Still Want To Vote No?

[AA-MRO.COM]

Lets see them exit bankruptcy with no union labor agreements....
VOTE HELL NO

 

[AA-MRO.COM]

Dennis Barnett had the balls to SAY what we are all thinking!

If anyone can post his paypal address Im sure we could all kick in a few bucks.
We all feel the same emotions are running high

 

[AA767JET]

I will be voting a big HELL NO !!!

 

[odie01]

Mr.Videtich,

I will not be attending the vote yes cookout tomorrow in Tulsa, please find another partner for horseshoes.

 

[Buck]

Mr.Videtich,

I will not be attending the vote yes cookout tomorrow in Tulsa, please find another partner for horseshoes.

And I took Saturday off just not to attend.

 

[strikeforce]

Bob Owens is exactly right, vote NO, contract get's abrogated, and section 6 openers start immediately. Then, it's our turn to wait because the company will get their relief ($1.25B) and most likely exit bankruptcy within 2 years. With that relief, Tom Horton has said it many times that AA will be making profits........now, for those that said a long time ago that "we have no leverage because the company is losing money", matter of fact $10B over 10 years. Well, guess what, the unions will have much more leverage when the company is profitable than losing money. Lock yourself in for 6 years and the only one's profitting will be Horton and his buddies. Vote NO and you have a chance down the road. The TWU won't tell you that information, will they???

 

[High Speed Steel]

What many seem to forget is that we continue to negotiate, Its not as if it stops.

Ubder the new rules AA is supposed to exit BK within 18 months of entering it, the Pilots and Flight Attendants are taking it to the Judge. What many dont realize, and the transcripts wont be available till around two weeks after our vote is counted, too late for many Yes voters, is that AA's business plan has them earning around $3billion a year in profits, they are demanding $1.25 billion from us, not so they can remain a viable company, but so they can become the most profitable airline ever. I was there, I heard what the company said in their opening staement, over $360 million a year in Profit Charing for us when they get out. Keep the BS profit sharing and just pay us a fair wage and who knows, they may even make more!

AA said other things in court as well, in addition to the profit sharing they were giving us raises, yet the International claims that we will not get them if we vote no.They took it off the term sheet, it must have been there April 24 when they told the Judge about it. Brundage supposedly put out a letter saying that we wont get anything it we vote it down, supporting the Internationals position to remove the wage increases from the term sheet, The committee said to leave it in, we knew they would do what they wanted anyway, to make you think that you wont get what the company told to the court you would get when they abrogate the deal. Remember the people who edited and removed all the stuff that was in the term sheet presented to the court do not have to live under the deal and a NO vote means more work and more expense and possibly having to go back to their box for them, they dont have to live ub=nder it if it gets voted in. Remember Brundage (the brick guy) is the same guy who said only a handful of guys would be affected by terminating the pension and dumping it in the PBGC, well I guess when the PBGC threatened to expose that AA's plan had them earning around 17% profit margins they backed off, then told us that many many more people would be affected so "out of the goodness of their hearts" and Jim Littles "Line in the sand" they decided to Freeze the pension instead. If the debtor agrees to not shed its single biggest debt it makes you wonder if the whole thing is a sham. I dont, I'm sure of it. When they crafted C-11 I dont think the intent was to create super profits at the expense of workers but that has become what its used for.

Do you want to give up what comes out to 20% of your compensation for the NEXT SIX YEARS to fund AA managements dream of a $3billion a year profit margin? I dont. Vote NO

Bob, I would like to know the positives you have contributed to the blended current 2003 agreement, the 2010 failed TA, and the companies March 22, 2012 term sheet that makes up the current companies LBO. I would like to know the positives you contributed to the combined LBO and why you recommend rejection which eliminates the status quo of our agreement with American Airlines? What do you intend to improve if rejected? How long will it take to reach a new contract if rejected and what is your bargaining chip to go forward to obtain a new contract. Hopefully, it will not be on the backs of the many members who will lose there jobs and the savings generated to the company due to the LBO rejection. That would be a dispicable! If the LBO is rejected we will fall under the imposed terms of the comany and still yet be governed by the Railway Labor act which states there is a Duty to re-negotiate to create a "New Status Quo." What is your stratagy to force the company to immediately engage in negotiation with us to establish this "NEW Status Quo?" What if they simply meet with you face to face and say "screw you", see you in 2018. The company would not have violated the requirement under the RLA of Duty to meet, nor the requirement to establish a New Satus Quo so what would be your plan from there? What can you offer us as encouragement to follow your NO VOTE quest? Your pal, Informer and I had this discussion the other day over the duty to negotiate. There is no timeline to satisfy the establishment of a new status quo and you won't even be able to get a release from the NMB if you can't make any headway to establish a new status quo so your pushing something you have little to no control over Bob.

