Questions & Answers Regarding the New Fleet Service Agreement

[Tim Nelson]

I've heard that RDU was voting today. Any truth to this. Is voting already going on with the _iss poor Q & A from 141.

PHL is voting on Thursday, CLT friday.
Freedom, when is PHX and LAS voting?

Not sure about RDU.

regards,

 

[freedom]

Freedom, your desperate and delusional attempt to reject the monetary worth of the arbitration grievance is nothing less than mind boggling to me. However, your request for further information is encouraging though so I answered your question and put the court case here for your further reading. The monetary amounts in the casework are convincing and 'severely weaken' the IAM's Q & A babble.
The court case in its entirety can be found here: Arbitration Court Case

Further, even Parker himself recognized this award by saying in a letter to all IAM employees, "...the money involved here is substantial-$627 million-..."

The number 1 law firm in the nation [according to Vault Mag's 2006 list of the Top 100 law firms] that represented US AIRWAYS desperate attempt to shield itself from the arbitration told the Judge, "If the IAM is permitted to continue to prosecute the grievance and is awarded the wage increases sought in the grievance, US AIRWAYS, and the other stakeholders in those bankruptcy proceedings will be severely harmed."

Freedom, do you know what "Severely Harmed" Means? I think most sane people will call that a lie if someone tells them something is worth only $30 million or so when court documents presented by 'experts' say it is big enough to basically inflict 'severe pain' on stackholders. Nonetheless, if you choose to believe the IAM and its dribble without providing any substantiation to their Q & A [like I did] then do as you wish. In fact, everyone should read the IAM's Q & A...it's all opinion that you should vote yes with no substance or references. Kind of a paternal thing that just sez, "Vote yes because I say so".
OTOH, I have obtained court documents, SEC filings, letterheads of admission from the company and Union, and have put forth a solid Q & A that smashes down the IAM's juvenile and unsubstantiated dribble. More importantly, my Q & A gives the fleet service workers the facts about this grievance so that they can make an informed decision.

regards,

page 15 item D . 63 .... that's what this all boils down too . Everyone who is affected by this should take a look ... the link is in the response above ...scroll down to page 15 and read it ...

I'm no lawyer , but if the IAM wants to win it's case in court , it seems to me that it would simply have to prove that AMERICA WEST bought 75 percent of US AIRWAYS .. why 75 percent and not 51 ? because 51 is close to half , and half is not "all" 75 % on the other hand would satifiy most people as all ... so does anyone know what percentage of us airways america west bought durning the merger ?

Alright tim , the court documents appear well enough in order , i would call the 30 million estimate to be incorrect , yes if not a lie , but this is once again coming from a non lawyer .. i must compliment you on your good fact finding skills , the document itself cannot be ingnored as untrue or propaganda ..

It seems to me if anyone wants to PROVE or DISPROVE the CIC , they must look at the numbers ...

i'm now going to make a stretch and leap of faith ,i don't know what the numbers ARE but it seems to me that IF the IAM had found out the numbers , and i don't think it would be all that hard , AND they figured out that they were not going to win the CIC , we would now be presented with the offer we have today ...
ON the other hand , IF the IAM knew they had a solid case , i think the offer on the table would be much improved ... because only a moron would bargain away the possiblity of close to a 300 million dollar court case ..and i don't belive that the IAM leadership is either that uninformed OR that courrpt ... If it came out that we in fact had a STRONG court case at some point down the road and gave it up , the current IAM leadership would 1 be voted out of office and 2 in physical danger ....

Even with the divisons within the IAM , i still don't think they would bargain away a 300 million dollar victory in order to bring up the west or the class two stations .. . In fact it would make more sense for the IAM to pursue such a victory in order to go around to other groups of workers and unions and say "look what the IAM can do for you"

common sense tells me our side thinks it's going to lose any court case ..

 

[Tim Nelson]

page 15 item D . 63 .... that's what this all boils down too . Everyone who is affected by this should take a look ... the link is in the response above ...scroll down to page 15 and read it ...

I'm no lawyer , but if the IAM wants to win it's case in court , it seems to me that it would simply have to prove that AMERICA WEST bought 75 percent of US AIRWAYS .. why 75 percent and not 51 ? because 51 is close to half , and half is not "all" 75 % on the other hand would satifiy most people as all ... so does anyone know what percentage of us airways america west bought durning the merger ?

Freedom,

Good question Freedom. You said you support the IAM so let me stay out of this and use the IAM's opinon and actions on the matter.

