Next major to go BK will have example made of it?

[mistified]

Hello readers
Can we use history of the most recent BK process (US & UAL) to judge how it will go for AA should they go BK?
I am not so sure. I suspect it may be worse.
There is alot of buzz around Wall Street that the Bush adminitration via the courts will make an example of of the next airline to file. Couple this with the fact that only
1 out of 10 airlines has ever survived the BK process for the long term and a rejection of the TA could be a very big gamble.
This reminds me of the controllers strike back in the eighties who were crushed by the republician administration at that time. Now I know that the current TA before the employees at AA is not a strike vote, however I do believe it will be viewed the same by the Bush administration.
They know that there is to much capacity in the industry right now.
Having the TA voted down and then watching AA file BK
and finally liquidate (chapt 7) would send a clear and chilling message to labor from the Bush camp and the courts.

 

[Boomer]

mistified,

The latest buzz is that the politicians are way too close to elections next November and are beginning to fear what will happen if there are bankruptcy filings by the rest of the major "legacy" carriers resulting in the total disruption of the aviation industry.

Since my "buzz" is as verifiable as your "buzz" drop the FUD tactic.

 

[RV4]

FEAR doesn''t get any better than this threads beginning.

 

[Buck]

Maybe we can take enough concessions to hold off until the Democrats can take the White House and Congress away from the evil Republicans. After all we made so many gains during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Just think the Democrats will save American Airlines at the rest of the industry and stop this nasty war too. Those Republicans sure can cause some major problems in a very short time. Wow just over two years in office and the Texan has reversed 100 years of labors gains, messed up Hollywoods visits to the White House and ruined the United Nations weapons inspection program. Yes I believe that I can convince the bak that holds the note on my house to just hold off. What we need now is a good ole tax increase to fix the economy. Yes it is labors fault. I find it interesting that a Republican Government is not protecting big business. After all Carty did get a ride on a new American 737.

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:24:06 PM Buck wrote:

Maybe we can take enough concessions to hold off until the Democrats can take the White House and Congress away from the evil Republicans. After all we made so many gains during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Just think the Democrats will save American Airlines at the rest of the industry and stop this nasty war too. Those Republicans sure can cause some major problems in a very short time. Wow just over two years in office and the Texan has reversed 100 years of labors gains, messed up Hollywoods visits to the White House and ruined the United Nations weapons inspection program. Yes I believe that I can convince the bak that holds the note on my house to just hold off. What we need now is a good ole tax increase to fix the economy. Yes it is labors fault. I find it interesting that a Republican Government is not protecting big business. After all Carty did get a ride on a new American 737.

----------------​

GOP deff of BIG BUSINESS=CEOs.
The bushmen are not interested in companies, they only worry about the benefits of the Executives, for the latest examples look at Mr. Snow and Perle. One ran a railroad into the ground and his benefits kept going up, the other is lobbying to sell a very strategic asset, fibre optic links used by the DoD, to Communist China, but both are still in Government.

AA won''t get any help, the CEO is a Canadian.

The way things look is that in BK 99% chance you get screwed, vote yes and you either get to fight another day, or at least have time to get another job and not have to take the first one you find. Vote no and you may not have any time to get organized, AA may just get back to it''s normal efficient self and the pink slips start flowing by May 1, very appropiate International Labor Day.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 2:41:53 PM mistified wrote:

Hello readers
Can we use history of the most recent BK process (US & UAL) to judge how it will go for AA should they go BK?
I am not so sure. I suspect it may be worse.
There is alot of buzz around Wall Street that the Bush adminitration via the courts will make an example of of the next airline to file. Couple this with the fact that only
1 out of 10 airlines has ever survived the BK process for the long term and a rejection of the TA could be a very big gamble.
This reminds me of the controllers strike back in the eighties who were crushed by the republician administration at that time. Now I know that the current TA before the employees at AA is not a strike vote, however I do believe it will be viewed the same by the Bush administration.
They know that there is to much capacity in the industry right now.
Having the TA voted down and then watching AA file BK
and finally liquidate (chapt 7) would send a clear and chilling message to labor from the Bush camp and the courts.


----------------​

The examples are not comparable. We are not Government workers. We are not bankrupt. We are under no obligation to submit to such unreasonable terms just because they are treatening Bankruptcy.
The fact is a BK the size of AA or UA would have enormous economic effects that extend way beyond the industry itself. Let me ask you something. Why did Bush stop the mechanics at UAL from striking two years ago? Was he lying when he said that a strike would be damaging to the fragile economy? If the government takes action and impairs upon the liberties of workers and stops them from striking because of a weak economy isnt it a little hippocritical to allow that same airline or even a bigger one to permanantly cease operations in part due to events that are external to the industry? If we join UAL in BK the government will likely to be forced to take action. Can the economy afford to lose 40% of its airline capacity?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:24:06 PM Buck wrote:

Maybe we can take enough concessions to hold off until the Democrats can take the White House and Congress away from the evil Republicans. After all we made so many gains during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Just think the Democrats will save American Airlines at the rest of the industry and stop this nasty war too. Those Republicans sure can cause some major problems in a very short time. Wow just over two years in office and the Texan has reversed 100 years of labors gains, messed up Hollywoods visits to the White House and ruined the United Nations weapons inspection program. Yes I believe that I can convince the bak that holds the note on my house to just hold off. What we need now is a good ole tax increase to fix the economy. Yes it is labors fault. I find it interesting that a Republican Government is not protecting big business. After all Carty did get a ride on a new American 737.

