Not all airlines use bankruptcy as tool to shed contracts

[Bear96]

You sure are like a Nazi, by your own definition, because you repeat the same things over and over. And over. (And over.) (And over again.)

You have been repeating yourself for a couple of years now on this discussion board. I have agreed with you on some points, and disagreed with you on others. If you want to keep going around in circles for a few more years, I'll let you look back over the posts and figure out where we agree and disagree.

If you want to add any new points to the debate, I'd be glad to continue the conversation. Until then, if you're just going to keep on bringing up issues and trying to start a fight, even on points where we have agreed, you'll just have to continue on your own.

Maybe it gives you some sense of purpose or self-worth trying to rehash the same arguments. Maybe it works in rousing your base. Who knows what your motivation (or the extent of your intellectual ability) is.

 

[UAL_TECH]

You sure are like a Nazi, by your own definition, because you repeat the same things over and over. And over. (And over.) (And over again.)

You have been repeating yourself for a couple of years now on this discussion board. I have agreed with you on some points, and disagreed with you on others. If you want to keep going around in circles for a few more years, I'll let you look back over the posts and figure out where we agree and disagree.

If you want to add any new points to the debate, I'd be glad to continue the conversation. Until then, if you're just going to keep on bringing up issues and trying to start a fight, even on points where we have agreed, you'll just have to continue on your own.

Maybe it gives you some sense of purpose or self-worth trying to rehash the same arguments. Maybe it works in rousing your base. Who knows what your motivation (or the extent of your intellectual ability) is.

That is strange, because that is what I was thinking about your posts.
B) UT

 

[FWAAA]

Basically what the courts are doing is confiscating the labor of the AFA, it would be no different than confiscating the oil of Exxon.

No, that's incorrect. Your tortured analogy doesn't make any sense. Sorry 'bout that.

Basically, what the courts are doing to the NWA AFA is saying "If you want to sell your labor to NWA, here are the terms."

A correct analogy to Exxon would be if the courts said "Exxon, if you want to sell your oil to NWA, here's the price and terms. If you don't like that, you are free to sell your oil to any other buyer at the price and terms you negotiate."

The only buyer of NWA AFA labor where the flight attendants are now unable to negotiate price and terms are NWA. Just like Exxon would be free to tell NWA and the bankruptcy court to "go pound sand," and sell their labor to some other buyer - the NWA AFA flight attendants are just as free to move on.

Just like those AA line maintenance employees you mentioned the other day who have quit AA to go fix airplanes at jetBlue.

 

[Bear96]

No, that's incorrect. Your tortured analogy doesn't make any sense. Sorry 'bout that.

You can explain it over and over and over, but he'll still bring up the same tortured analogy every couple of days.

 

[Bob Owens]

No, that's incorrect. Your tortured analogy doesn't make any sense. Sorry 'bout that.

Basically, what the courts are doing to the NWA AFA is saying "If you want to sell your labor to NWA, here are the terms."

A correct analogy to Exxon would be if the courts said "Exxon, if you want to sell your oil to NWA, here's the price and terms. If you don't like that, you are free to sell your oil to any other buyer at the price and terms you negotiate."

The only buyer of NWA AFA labor where the flight attendants are now unable to negotiate price and terms are NWA. Just like Exxon would be free to tell NWA and the bankruptcy court to "go pound sand," and sell their labor to some other buyer - the NWA AFA flight attendants are just as free to move on.

Just like those AA line maintenance employees you mentioned the other day who have quit AA to go fix airplanes at jetBlue.

You are wrong.

Point #1
The courts are saying that the Flight Attendants at NWA can not act collectively, which is their right as per the RLA. The court may not prohibit individuals from leaving but thats only because they are confident that most will not leave. If the NWA flight atendants got together and decided on this day we all will not report to work and will picket outside NWA the court would consider it a strike even though each person showed up there individually.

Bear and your self serving arguement ignores the fact that a union is a collective of individuals just as a corporation is a collective of investors. The contract is with the union.

A correct analogy to Exxon would be if the courts said "Exxon, if you want to sell your oil to NWA, here's the price and terms. If you don't like that, you are free to sell your oil to any other buyer at the price and terms you negotiate."