 

[TWU informer]

Bob, I would like to know the positives you have contributed to the blended current 2003 agreement, the 2010 failed TA, and the companies March 22, 2012 term sheet that makes up the current companies LBO. I would like to know the positives you contributed to the combined LBO and why you recommend rejection which eliminates the status quo of our agreement with American Airlines? What do you intend to improve if rejected? How long will it take to reach a new contract if rejected and what is your bargaining chip to go forward to obtain a new contract. Hopefully, it will not be on the backs of the many members who will lose there jobs and the savings generated to the company due to the LBO rejection. That would be a dispicable! If the LBO is rejected we will fall under the imposed terms of the comany and still yet be governed by the Railway Labor act which states there is a Duty to re-negotiate to create a "New Status Quo." What is your stratagy to force the company to immediately engage in negotiation with us to establish this "NEW Status Quo?" What if they simply meet with you face to face and say "screw you", see you in 2018. The company would not have violated the requirement under the RLA of Duty to meet, nor the requirement to establish a New Satus Quo so what would be your plan from there? What can you offer us as encouragement to follow your NO VOTE quest? Your pal, Informer and I had this discussion the other day over the duty to negotiate. There is no timeline to satisfy the establishment of a new status quo and you won't even be able to get a release from the NMB if you can't make any headway to establish a new status quo so your pushing something you have little to no control over Bob.

We have not even reached the “positives” necessary for what would be an acceptable labor agreement that would truly save jobs at Tulsa and American Airlines. The whole idea of saving jobs using concessions from current employees is nothing more than further destruction of our careers.

Basically what we have is the bean counter seeking X-amount of dollars in concessions. Then we have some Union Leaders using those bean counter numbers to twist and turn the X-amount into something of the same value on paper, but not the same value in reality.
Every thriving and profitable company within the United States Capitalist society operates on the idea that if the production does not require the headcount, then the numbers on the payroll are cut to match projected production. What we have is a Union that participates and allows daily for low productivity and lack of professionalism within the work force. Management refuses to instill accountability and discipline and the Union, to save jobs and dues payers sits back and allows this to happen. This philosophy is killing the Tulsa Maintenance Base, and the profession.

The recent Youtube Video posted by Dennis Barnett sums the problem up quite well but his delivery is lacking in professionalism so many missed the point. The point to be made is that we are lacking in leadership in both management and union, we have allowed our jobs, our pay, our pensions, our benefits, and our working conditions to become in jeopardy by the lack of accountability and skill level, and most if not all of this happens as a result of the concessions for jobs concept.

I could rant on for days about this subject and it would serve no purpose.

Let me just sum up what in my opinion needs to happen if you really are interested in saving Overhaul Maintenance and the Tulsa Maintenance Base. This is the only philosophy proven to create a vibrant and successful manufacturing type of environment.

First, just as Dennis Barnett pointed out, we need leaders in management and they should come from the work scope being managed. In other words, get rid of the current management and make becoming management a desirable thing to do to the experienced and skilled union worker. Raise the pay of the management to a value that will actually attract skilled professionals that have lived and worked the job they intend to manage. And then demand that they enforce the rules of conduct, safety, and attendance to the letter verbatim.

Second, elect or demand that Union Leaders become advocates for productivity, safety, and attendance rules enforcement. Becoming advocates of these items gives them the ability to negotiated top pay and productivity in exchange. This is in direct conflict with the current philosophy of lower pay and more jobs and less productivity.

Third, implement an employee ownership of their work processes and problem solving, empower the employees and lower to middle management to actually fix what is wrong instead of having meetings to find blame and not correcting the defect. Again listen to what Dennis Barnett said not how he said it.

