Pit Papers View On Today's Court Action

[Dea Certe]

But in that one pocket in the pants on the remaining leg, they will manage to dig up some cash for executive pay and bonuses.



Dea

 

[usfliboi]

Am i missing something here? Did the eggs hatch before they were laid? All the judge said was, Im not deciding rt now???? If he feels the cuts are needed , they will happen. If he doesnt, they wont!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Am i missing something here? Did the eggs hatch before they were laid? All the judge said was, Im not deciding rt now???? If he feels the cuts are needed , they will happen. If he doesnt, they wont!

[post="189286"][/post]​

Not really. What he said was that he did not know the legality issues involved here, and whether what the company has done and wants to do is legal. He is giving himself time to decide: 1) whether it is even legal to do what they want (something the PBGC and other US government agencies says is not), and 2) whether he will allow it, in context of company necessity, employee sacrifice, and creditor protection. I suspect that it will take a while to work out some of these issues involving funding of the plans prior to the latest chapter 11 filing, and that unless the employee groups give in and give it away (like ALPA did last time), under a new contract. I also suspect that really soon Judge Mitchell will resent that the company has all of these labor issues before him to sort out, and may become less sympathetic to them, if he doesn't already!

 

[crazyincanton]

Since RoachFEST I have been conducting an unofficial survey of F/C flight Attendents regarding the way they are managed. NOT one has ever recieved a pat on the back or praise of ANY type from a supervisor. This attitude needs to STOP RIGHT NOW! If it doesn't ALL of your wage concessions will be eaten up by training and hirng cost due to turnover coasts.

[post="189067"][/post]​

Bob, a pat on the back isn't going to do it at this point. 23% means bills are going to be unpaid. I believe if we see anything close to this, f/a's will leave in droves, pat on the back or not.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Am i missing something here? Did the eggs hatch before they were laid? All the judge said was, Im not deciding rt now???? If he feels the cuts are needed , they will happen. If he doesnt, they wont!

[post="189286"][/post]​

If nothing else, the judge is letting labor know that he will think things through and not simply ram management's proposals down the throats of labor. Given that part of his job is to provide the greatest opportunity for US' survival, he can't reasonably expect to see US survive if he rams US' desired changes down labor's throats only to see them take the airline down in revenge.

Piney,
while your point is valid, it is very doubtful that US is going to change their culture to become a affirm their employees. CO managed to make that change but did it well after they were financially stable and had employed executives who came in to move CO to being a viable competitor instead of just a survivor. Positive change rarely comes during crisis; that is when one's true colors will show.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

If nothing else, the judge is letting labor know that he will think things through and not simply ram management's proposals down the throats of labor.

As some of us had predicted, this would NOT be a slam dunk. I have said before...if labor contracts can simply be thrown out then the laws passed after Lorenzo mean nothing. This is one of the first real tests at a large airline since those events. Management at U has negociated and intimidated employees in bad faith. The sad thing is most of us WANT to help...its the land grab that is sickening...kind of like the guy picking your pocket while you maintain pressure on his bleeding artery. Take care Traveler. Greeter.

 

[cavalier]

I also suspect that really soon Judge Mitchell will resent that the company has all of these labor issues before him to sort out, and may become less sympathetic to them, if he doesn't already!

[post="189289"][/post]​

The old hot potato right on top of the family jewels...ouch!

 

[SKY HIGH]

And one more thing.
AFA is and will continue to present proposals that our members can vote on. We will not continue to be on the company's time table and rush a proposal in for fear of what a judge may or may not do or fall in Jerry's hands to make his job successful.

WILL -NOT- DO!!!

Sky High states:..................YOU GO GIRL.
Jerry's pathetic smoozing with the flight attendants when he non-rev's is very transparent TOO!!. :angry:

 

[us0004us]

"Davis said that the company had no alternative but to slash labor costs. He noted that US Airways had taken other steps to save $7 million in cash, including reducing capital expenditures and reducing senior management salaries by 5 percent.

But under cross-examination by a flight attendants' lawyer, he acknowledged that managers had received a 4 percent raise in April."

can the judge impose a greater reduction to management compensation too?