"As Backround, The IAM believes the US AIRWAYS-America West merger has resulted in a change of control of US AIRWAYS." Randy Canale, Chairman 141, by letter to all members dated Feb 26, 2007 titled Machinist File Suit to Force Change of Control Arbitration

Those are the words of the Machinist union, not mine. The IAM believes there was a change of control, regardless of how you vote. Further, to give the IAM credit, they do have a 'Top' law firm themselves and are not only credible but have already beaten your company in federal court over this matter. In fact the only thing meritless so far is the company's ill advised attempt to bring this back to bankruptcy.
If the fleet service brothers and sisters agree with the judge in his determination that this matter should move forward then the IAM is fully capable of handling this grievance. But don't expect the IAM to arbitrate if you don't keep them accountable. Bottom line. There is NOTHING in it for them if you don't. Neither the IAM or the company has a winning ticket, any award payable to the workers only. If the workers vote yes then it is most likely the equivalence of ripping up the $627 million winning mega million lotto ticket. Also if they vote yes then the west would be experiencing 'great pain' by throwing benefits under a bus and collaring themselves with the East's bankruptcy contract. Let alone throwing away section 6.

So not only does the IAM Boss think there was a change of control, but also, the IAM almost never arbitrates unless they think something is convincing. They only arbitrated a handful of cases over 15 years. The fact that they pushed this to an arbitration date signifies that they 'fully' believe it is winnable and that Canale isn't fibbing.
Further, although your company has said the arbitration is worth nothing, their actions indicate otherwise since it likely spent 'millions' on securing a "Top law Firm" in its ill fated attempt to bring the case back to bankruptcy. Remember, an award will be so big that your company's own law firm said the stakeholders would be 'severely harmed'. Your company is avoiding this arbitration like the Plague. Because of 'good sense'.

regards,

regards,

 

[orioleman]

just say NO ... to the agreement .. it really benefits no one but the COMPANY

 

[freedom]

Freedom,

Good question Freedom. You said you support the IAM so let me stay out of this and use the IAM's opinon and actions on the matter.

"As Backround, The IAM believes the US AIRWAYS-America West merger has resulted in a change of control of US AIRWAYS." Randy Canale, Chairman 141, by letter to all members dated Feb 26, 2007 titled Machinist File Suit to Force Change of Control Arbitration

Those are the words of the Machinist union, not mine. The IAM believes there was a change of control, regardless of how you vote. Further, to give the IAM credit, they do have a 'Top' law firm themselves and are not only credible but have already beaten your company in federal court over this matter. In fact the only thing meritless so far is the company's ill advised attempt to bring this back to bankruptcy.
If the fleet service brothers and sisters agree with the judge in his determination that this matter should move forward then the IAM is fully capable of handling this grievance. But don't expect the IAM to arbitrate if you don't keep them accountable. Bottom line. There is NOTHING in it for them if you don't. Neither the IAM or the company has a winning ticket, any award payable to the workers only. If the workers vote yes then it is most likely the equivalence of ripping up the $627 million winning mega million lotto ticket. Also if they vote yes then the west would be experiencing 'great pain' by throwing benefits under a bus and collaring themselves with the East's bankruptcy contract. Let alone throwing away section 6.

So not only does the IAM Boss think there was a change of control, but also, the IAM almost never arbitrates unless they think something is convincing. They only arbitrated a handful of cases over 15 years. The fact that they pushed this to an arbitration date signifies that they 'fully' believe it is winnable and that Canale isn't fibbing.
Further, although your company has said the arbitration is worth nothing, their actions indicate otherwise since it likely spent 'millions' on securing a "Top law Firm" in its ill fated attempt to bring the case back to bankruptcy. Remember, an award will be so big that your company's own law firm said the stakeholders would be 'severely harmed'. Your company is avoiding this arbitration like the Plague. Because of 'good sense'.

regards,

regards,

eh , i still get the feeling they think they would lose , while the "bosses" might not get anything monetary out of it , it would simplymake NO sense to drop a winning case or trade it in for such poor terms as are now offered ( althou i support accepting the terms ) ..and FURTHERMORE , if the iam DID think it was going to WIN , why accept such a piss poor contract (althou it DOES have it's advantages ) ?If your in a postion of power and leverage then YOU dicate the terms .

 

[alpha7]

Just by reading the following statement from the link posted on this board: "upon a change in control defined as the sale of all or substantially all of the assets or common stock of US Airways or US Airways Group in a single transaction (or in a multi-step) to a single purchaser," I can tell you that AWA did not, nor did US Air, purchase any stock or assets from each other. The just created a new company with AWA and US Air as subsidiaries. The question that the arbitrator will have to decide is that if the creation of the new company constitutes a change in control.