Allow yourself to and your Union Leaders to be held accountable and then you can demand that management be held accountable. This idea of keeping jobs in exchange for concessions and changing nothing in the cultural nightmare that is destroying our jobs is nothing more than continuation of insanity,

The American Airlines Tulsa Maintenance Base has the skill, the capital investment in equipment and the overall capability to produce MRO profits instead of continuing being delegated as a cost center in the bean counters eyes that must be hacked and reduced. These available resources in Tulsa are not being utilized because both the Union and Management Leadership are incapable of breaking the current destructive culture because they created it to begin with and are both actively doing everything within their power to cover up and protect the inept agenda.

Once you change these cultural defects and create a vibrant and thriving maintenance base with proud and dedicated workers, instead of beat down, low self-esteem whiners and unprofessional workers that are less skilled and making less so that there can be more of them, then and only then will you really begin to save and create jobs. This current TWU philosophy is just more destruction and could well be the final dagger in the Tulsa Maintenance Base future.

I have a feeling that I am wasting time and effort while typing out this post, because the ignorance of the TWU Stooge and the Management Counterpart to that stooge is impossible to to get through too these days. Go ahead and defend continuing the failed ideas and oppresion of the past. I will once again soon have no choice but to tell you I told you so.

This is where I have overwhelming urge to drop F-Bombs, Call Names, and show severe emotion, just as Dennis Barnett did, but I will refrain for now.

 

[Bob Owens]

Duplicate

 

[TWU informer]

Bob, I would like to know the positives you have contributed to the blended current 2003 agreement, the 2010 failed TA, and the companies March 22, 2012 term sheet that makes up the current companies LBO. I would like to know the positives you contributed to the combined LBO and why you recommend rejection which eliminates the status quo of our agreement with American Airlines? What do you intend to improve if rejected? How long will it take to reach a new contract if rejected and what is your bargaining chip to go forward to obtain a new contract. Hopefully, it will not be on the backs of the many members who will lose there jobs and the savings generated to the company due to the LBO rejection. That would be a dispicable! If the LBO is rejected we will fall under the imposed terms of the comany and still yet be governed by the Railway Labor act which states there is a Duty to re-negotiate to create a "New Status Quo." What is your stratagy to force the company to immediately engage in negotiation with us to establish this "NEW Status Quo?" What if they simply meet with you face to face and say "screw you", see you in 2018. The company would not have violated the requirement under the RLA of Duty to meet, nor the requirement to establish a New Satus Quo so what would be your plan from there? What can you offer us as encouragement to follow your NO VOTE quest? Your pal, Informer and I had this discussion the other day over the duty to negotiate. There is no timeline to satisfy the establishment of a new status quo and you won't even be able to get a release from the NMB if you can't make any headway to establish a new status quo so your pushing something you have little to no control over Bob.

Just another point about your questions here.

Why don't you go ask James C Little and Richard Trumka or any other Union leader that claims spending millions of hard earned dollars of Union men and women on the Poloitcal Arena, exactly why they continue to think that is the correct path. Since the merger of the AFL-CIO in the 1950's this philosophy has failed you, me and every other union member. Ask then why it is not changing. The reason it is not changing, is that today's Union Leader is not suffering the same as the member like was the fact in the past. The leaders are still getting payraises, have great pensions and medical insurance. How can, or why would they fix the problem if they dont see it or feel it themselves to begin with? In the old days if you suffered the leader suffered and then the suffering was addressed. Today the member suffers, the leader thrives. Today's leader is no longer even in the middle class, he would be considered RICH compared to the members of the Unions they lead.

Most of your questions or complaints are coming directly from restrictions placed on Labor via "LAWS". The LAW comes from the Politician, the Politician has taken your money for years, yet we are still at a severe dissadvantage.

The answer to your questions of Bob, might all be answered if you could get the answer just one that will sum it up.

"When is Organized Labor going to stop abiding by the laws that they no longer have enough influence to change, and instead begin to resort to strategies that are clearly written in Labor History and worked to advance our cause?"

In other words, stop being tamed pussy cats without teeth and do something instead of blaming and fighting with each other!

