Still Want To Vote No?

[Barfbag]

I agree.

A little more diginty and a little less anger and vulgar language would get the point across much better,

When TWA folded, I watched grown men cry. Some made it to AA but most didn't. Those that didn't are better off today in jobs with security, benefits, better wages, and a guaranteed government pension i.e. the Long Island Railroad.

Unless the airline business is the only show in town, steer yourself and your children from this industry and fast.

 

[bigbear52]

This guy about sums it up... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8hQ4eaohzQ

I heard he got walked out today

 

[xUT]

I heard he got walked out today

Hopefully, EAP will mitigate.
Seen similar outbursts in the UA BK but not youtube.
Posting that on youtube was not a great idea.
JMHO & PO
B) xUT

 

[limit]

Sharon is making some very good points.
The encouraging part is that she admits the legal team will argue the point for the LBO if the vote is no.
The discouraging part is that she is absolutely dead on ,when she indicates that the lengthy process will probably result in a very bad situation for the foreseeable future ,after abrogation .
One that regardless of the final outcome will be so far in to the future that will negate any gains ,if any.

Having said that, here is my opinion about our situation.

I believe that the Frontier decision is flawed.
The Bankruptcy process requires the company to prove that the changes are necessary for their business plan..
The position of the court that the term sheet is somehow the only plan they judge should consider is patently false if the company during the process made a better offer.
The Term sheet( and Plan) is to be proven necessary by the company in court.
It is not considered De facto correct.
A new offer contradicts that the term sheet is necessary.
It actually disproves that.
The court in my opinion is directed to see that the changes are necessary, not onerous or punitive in nature, nor excessive.
In other words the company cannot impose a term sheet that brings down all to min wage (Trying to make a point here), even though doing so would definitely be a plan that would help them emerge.
The admission by submission that a plan less taxing on the employees (LBO) is acceptable to the company for exit, with the same business plan in place, fly’s in the face of the term sheet proof requirement that the term sheet is necessary.
(And that is why a business friendly court would want the LBO to be inadmissible)
At least this is how I understand the process.
Not an attorney, just trying to interpret what is in front of me.
I cannot believe that the appeal process will not reverse that, if argued properly.
In addition I believe that when the company enters punitive terms on an offer (accept or get worse) is a direct violation of the bargain in good faith required in the process,……. in my eyes anyway.
Sharon’s last sentence about how long, uncertain and painful the process could be, is prophetic.

 

[AA89]

Sharon is making some very good points.
The encouraging part is that she admits the legal team will argue the point for the LBO if the vote is no.
The discouraging part is that she is absolutely dead on ,when she indicates that the lengthy process will probably result in a very bad situation for the foreseeable future ,after abrogation .
One that regardless of the final outcome will be so far in to the future that will negate any gains ,if any.

Having said that, here is my opinion about our situation.

I believe that the Frontier decision is flawed.
The Bankruptcy process requires the company to prove that the changes are necessary for their business plan..
The position of the court that the term sheet is somehow the only plan they judge should consider is patently false if the company during the process made a better offer.
The Term sheet( and Plan) is to be proven necessary by the company in court.
It is not considered De facto correct.
A new offer contradicts that the term sheet is necessary.
It actually disproves that.
The court in my opinion is directed to see that the changes are necessary, not onerous or punitive in nature, nor excessive.
In other words the company cannot impose a term sheet that brings down all to min wage (Trying to make a point here), even though doing so would definitely be a plan that would help them emerge.
The admission by submission that a plan less taxing on the employees (LBO) is acceptable to the company for exit, with the same business plan in place, fly’s in the face of the term sheet proof requirement that the term sheet is necessary.
(And that is why a business friendly court would want the LBO to be inadmissible)
At least this is how I understand the process.
Not an attorney, just trying to interpret what is in front of me.
I cannot believe that the appeal process will not reverse that, if argued properly.
In addition I believe that when the company enters punitive terms on an offer (accept or get worse) is a direct violation of the bargain in good faith required in the process,……. in my eyes anyway.
Sharon’s last sentence about how long, uncertain and painful the process could be, is prophetic.