Wrong. The court is telling the AFA here are the terms and they must not withhold the product that they collectively provide.

The only buyer of NWA AFA labor where the flight attendants are now unable to negotiate price and terms are NWA. Just like Exxon would be free to tell NWA and the bankruptcy court to "go pound sand," and sell their labor to some other buyer - the NWA AFA flight attendants are just as free to move on.

Once again you ignore the existance of a union and the contract. The fact is that the AFA has been prohibited from withdrawing labor, that would be like forcing Exxon to provide fuel but allowing the shareholders to sell their stock. Just because the individual shareholder can free himself from the situation it does not mean that the confiscation of his property is justified. Just because the individual worker can free themselves it does not justify what the court has done.

Basically the court just made unions illegal because he has made it so that just like when there is no union, the company is free to set terms unilaterally on an individual take it or leave it basis.

 

[FA Mikey]

AFA had ample chance before the ruling to strike and decided not to. The argument that AFA and the NWA FA's got screwed is simply AFA's choosing. It perfect for them. The continue moan how they have been shut out of any kind of job action while continuing to collect dues. AFA got everything they wanted.

 

[UAL_TECH]

AFA had ample chance before the ruling to strike and decided not to. The argument that AFA and the NWA FA's got screwed is simply AFA's choosing. It perfect for them. The continue moan how they have been shut out of any kind of job action while continuing to collect dues. AFA got everything they wanted.

Was it not 15 days?

AFA got everything they wanted.

B) UT

 

[eolesen]

AFA had ample chance before the ruling to strike and decided not to. The argument that AFA and the NWA FA's got screwed is simply AFA's choosing.

Totally agree. You certainly don't advertise the date you're going to strike and give the company time to block the action, especially when there was any grey area regarding the legality of it. It's usually better to beg forgiveness from the judge than to ask permission.

 

[FWAAA]

You are wrong.

Point #1
The courts are saying that the Flight Attendants at NWA can not act collectively, which is their right as per the RLA. The court may not prohibit individuals from leaving but thats only because they are confident that most will not leave. If the NWA flight atendants got together and decided on this day we all will not report to work and will picket outside NWA the court would consider it a strike even though each person showed up there individually.

Bear and your self serving arguement ignores the fact that a union is a collective of individuals just as a corporation is a collective of investors. The contract is with the union.

Wrong. The court is telling the AFA here are the terms and they must not withhold the product that they collectively provide.

Once again you ignore the existance of a union and the contract. The fact is that the AFA has been prohibited from withdrawing labor, that would be like forcing Exxon to provide fuel but allowing the shareholders to sell their stock. Just because the individual shareholder can free himself from the situation it does not mean that the confiscation of his property is justified. Just because the individual worker can free themselves it does not justify what the court has done.

Basically the court just made unions illegal because he has made it so that just like when there is no union, the company is free to set terms unilaterally on an individual take it or leave it basis.

I'm not ignoring their union contract. The court (rightly or wrongly) is blocking their right to strike. The individuals still have a remedy: They can sell their labor to another employer at whatever price they can negotiate. They just can't collectively withhold it from NW. But they could resign.

No, Mr Owens, you are wrong. Your tortured analogy just doesn't make sense. But as Bear96 correctly said, telling you that doesn't mean you won't keep making it.

I agree with FA Mikey and Former ModerAAtor. As I posted numerous times last fall, the NW AFA FAs screwed up: if they wanted to strike, they should have struck. Instead, they acted like they didn't really want to strike, repeatedly announcing and delaying their anticipated job action. Finally, they gave the court sufficient time to block their threatened strike.

They should have struck as soon as terms were imposed. But lacking conviction and backbones, they didn't. Too bad for them.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I agree with FA Mikey and Former ModerAAtor. As I posted numerous times last fall, the NW AFA FAs screwed up: if they wanted to strike, they should have struck. Instead, they acted like they didn't really want to strike, repeatedly announcing and delaying their anticipated job action. Finally, they gave the court sufficient time to block their threatened strike.

They should have struck as soon as terms were imposed. But lacking conviction and backbones, they didn't. Too bad for them.

FWAAA,

Very good synopsis of the situation.
Coulda, Shoulda, but did not, now crying about it.
No sympathy here :down:

B) UT