You have used the term "paper tiger" alot of late. I think your paper tiger is the current leadership of organized labor as a whole, yet you ignore that, and use the term to describe one of the few that actually advocate a different direction. SIGH

8 years ago when AMFA had conracts with less flaws than this Last Best Offer has, you were bashing AMFA over and over, blaming that Union Organization for those flaws, but now that is in your own backyard, you not only advocate a yes vote on the worse flaws, you defend the TWU as if it were the greatest union on the planet. Yet, every negotations in the last 30 years, the TWU has allowed some form of a concession and actually was the leader in the industry or pay/benefit destruction using this concessions for jobs mentality. My point is why do you refuse to hold the TWU or Organized Labor to the same standard you have been holding AMFA too for the last 15 years? You are either Two-Faced, or you are so ate up with TWU cronyism that you cannot see the double standard you advocate.

I am open to discussing the mistakes that the IAM, AMFA, IBT, or any other Union in this industry has made. But I not going to bury my head in the sand to the fact that many times the TWU Concessions for Jobs programs set the stage for those failures to happen to begin with. In other words everytime the TWU reduces pay and benefits in exchange for jobs, those other unions are being asked to match the low ball of the industry which often happens to be the TWU Contract after the concessions for jobs becomes ratified. Those other Unions attempt to take a stand against such rediculous low ball of the profession. In the end they cannot fight it off by law, and so we lead them into oppression as well as our own TWU membership.

Concessions for Jobs not only sends us backwards years everytime it happens, it sends the whole industry and profession backwards. SAD ####!

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, I would like to know the positives you have contributed to the blended current 2003 agreement, the 2010 failed TA, and the companies March 22, 2012 term sheet that makes up the current companies LBO. I would like to know the positives you contributed to the combined LBO and why you recommend rejection which eliminates the status quo of our agreement with American Airlines? What do you intend to improve if rejected? How long will it take to reach a new contract if rejected and what is your bargaining chip to go forward to obtain a new contract. Hopefully, it will not be on the backs of the many members who will lose there jobs and the savings generated to the company due to the LBO rejection. That would be a dispicable! If the LBO is rejected we will fall under the imposed terms of the comany and still yet be governed by the Railway Labor act which states there is a Duty to re-negotiate to create a "New Status Quo." What is your stratagy to force the company to immediately engage in negotiation with us to establish this "NEW Status Quo?" What if they simply meet with you face to face and say "screw you", see you in 2018. The company would not have violated the requirement under the RLA of Duty to meet, nor the requirement to establish a New Satus Quo so what would be your plan from there? What can you offer us as encouragement to follow your NO VOTE quest? Your pal, Informer and I had this discussion the other day over the duty to negotiate. There is no timeline to satisfy the establishment of a new status quo and you won't even be able to get a release from the NMB if you can't make any headway to establish a new status quo so your pushing something you have little to no control over Bob.

We were told that should the members reject the deal negotiations continue, what we were doing before was pre=1113 negotiations, well the company has zero incentive to bargain under those conditions, and they didnt. They may have culled a few of their more 'ridiculous demand' or scaled them back so other creditors, like the PBGC would not expose their plan to come out of this making $3 billion a year in profits or to make it less liklely that they end up being in the 10% of debtors who are denied "relief" from their labor contracts, by even Wall Streets Court. Why do you suppose that the FAs and Pilots do not have a deal? After allthey are not at the bottom of the industry like us. Real negotiations only begin upon the filing. Thats why the TWU formed an advisory committee for it consisting of one representative from each title group. The International controls the negotiations, not us, and they alone will be responsible for what comes out of it but that would rather put the result of these pre-negotiations in front of you to vote on so if you accept it and realize a year from now what a huge mistake we made they will say "You voted on what your negotiating committee negotiated, dont blame the international. The fact is all groups will eventually get to vote, the pilots and Flight attendants as well. We are thge only ones who are being told to vote before we even make a case against abrogation. By voting yes we are throwing in the towel before the "Real Talks" begin. If no deal is reached they go before the Judge, odds are based on past decisions that they will abrogate and negotiations continue but there are some unique things about our situation that increase the odds we may not see our deal abrogated. First off is that AA went in with over $4 billion, second is that according to AAs business plan they would be the most profitable airline out therer without touching labor, apparently shedding all the toxic leases would have been enough, third, the terms of M&Rs contract already put us at the bottom of the industry, anything that we had that others gave up, except for language that kept the volume of work in house, we paid for in other ways. Our pension was more than paid for by the weeks vacation that we did not get that most of of similarly situated peers get and the Holiday Pay where we are only paid half pay for only five days, then add in sick time. Those we all solid savings for the company that they realized and they failed to fund our pension with those savings. If we tell the court we are agreeable to the freezing of the pensiopn, termination of Retiree Medical and the language on outsourcing thats in the LBO or the Mar22 term shett then the company has no arguement for abrogation. Another flaw in the companys application for rejection is that they intend on confiscating half the funds that we are due should they terminate prefunding. The plan was written to protect us in the event of a BK filing, the funds are outside the company held in a trust by JPMorgan. They want to simply go in and take them and use them to pay their obligations. So we have more options by voting NO, the pilots and FAs are going to court, so should we.