 

[freedom]

Just by reading the following statement from the link posted on this board: "upon a change in control defined as the sale of all or substantially all of the assets or common stock of US Airways or US Airways Group in a single transaction (or in a multi-step) to a single purchaser," I can tell you that AWA did not, nor did US Air, purchase any stock or assets from each other. The just created a new company with AWA and US Air as subsidiaries. The question that the arbitrator will have to decide is that if the creation of the new company constitutes a change in control.

hmmm that's an interesting question ...

very interesting... hmmm just as quickly as i can think of a pro i can think of a con here...

Would the new entity count as a purchaser of us airways ?

EDIT :if someone wants to be really helpfull they could go back in time throu the posts on this board and find out more of the terms , if i remember correctly alot of this was hashed out in the who bought who debates we used to have

 

[alpha7]

My personal opinion is that the arbitrator will vote against the Union on this one because of the language, but I don't know the intent of the language when it was negotiated. Plus considering the politics involved if the arbitrator does rule in the Union's favor and costs the company millions; no airline or any company in their right mind would pick this arbitrator to sit on a case if they had a say. Freedom you make a good point, regardless of what anyone's opinion is on the IAM, I have serious doubts they would give this case away if it was a "slam dunk."

 

[freedom]

My personal opinion is that the arbitrator will vote against the Union on this one because of the language, but I don't know the intent of the language when it was negotiated. Plus considering the politics involved if the arbitrator does rule in the Union's favor and costs the company millions; no airline or any company in their right mind would pick this arbitrator to sit on a case if they had a say. Freedom you make a good point, regardless of what anyone's opinion is on the IAM, I have serious doubts they would give this case away if it was a "slam dunk."

i'm going to lean in that direction as well , considering we now fly under the monkier US AIRWAYS ... all of our uniforms say us airways , and in our case at least , the surviving union is the union they had at the orginal us airways .. it doesn't appear to me to be a buyout or sale , but a pure merger and while our board of directors may be the ones running the show , all of this is to a large extent us airway's show ... they have more people than we ever did , more planes , etc ... in reality it's more like us airways simply had a leadership change with a few more routes planes and workers thrown into the mix .. but like i said' i'm no lawyer...

 

[Tim Nelson]

My personal opinion is that the arbitrator will vote against the Union on this one because of the language, but I don't know the intent of the language when it was negotiated. Plus considering the politics involved if the arbitrator does rule in the Union's favor and costs the company millions; no airline or any company in their right mind would pick this arbitrator to sit on a case if they had a say. Freedom you make a good point, regardless of what anyone's opinion is on the IAM, I have serious doubts they would give this case away if it was a "slam dunk."

You are in the same boat as Parker...he really doesn't know either. What a mind job. I mean nobody really knows but I'd hate to be in his shoes and be the one responsible for creating 'severe harm' to stockholders to the tune of $627 million dollars. I think US AIRWAYS is going to have to do alot better if this contract is voted out otherwise they risk the opinion of one person [arbitrator]to dictate terms that have severe consequences.

Of course the company is taking this case 'very serious' and has done all it could to avoid this 'meritless' arbitration case. They even hired the best law firm and Lost when it tried to avoid the arbitration so bad that it wanted to argue in a bankruptcy court.

The company's last ditch effort was to lay out some 'wage bait' to Freedom, bought and paid for with Freedom's own benefit plan. Another mind job because Freedom is actually taking the bait.

Further, workers are not compelled to vote yes on this. The west is already ready for section 6 negotiations and can secure their benefits with a no vote. The east has already lost their benefits and even if the arbitration is lost, the company still needs the workers for a transition agreement.

Arbitration aside, what a mind job for a company to put out 'wage bait' bought and paid for by the benefits that the westies will lose. Kinda like changing 6 into a half dozen, and Freedom prefers half dozen.

If this is voted out, I think freedom's company has $627 million reasons to clean things up and come up with a fair and equitable contract or it could experience 'great pain' going to arbitration.

Personally, I think US AIRWAYS will have to enhance the offer significantly as opposed to risking 'severe pain' to its stakeholders if one little arbitrator rules against it.

regards,

 

[freedom]

You are in the same boat as Parker...he really doesn't know either. What a mind job. I mean nobody really knows but I'd hate to be in his shoes and be the one responsible for creating 'severe harm' to stockholders to the tune of $627 million dollars. I think US AIRWAYS is going to have to do alot better if this contract is voted out otherwise they risk the opinion of one person [arbitrator]to dictate terms that have severe consequences.

