Pilots Given Deadline On Pact

[Winglet]

U might have a chance if:

1. The economy was good and getting better, we weren't embroiled in an open-ended cesspool in Iraq, and the government weren't spending money like a drunk sailor. Unfortunately, the economy is bad, especially for air travel and it's looking more and more like GW's going to give us 4 more years of body counts, deficits, and cheap talk.

2. Lakefield could wangle, conive, steal, beg, or weasle his way into forcing sub-JetBlew compensation on his workforce. He's going to need it because the rest of his operation costs way more than JetBlew and his management team has show over the last 2 years that's it's incapable of "transforming" the airline.

3. Didn't have Southwest and JetBlew circling the blood in the water.

4. Had competent leadership.

5. Didn't have a burned-out and demoralized workforce after forcing epic proportion concessions on workers.


Lakefield's got one thing going for him . . . a compliant judge on his side.

 

[allegheny1]

I have gone thru the 107 dockets submitted to the court thru 9/13. The only
aircraft I see rejected are 1 b737-300 which was already returned and a
number of commuter acft.

Can anyone verify another 23 mainline acft being rejected.

thanks

 

[ITRADE]

23 Turboprops.

 

[N628AU]

The timelines in all 1113 cases in the airlines the court has set it for 30 days, according to Sharon Levine, Bankruptcy Attorney.

Your own posts shows Thirty days after the arbrogation is filed.

Guess you answered your own question and did not realize it.

[post="180354"][/post]​

Try taking the time to actually read it this time there Einstein.

The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing

You said they had to negotiate for 30 days. No where does the section say that. It only says the court will rule within 30 days. Do the math. The hearing shall not be more than 14 days out, and the motion will be ruled on within 30 days. In theory, a motion hearing could be scheduled 14 days out (or 10 or 7 or 5 for that matter), and in there is nothing that says the judge could not rule immediately, although that would be unlikely. Read the law as it is written, and not how you wish to interpret it.

I could give a crap about what Ms. Levine says, I can read the law for itself, and it is pretty clear.

 

[700UW]

So I take is since you are not moving a/c parts around you went to law school and know more then a $400 an hour bankruptcy attorney?

And if you knew anything about the law it is not black and white, it is gray and open for interpretation.

 

[N628AU]

Nope. The comapny I do work for now represents many legal firms however and I am around attorneys daily. As a matter of fact, I had dinner two weeks ago with an attorney at Skadden, Arps, Meagher, and Flom, the company BK firm from Chapter 11 round 1. I also choose to look up my facts other than go lock step with what someone tells me.

You are correct in the fact that the law is gray and open to interpretation. That is why the whole Airbus mess is in arbitration. If the law where black and white the judge would have ruled for the IAM in the first place (which I would have agreed with BTW, sorry to disappoint you).

 

[mwa]

Maybe the 23 are the EMB 170's.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Duty to bargain


Rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements under Bankruptcy Law

As they relate to the enforcement or rejection of collective bargaining agreements, the provisions of Taft-Hartley and the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 are in conflict.

Under Chapter 11 reorganization, it is possible, with court approval, for a debtor to reject executory contracts. Collective bargaining agreeements, to the extent that they govern future terms and conditions of work, are executory.

Under Taft-Hartley, the employer is prohibited from unilaterally terminating a collective bargaining agreement.

In 1984, the Supreme Court considered the conflict between federal bankruptcy law and federal labor law in the important NLRB v. Bildisco and Bildisco case. Three distinct issues were addressed concerning the conflict:

The principle issue was one of jurisdiction, specifically, which of the two conflicting laws should take priority. This issue was resolved in favor of the Bankruptcy Code, with the Bankruptcy Court enforcement of that law superceding the jurisdictional power of the NLRB to enforce Taft-Hartley. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court, in considering a reorganization plan under Chapter 11, may allow rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, despite the restrictions imposed by Taft-Hartley.

If allowed, the rejection of the collective bargaining agreement could be made effective retroactively to the date the employer filed its petition for reorganization.

A balancing test was established as the standard for determining whether rejection should be permitted. If efforts at voluntary modification (i.e., negotiated relief) are not likely to resolve the burden on the employer, and if rejection would help the employer obtain a successful reorganization, rejection will be allowed.

The Bankruptcy Amendments of 1984

Because of the controversy surrounding the Bildisco case, efforts to obtain reform of the bankruptcy law were immediately undertaken in Congress. The result was the Packwood-Rodino Bill which made reorganization a little less attractive as a union busting device.

The 1984 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code added three standards which must be met before a bankruptcy court can allow rejection of collective bargaining agreements.

The debtor in possession must make concessionary proposals to the union, under Section 1113(B)(1)(A),

The union must be furnished with relevant information required to determine whether the proposal is equitable and necessary, under Section 1113(B)(1)(B), and

The debtor in possession must bargain in good faith with the union over the concessions requested, under Section1113(B)(2).

Procedurally, the amended law requires that a debtor in possession make the proposed modifications to the collective bargaining agreement prior to filing an application for rejection with the court. The debtor's obligation to bargain in good faith over that proposal includes disclosure of the most complete financial data available to show that the modifications are necessary for the successful reorganization of the debtor.

If the debtor fulfills its bargaining obligation and the union rejects the proposed modifications, the debtor may petition for rejection of the agreement.

In considering the application for rejection, the bankruptcy court is required to determine whether:

The union rejected the proposed modifications without good cause, Section 1113©(2),
Whether the modifications are necessary for the successful rehabilitation of the debtor, Section 1113©(1), and

Whether the "balance of equities" clearly favors rejection, Section 1113©(3).

The circuit courts are split on the appropriate standard to apply when considering whether rejection should be permitted. The code allows rejection if the proposed modifications are "necessary to permit the reorganization."

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the concept of "necessary modifications" to mean that rejection should be permitted only if the modifications are necessary to prevent liquidation of the firm.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a position more favorable to rejection, by allowing rejection if rejection would be useful in reorganization and if the modifications are reasonable.

 

[networking]

Try taking the time to actually read it this time there Einstein.

The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing

You said they had to negotiate for 30 days. No where does the section say that. It only says the court will rule within 30 days. Do the math. The hearing shall not be more than 14 days out, and the motion will be ruled on within 30 days. In theory, a motion hearing could be scheduled 14 days out (or 10 or 7 or 5 for that matter), and in there is nothing that says the judge could not rule immediately, although that would be unlikely. Read the law as it is written, and not how you wish to interpret it.

I could give a crap about what Ms. Levine says, I can read the law for itself, and it is pretty clear.

[post="180702"][/post]​

So...Lets speculate here. No more than 14 days out. October 1st?
Motion shall be ruled on within 30 days. November 1st?
I am still not convinced they will change payscales whether by acceptance or by abrogation right before the holidays.

 

[PITbull]

So...Lets speculate here. No more than 14 days out. October 1st?
Motion shall be ruled on within 30 days. November 1st?
I am still not convinced they will change payscales whether by acceptance or by abrogation right before the holidays.

[post="180724"][/post]​

Trust that this is one ruthless management.

 

[networking]

Yes they are rutheless. I still think many will leave immediately if this happens, which will put their "business transformation" in jeopardy.