For those who think that we are "saving jobs" I have to ask how they think that Removing the ASM cap, removing system and station protection , removing language that says that work traditionallyu done in house stays in house, agreeing to outsource any and everything the company wants and more than doubling the station staffing threshhold "saves Jobs"? These changes allow the company to get rid of as many jobs and people they want. Art Luby told me back in 2001 that System Protection is really the best and only job protection there is because if the cant lay you off then they have to keep the work (unless they want to pay you to do nothing).

In pre-1113 negotiations the company said they were getting rid of 4500 jobs. Could they at a time when "Capacity is Tight" in the MRO world and MROs are having trouble getting and retaining workers? I dobt it. So they throw out a big number and then make it seem like by agreeing to a still ridiculous offer that jobs were saved and they get their 50% + 1. So instead of challenging them now when they are stuck with a fleet of old MD-80s, where they are stuck with us because they need us to maintain them, we agree to a deal that allows them to get rid of us when then can, as MD-80s go away and new airplanes become available , including new Airbus's that we do not work.

 

[Bob Owens]

If anyone doubts that what we are voting on is the result of "pre 1113 (c) negotiations' look at LOM 17, what I call the Bootlicking Letter, where we agree to committ to make AA "best in Class" in exchange for them making us the lowest paid in the industry.

Like I said the company has no reason to negotiate, thats why the Pilots and Flight attendants are going in, without the pilots there is no airline anyway, so we should go in as well.

 

[AA89]

The American Airlines Tulsa Maintenance Base has the skill, the capital investment in equipment and the overall capability to produce MRO profits instead of continuing being delegated as a cost center in the bean counters eyes that must be hacked and reduced. These available resources in Tulsa are not being utilized because both the Union and Management Leadership are incapable of breaking the current destructive culture because they created it to begin with and are both actively doing everything within their power to cover up and protect the inept agenda.


Informer is right. Look around your work group. See the guy that thinks he is worth $45 an hour but everybody knows couldn't work at the local Discount Tire shop? How about the clown that can't show up on time or the one that is ok with his co-workers carrying him? The 20+ year guy who has burned through his sick time screwing off and now wants some of my vacation? This is the union I heard about growing up and I see it for myself now. We are all adults and we tell our children to try hard and do well in school and life and then we come to work and see grown men and women acting like 3 year olds. And we want to blame Horton and Little?
I have asked the question before and I will do it again. How does a union go into negotiations with a straight face with this kind of dysfunctional workgroup. This is a disgrace to the educated hardworking people that appreciate their jobs and it brings down the value of all of us. Instead of paycuts, how about leech cuts? These losers are as responsible for our demise as Horton and Little.
I want another option to vote for. I want a "clean out the dead wood first and then see where we stand" option. But neither the union nor company wants this and we should all be as pissed as Dennis Barnett.
No matter how this vote turns out, the ones that are left need to get rid of this union and whoever replaces them should have as their first priority the mindset that we are an asset to the company. Not so easily tossed aside. We have been bankrupt from within for years.

 

[Hopeful]

The American Airlines Tulsa Maintenance Base has the skill, the capital investment in equipment and the overall capability to produce MRO profits instead of continuing being delegated as a cost center in the bean counters eyes that must be hacked and reduced. These available resources in Tulsa are not being utilized because both the Union and Management Leadership are incapable of breaking the current destructive culture because they created it to begin with and are both actively doing everything within their power to cover up and protect the inept agenda.