 

[28yrsnojob]

:down: as i said on another thread this pay cut cut for management is a big joke.
its time labor takes a hard stand this time .

 

[PITbull]

"Davis said that the company had no alternative but to slash labor costs. He noted that US Airways had taken other steps to save $7 million in cash, including reducing capital expenditures and reducing senior management salaries by 5 percent.

But under cross-examination by a flight attendants' lawyer, he acknowledged that managers had received a 4 percent raise in April."

can the judge impose a greater reduction to management compensation too?

[post="189406"][/post]​

I believe that if Labor makes the motion to have imposed increase in managment's gives, it may be granted in the same way.

But, you never know, being that managment are employees of U, he may just impose whatever pay cut on everyone.

I can't see a judge imposing a greater reduction in wages on labor when senior mangment (millionaires) only are taking 10%. Lower managment is taking 5-7.5 depending on your "grade level".

 

[jimntx]

Given that part of his job is to provide the greatest opportunity for US' survival...

Not really. His job is to provide the greatest opportunity for the creditors to recoup the money owed to them. If the same opportunity also means the survival of US, then that is jam on the bread, but one does not automatically equal the other.

can the judge impose a greater reduction to management compensation too?

[post="189406"][/post]​

Unless I am totally misunderstanding the bk laws and procedures, the answer is no. It is not the judge's duty to referee disagreements between management and labor, nor to ascertain the fairness or rightness of the motions brought before him. His concern is simply "Is the granting of this motion in the best interest of the creditors?" He rules up or down, yes or no.

Now, this gets tortuous, but it is legal. The judge may feel that survival of US is in the best interest of the creditors and a 23% pay cut will result in an immediate shutdown of the airline because the employees will walk. He could rule no on the 23% motion and suggest to the company that they come back with something more reasonable. But, I do not believe that he can play Let's Make a Deal where he tells the company "I'm changing the 23% to 15% and granting the motion" or "You can have 23% pay cuts for workers only if management takes the same %-age cuts."

Also, I don't think the unions can file a counter-motion to increase the %-age cuts for management. As long as the company has exclusivity in the reorganization, I don't think outside parties--employees or creditors--can put motions before the court. If the judge cancels the exclusivity and "entertains" alternate reorg plans, then others can step in and move for appointment of a trustee or conversion to Ch. 7 or whatever.

Now, having said all that we must remember that Federal judges can pretty much do whatever they want to do because short of impeachment by Congress, they got the job for life, and if you don't like a ruling you can always appeal it. <_<

 

[700UW]

The Judge in an 1113e motion does have the leeway to set his own terms. In an 1113c, he does not.

 

[jimntx]

The Judge in an 1113e motion does have the leeway to set his own terms. In an 1113c, he does not.

[post="189510"][/post]​

Thanks, 700. As my counterpart in our Brussels office used to say, "I didn't knew that." (And, no, knew is not a typo.)

 

[Light Years]

Bob, a pat on the back isn't going to do it at this point. 23% means bills are going to be unpaid. I believe if we see anything close to this, f/a's will leave in droves, pat on the back or not.

[post="189326"][/post]​

Of course, that's exactly what they want. No trouble finding flight attendants... even ones already current on all the mainline aircraft, and already working for over 23% less than they did at mainline (MDA). They could be back on the active list within one week. Alot more came back than anyone ever expected.

What's the difference between a mainline and MDA F/A? Not a thing but seniority. The F/As set themselves up for this when they agreed that the junior, furloughed F/As and the 70-100 seat flying (or whatever MDA flies in the future) was only worth the worst commuter airline contract in the industry. How can anyone argue that a more senior F/A is worth SO much more? Someone you used to share a jumpseat with already took the 23% cut, and you signed the contract!

Sad but true, there has never been a problem finding flight attendants off the street either. If US Airways had an open house tomorrow people would be banging the door down with thier resumes, even with the current situation.

The company would like nothing more than to see F/As leave in droves, they'd throw a party. Staying is much more powerful.