----------------​

-----------------------------------------------------------

Buck,
(laugh if you want too, and I know you will disagree)
BUT,
I''m firmly convinced we need 2 presidents in the white house

1 GOP, for foreign policy,
and
1 DEM, for domestic policy

NH/BB''s

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 10:42:07 PM j7915 wrote:

The way things look is that in BK 99% chance you get screwed, vote yes and you either get to fight another day, or at least have time to get another job and not have to take the first one you find. Vote no and you may not have any time to get organized, AA may just get back to it''s normal efficient self and the pink slips start flowing by May 1, very appropiate International Labor Day.

----------------​

Vote Yes ans there is a 100% chance you get screwed. I''d rather still have that 1%.
What makes you think the pink slip wont start May1 anyway, especially if we are still in Iraq and since we will no longer have protection?
How stupid can you guys be that you would be willing to GIVE away more to keep out of BK than you would probably lose in BK. Look at USAIR, they were in bad shape for a long time yet they still did not give as many concessions as our so called union wants us to give.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 11:13:28 PM Bob Owens wrote:

The examples are not comparable. We are not Government workers. We are not bankrupt. We are under no obligation to submit to such unreasonable terms just because they are treatening Bankruptcy.
----------------​

No, we are under no obligation to accept this today than we would be obligated to accept anything else any other day. The difference between now and any other day is, we know the outcome will be BK. Several domestic and foreign have all ready succumbed to it. We the unions have seen the books, AA has warned the public. This is very real. There is a time and place to make a stand. This is not it, there will be no winner in the BK court. Further headache''s and cuts it the only thing we will see. There comes a time when waiting to fight another day is the answer. We lose some now, but we gain a stronger future and bargaining position. When all three unions stand together on the amenable date, demand the cuts we made for survival be returned. That will be a place to make a stand. When the company cant hide.

----------------
On 4/6/2003 11:13:28 PM Bob Owens wrote:
The fact is a BK the size of AA or UA would have enormous economic effects that extend way beyond the industry itself. Let me ask you something. Why did Bush stop the mechanics at UAL from striking two years ago? Was he lying when he said that a strike would be damaging to the fragile economy? If the government takes action and impairs upon the liberties of workers and stops them from striking because of a weak economy isnt it a little hippocritical to allow that same airline or even a bigger one to permanantly cease operations in part due to events that are external to the industry? If we join UAL in BK the government will likely to be forced to take action. Can the economy afford to lose 40% of its airline capacity?
----------------​

Yes, a strike would be fragile to the economy. Right now Bush doesn''t care that one or more carriers will cease to exist. BK will determine is AA is one of them. I see you are pinning your hopes that either the BK judge pities you and rewards you for your inability to bargain with AA in its most profitable years, or that Bush or congress will rush out and pump money in to airlines and its well paid workers. This is the same government that keeps a minimum wage below the poverty level. Goverment/the GOP will not be the industries savior.

 

[FA Mikey]

I don''t understand people who openly and willingly when given a choice between to evils choose the greater? I dont understand the mentality of people who would choose to sink the ship, over living to fight another day?

 

[Winglet]

I''m already 100% screwed, so my vote is 100% NO.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/7/2003 911 AM FA Mikey wrote:

I don''t understand people who openly and willingly when given a choice between to evils choose the greater? I dont understand the mentality of people who would choose to sink the ship, over living to fight another day?

----------------​

Spell out for us your proof that indicates which is worse?

Use the F/A''s or any other workgroup of another airline currently in reorganization and be specific. Hell even the USAir Pilots, who was the only group to have their pension cancelled now have a new pension plan in place.

If you are going to spew knowledge of which is worse then please educate us with facts.

The continued spread of factless fear is getting old.

 

[mistified]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 11:13:28 PM Bob Owens wrote:



----------------​

Can the economy afford to lose 40% of its airline capacity?


----------------

Bob
No it can''t afford to lose 40%.

But it DEFINITELY can afford to lose 20%.

And that is the whole point of my post.

No FUD intended.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/7/2003 10:40:12 AM mistified wrote:


Bob
No it can''t afford to lose 40%.

But it DEFINITELY can afford to lose 20%.

And that is the whole point of my post.

No FUD intended.

----------------


And so, how is cutting wages and benefits and leading the industry into a reverse tailspin going to remove that 20%?​

 

[RV4]

I thought that Carty said at the townhall meeting in Tulsa that concessions would allow AA to remain BIG and Big Was Good and Big Not Have To Mean Slow.

He wants BIG and low cost.