Of course the company is taking this case 'very serious' and has done all it could to avoid this 'meritless' arbitration case. They even hired the best law firm and Lost when it tried to avoid the arbitration so bad that it wanted to argue in a bankruptcy court.

The company's last ditch effort was to lay out some 'wage bait' to Freedom, bought and paid for with Freedom's own benefit plan. Another mind job because Freedom is actually taking the bait.

Further, workers are not compelled to vote yes on this. The west is already ready for section 6 negotiations and can secure their benefits with a no vote. The east has already lost their benefits and even if the arbitration is lost, the company still needs the workers for a transition agreement.

Arbitration aside, what a mind job for a company to put out 'wage bait' bought and paid for by the benefits that the westies will lose. Kinda like changing 6 into a half dozen, and Freedom prefers half dozen.

If this is voted out, I think freedom's company has $627 million reasons to clean things up and come up with a fair and equitable contract or it could experience 'great pain' going to arbitration.

Personally, I think US AIRWAYS will have to enhance the offer significantly as opposed to risking 'severe pain' to its stakeholders if one little arbitrator rules against it.

regards,

ah but tim , as your so quick to overlook , it's the very union you don't like that completely agrees we should vote yes on this .. it's not the company that has handed us this choice , but our union , and they recommend we take it ....
The union is the one running the show , they are the ones who have pursued the arbitration , not some nameless faceless group .These are the people leading us , and if they say they think we should vote yes on this , who are we really to argue ? THEY are the ones who have all of the relevant information so that THEY can make the most informed choice .. i say that because alot of this deals with legal complexities that most of us don't want to deal with , heck you can't get most people to sit through a union meeting , as far as getting them to read a legal contract? forget it . we elected these people to lead us , and that's just what their doing .

 

[Tim Nelson]

ah but tim , as your so quick to overlook , it's the very union you don't like that completely agrees we should vote yes on this .. it's not the company that has handed us this choice , but our union , and they recommend we take it ....
The union is the one running the show , they are the ones who have pursued the arbitration , not some nameless faceless group .These are the people leading us , and if they say they think we should vote yes on this , who are we really to argue ? THEY are the ones who have all of the relevant information so that THEY can make the most informed choice .. i say that because alot of this deals with legal complexities that most of us don't want to deal with , heck you can't get most people to sit through a union meeting , as far as getting them to read a legal contract? forget it . we elected these people to lead us , and that's just what their doing .

It's not their benefits nor is it their arbitration award. You will be responsible for throwing your very own benefits under the bus at a time when your company is making billions. Do as you wish.
Nonetheless, the IAM made its position crystal clear and told you they believe there was a change of control. The only reason why I say this is because you and everyone else who could push this contract through will be crying in about 6 months and the IAM will be the first one to point out that they told you they believe there was a change of control. Everyone knows this. The IAM and its loyalist will claim it was the workers fault after it's all said and done. Mark my words.
The only thing that changed was that they would rather you vote yes and save them the trouble. Only after they were appeased did they tell you to vote for this.
AND the IAM has not changed its position on the COC, they still believe there was a change of control.

At any rate, you keep saying you are voting yes for the money. What money are you referring to because if you vote yes, you will be cashing in your benefits for a wage and for a chance to 'collar' yourself with a bankruptcy contract for 5 more years. I have talked to many east siders and they hate this bankruptcy contract and are amazed how some workers can't wait to give up their very own benefits to get the east sider benefits.

Freedom, I'm an old man and need my sleep. Good discussion but I'm outta here for now.

regards

 

[orioleman]

freedom,
YOU obviously weren't given the so cold hard facts about or "slam dunk" against the company in person by the so called president of the IAM
mr Canale. I witnessed it first hand as was told by him " the grievance and t/a are 2 seperate issues ." WE have expert witness that we pay well to retain
and prove COC. not to mention what DOUGIE has said publicly. and He also informed us to be prepared to strike US in 2 yrs because the IAM was going to
hold its ground ... NOTHING BUT B/S from him .. SO I don't trust him as far as I can spit on him.. HEARD IT AND SAW FIRST HAND IN CLT.

 

[700UW]

That dollar amount is for BOTH Work groups,. not just fleet.

 

[700UW]

I have to go to work, and I am privy to the real information and wont post half truths.