcing the narrow bodies overseas so between the poor quality and the negligible cost savings when outsourcing domestically (MRO labor costs are increasing because they cant get people so they have to pay more and pay more OT. )
By the way LBOII has so such limitations on where they send the work. More bad news for OH. Lets say they outsource the Narrow bodies overseas, and do like Delta and UAL and have the line guys clean them up when they come out of OH (Like we used to do a Capitol back in the early 80s). This would increase costs on the line, which ironically would allow even more of OH to be outsourced.
