Pilots new proposal and the Me Too Clause

[NYer]

If you read the information in the restructuring website it seems the 13.5% stake is not coming from the company but rather it is an unsecured claim being made by the pilots in bankruptcy court and is subject to funds being available with the Creditors being able to get all the money and anything left over would then go to successful unsecured claims. The company is just agreeing to not contest their claim. It seems that is not a very likely scenario for success on the pilots side.

 

[TWU informer]

No wonder the Pilots are against grey matter agreements that are unclear and ambiguous.

 

[FWAAA]

Well from what I see its a 10 year deal that has 0%-0%-0%-0%-5%-4%-3%-2%-0%-0% so thats a total of 14% over 10 years or around 1.4% plus they lose their "A" plan.

According to AA,the offer to pilots is actually 0%-0%-0%-4%-2%-2%-2%-2%-2%, for a total of 14.8% (compounded). Everyone received 1.5% in 2008 (the final paltry increase from the 2003 concessions - there were five 1.5% increases from 2004-08) and so the first "0%" above is 2009. The 4% is DOS, and that's now, in 2012.

Here's the letter from AA: http://restructuringamr.com/documents/HaleLettertoPilots621Final1730clean.pdf

I'm not sure it's accurate to say "losing" their A plan; the A plan will be frozen, and thus pilots will get all that they have earned, even amounts in excess of the PBGC maximum guarantee. A distress termination would equal "losing their A plan," as then they'd be limited to the PBGC $54k per year.

 

[FWAAA]

If you read the information in the restructuring website it seems the 13.5% stake is not coming from the company but rather it is an unsecured claim being made by the pilots in bankruptcy court and is subject to funds being available with the Creditors being able to get all the money and anything left over would then go to successful unsecured claims. The company is just agreeing to not contest their claim. It seems that is not a very likely scenario for success on the pilots side.

Yes, AA is agreeing not to contest a claim equal to 13.5% of the new company value. It is very unlikely that any unsecured creditors get cash in satisfaction of their claims - all unsecured creditors will probably be limited to the new stock. Nobody will get cash and thus, the pilots (and other employees, if they negotiate uncontested claims) will not be left out.

The unsecured creditors committee will probably go along with employee claims that will equal no more than about 45% of the new stock, as I calculated above.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Hmmm.... anyone know if the TWU made a claim on our behalf so we too can enjoy some stock in the new company?

 

[AAOHNO]

The Bankruptcy Proof of Claim is NOT Due Until July 16, 2012

May 22, 2012​

DO NOT PANIC!

 

[aapitbull]

Hmmm.... anyone know if the TWU made a claim on our behalf so we too can enjoy some stock in the new company?

Owe how can you ask that, you know the twu is on top of it, thats why they told you to vote yes, is that a light coming on?

 

[Vortilon]

Last thing I heard was that the pilots have to decide by Wednesday night if they will bring this LBO to a vote. If they decide to vote, then it will be at least 5 weeks to get the language figured out and a vote completed. The abrogation would be pushed back as well for all groups without agreements.

 

[TWU informer]

I wonder if Hewitt and Mullings are working "TWU Fear Video - the sequel" to explain why the sky has not fallen and since Voting NO on the LBO the Pilots have now improved everyone's position.

That is why the non voting industrial union save us from ourselves crap is worthless and needs to be replaced.

Those that listened to the fear mongers should take note. There are some industrial unionist spreading the same false fear about AMFA and craft unionism.

 

[Buster CRC]

Are the yes voting twu groups enjoying the new insurance or the new OT policies yet or do they me too till we get an agreement?

 

[Bogey]

Everything is status quo until a ruling is made by the judge.

 

[NYer]

Yes, AA is agreeing not to contest a claim equal to 13.5% of the new company value. It is very unlikely that any unsecured creditors get cash in satisfaction of their claims - all unsecured creditors will probably be limited to the new stock. Nobody will get cash and thus, the pilots (and other employees, if they negotiate uncontested claims) will not be left out.

The unsecured creditors committee will probably go along with employee claims that will equal no more than about 45% of the new stock, as I calculated above.

It isn't the unsecured creditors, it is the "priority" debt holders and the Creditors. Everyone else gets the left overs, if any.

 

[mwa]

This is a well written summary from STL chairman

posted on June 23, 2012 07:43

What happened?

This week was a roller coaster for the pilots of American Airlines. What I will attempt to do in this blast is to describe what happened.

A little background; I have been involved in a leadership or negotiating committee role for three (3) chapter 11 contract ratifications and one (1) near chapter 11 (AA 2003), since 1992.

What was presented to the APA Board for ratification was by far, the worst, most incomplete and irresponsible contract proposal I have ever seen. What was actually voted on failed more on what was intentionally unavailable, than from the content within.