Nice clear post and what you say makes common sense but as we know, courts and common sense don't always go together. But with the risk that the term sheet is imposed and the LBO is accepted at a later date through appeal, guys on the fence need to think about what will be impossible to get back, once gone. Mostly jobs through less outsourcing and changes to the ASM numbers.
I'm still voting no but the question for some guys will have to be whether or not lost jobs will return if the LBO is accepted later after appeal. The money and things will be easier to restore.

 

[TWU informer]

My belief is that since AA went into BK with 4.5 Billion in cash and did not request Debtor in Possesion Financing that this case is dissimilar enough to the others that no previous case will set a precedent. But your attorney has to be paid to fight not capitulate.

The admission by Brundage that AA Management has had a "kicking the can" approach for along time is going to be significant statement real soon too.

 

[eolesen]

I finally watched all 17 minutes of the video... all I can say is.... wow.... more F-bombs than Joe Pesci dropped in "Goodfellas"

I heard he got walked out today

On what grounds? Wearing his uniform while on a tirade? Or did he threaten someone who called him out on the video?

 

[TWU informer]

I finally watched all 17 minutes of the video... all I can say is.... wow.... more F-bombs than Joe Pesci dropped in "Goodfellas"



On what grounds? Wearing his uniform while on a tirade? Or did he threaten someone who called him out on the video?

Most likely the Rule of Conduct that states something to the effect of "Conducting yourself at all times in a manner that reflects positive on the company".

Not that I agree that is sufficient.
Maybe they took him to HQ to find out what ideas he has to improve the Airline.
He had some very valid points, just too much anger and emotion overpowering the points.

 

[paul1]

I think the guy is suffering or having a nervous break down. I hope he gets the proper help.

 

[Buster CRC]

I think he was self medicating with a little whiskey. But he just said what alot of people are thinking. Alot of folks on the brink. And this last edition of another contract that splits up and creates hate and discontent amongst the troops.

 

[FWAAA]

I finally watched all 17 minutes of the video... all I can say is.... wow.... more F-bombs than Joe Pesci dropped in "Goodfellas"

On what grounds? Wearing his uniform while on a tirade? Or did he threaten someone who called him out on the video?

Near the end, he said something about taking someone from their desk and hanging them from the highest hangar in Dallas. That might be enough.

I hope he gets the help he needs and I pray for his family.

 

[Duke787]

There has never been a airline to emerge from BK without a consensual agreement, there is no reason to vote for this.....make AA earn labor peace!!!!

 

[Vortilon]

I heard he got walked out today
[/quote

He got walked out late last night. He worked out in LAS, night shift. Evidently HR showed up, the station manager, the A/C maint manager and escorted him off the property minus all badges, IDs, & keys.

 

[AA89]

Near the end, he said something about taking someone from their desk and hanging them from the highest hangar in Dallas. That might be enough.

I hope he gets the help he needs and I pray for his family.

I think he said "hang their desk from the highest hangar in Dallas"

If so he better hurry. I'm pretty sure the AFW hangars are the tallest.

Seriously, we all want to send a message to AA by voting no and considering a merger with USAIR to change management. But this guy has the biggest balls of any of us to risk his career to make his statement. We are all fed-up but how many of us are willing to do more to get our point across?
If you are a no vote you had better be prepared for his kind of conviction.

 

[AA89]

[/quote

He got walked out late last night. He worked out in LAS, night shift. Evidently HR showed up, the station manager, the A/C maint manager and escorted him off the property minus all badges, IDs, & keys.
[/quote]

Lets see, dope smokers, time card abusers, lazy asses, and hacks all have the protection of the TWU and make it back to work at AA. All considered assets to the company. Lets see how this poor guy gets treated.