On Friday, June 15th, the Company made a last and final best offer to APA in New York during mediated bargaining. The LBFO documents were over ten separate documents, some related, some not. Their form was in no way even close to contract language. Major contract areas were defined by single sentences or only a paragraph. Some versions were not accurate to the last state of bargaining or conflicted with other proposed documents.

The APA Board arrived on Monday afternoon to review the proposed agreement. What happened was many of those documents were still in various stages of negotiation. Some of the final documents were not even drafted yet and ended up not being available for board review until only minutes before the vote.

To describe the actual vote as chaotic would be an understatement. As the vote was imminent, it was realized that most of the Board did not even have complete or current versions of all the documents that we were voting on.

In the end, there were 11 total documents. The board had only reviewed 7 of them while in session prior to the vote. One document was still being negotiated as the vote was taking place.

Some examples of substantial contractual areas that lacked adequate detail were Pref Bidding and reserve rules. The Company was proposing to implement Pref Bidding with only one sentence of contractual language. Reserve Rules were only a few sentences leaving gaping questions on how it would be implemented. As written, the company would be able to require airport standby’s, no reasonably available, pretty much complete company discretion on how over 25% of our workforce is administered.

What was proposed to us was either, clearly, bad faith bargaining or gross incompetence. AA and APA have been negotiating for 6 years. It is unthinkable that the company did not have in their possession, basic or skeletal language on such important areas as reserve rules and pref bidding.

Why was the language omitted?

For the APA to approve a new 6-year collective bargaining agreement on what was proposed to us would have been an act of gross negligence.

AA has requested and received approval for a 1-week delay in the 1113(c) decision. The APA Board will reconvene next week to review what has been promised to be, more complete and robust proposals.

As soon as this next week is complete, we will be scheduling a series of domicile meetings to give you a detailed account of where are and where we are going.

 

[olderguyAMT]

This is a well written summary from STL chairman

posted on June 23, 2012 07:43

What happened?

This week was a roller coaster for the pilots of American Airlines. What I will attempt to do in this blast is to describe what happened.

A little background; I have been involved in a leadership or negotiating committee role for three (3) chapter 11 contract ratifications and one (1) near chapter 11 (AA 2003), since 1992.

What was presented to the APA Board for ratification was by far, the worst, most incomplete and irresponsible contract proposal I have ever seen. What was actually voted on failed more on what was intentionally unavailable, than from the content within.

On Friday, June 15th, the Company made a last and final best offer to APA in New York during mediated bargaining. The LBFO documents were over ten separate documents, some related, some not. Their form was in no way even close to contract language. Major contract areas were defined by single sentences or only a paragraph. Some versions were not accurate to the last state of bargaining or conflicted with other proposed documents.

The APA Board arrived on Monday afternoon to review the proposed agreement. What happened was many of those documents were still in various stages of negotiation. Some of the final documents were not even drafted yet and ended up not being available for board review until only minutes before the vote.

To describe the actual vote as chaotic would be an understatement. As the vote was imminent, it was realized that most of the Board did not even have complete or current versions of all the documents that we were voting on.

In the end, there were 11 total documents. The board had only reviewed 7 of them while in session prior to the vote. One document was still being negotiated as the vote was taking place.

Some examples of substantial contractual areas that lacked adequate detail were Pref Bidding and reserve rules. The Company was proposing to implement Pref Bidding with only one sentence of contractual language. Reserve Rules were only a few sentences leaving gaping questions on how it would be implemented. As written, the company would be able to require airport standby’s, no reasonably available, pretty much complete company discretion on how over 25% of our workforce is administered.

What was proposed to us was either, clearly, bad faith bargaining or gross incompetence. AA and APA have been negotiating for 6 years. It is unthinkable that the company did not have in their possession, basic or skeletal language on such important areas as reserve rules and pref bidding.

Why was the language omitted?

For the APA to approve a new 6-year collective bargaining agreement on what was proposed to us would have been an act of gross negligence.

AA has requested and received approval for a 1-week delay in the 1113© decision. The APA Board will reconvene next week to review what has been promised to be, more complete and robust proposals.

As soon as this next week is complete, we will be scheduling a series of domicile meetings to give you a detailed account of where are and where we are going.

Looks like we are going into the twighlight zone with all the open language, poorly worded, incomplete, and extremely vauge proposals from the co.
Will this be status quo going forward for all union groups? Well, history does seem to repeat itself.
Then, I predict more extensions, until both anxiety burdened judges have fits of panic attacks.
What will the co. do next? It looks like the ship is lacking a captain at the helm, and could be a sign of fractured leadership. Too many cooks spoil the broth! Is it time to fire the chef at the Standalone Restaurant, rename it and hire replacements?????? What will the customers think if they can't read the menu?

 

[jimntx]

The company doesn't care whether or not the unions vote for or against "the worst, most incomplete and irresponsible contract proposal." They will simply have the judge abrogate the contracts we have and then they will impose the term sheets. It is a win/win for them.

Question is what do we do about that? What are our options?