Informer is right. Look around your work group. See the guy that thinks he is worth $45 an hour but everybody knows couldn't work at the local Discount Tire shop? How about the clown that can't show up on time or the one that is ok with his co-workers carrying him? The 20+ year guy who has burned through his sick time screwing off and now wants some of my vacation? This is the union I heard about growing up and I see it for myself now. We are all adults and we tell our children to try hard and do well in school and life and then we come to work and see grown men and women acting like 3 year olds. And we want to blame Horton and Little?
I have asked the question before and I will do it again. How does a union go into negotiations with a straight face with this kind of dysfunctional workgroup. This is a disgrace to the educated hardworking people that appreciate their jobs and it brings down the value of all of us. Instead of paycuts, how about leech cuts? These losers are as responsible for our demise as Horton and Little.
I want another option to vote for. I want a "clean out the dead wood first and then see where we stand" option. But neither the union nor company wants this and we should all be as pissed as Dennis Barnett.
No matter how this vote turns out, the ones that are left need to get rid of this union and whoever replaces them should have as their first priority the mindset that we are an asset to the company. Not so easily tossed aside. We have been bankrupt from within for years.

Well said. I suspect that the dead wood cleaning might come, but not from the union end...A trade union would police its own. The union would tell those who were not carrying their weight to shape up or be gone.
The changes to the contract LANGUAGE and qualifications manual might enable them to do things they could not or would not do in the past.

 

[Bob Owens]

If you haven't read this yet:

Important Questions and Answers Regarding AA's Last Best Offer
May 02, 2012
Different questions have been raised in the two days since the Company’s Last and Best Offer was finalized. This offer is being put to vote based on the commitment we made at the outset of the Bankruptcy process that the membership would have the opportunity to vote on the LBO. In order to make sure that this vote is based on accurate information about the contents of the proposal and the laws which govern the bankruptcy process, we are putting out answers to commonly asked questions.

1. If our contract is rejected by the Bankruptcy Court, what will be imposed, the Company’s “ask” before the proceedings began on the Company’s motion to reject, or the Last Best Offer (LBO) made after those proceedings began?
The law on rejection of collective bargaining agreements has evolved over the years in ways that are not favorable to unions or working people. In 2007, in the Northwest bankruptcy, the Court rejected the contract covering the flight attendants after they rejected the Company’s LBO. At that time, the Bankruptcy Court stated that the Company could only impose its LBO, not the Company’s prior Ask. That ruling, which I commented on in writing at the time, has since been superseded (as has my comment on it), and is no longer the binding law on the issue in the Bankruptcy Courts of the Southern District of New York. The superseding case is the Frontier Airlines case, which was ruled on in 2009. There, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the district we are in, and the court which reviews all the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court handling AA’s filing) ruled that proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on an 1113 motion are not admissible to establish the level of concessions necessary for reorganization. What the Court specifically held was that “under the regime established by Section 1113, proposals and supporting disclosures made by a party after the rejection hearing has begun may not form the basis for concluding whether the 1113 standard has been satisfied, except, perhaps, where the parties expressly agree they may be considered.” In other words, absent an agreement to the contrary, the LBO, if it was made after the rejection proceedings began, is not even admissible into the hearings to decide whether to abrogate the contract, much less to define precisely what terms and conditions of employment the company may initially impose.

The Company’s “ask” was made before the rejection proceedings began. The LBO was made after those proceedings began. The Company was obviously aware of the Frontier precedent and stated at all times that the terms of the LBO were without prejudice
to its position before the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, there was no agreement to allow the Court to consider the LBO. We, of course, will pursue all legal arguments should we face contract rejection, but the controlling precedent in New York is that the LBO is not even admissible into the 1113 proceedings and that the Company is not bound by the LBO and can impose its prehearing “ask” if the contract is rejected.

2. If the Court permits the Company to reject our agreement will we be able to strike?
In 2007, the Northwest flight attendants sought the right to strike after their contract was rejected. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that NWA did not violate the status quo by imposing concessions on the flight attendants because the court had authorized NWA to reject their contract and also ruled in that case the flight attendants had no right to strike.

3. When will the NMB release us or the other AA unions?
It is impossible to know how long we can be kept in mediation, but certain things are clear. The NMB is not quick to issue releases at major carriers. Amtrak workers were kept in mediation for close to ten years and other work groups in the airline industry have amendable dates which precede ours.. The point is that it is impossible to know when we will be able to strike, but it is very unlikely that it will be quick, and in that time much damage will be done.

Sharon L. Levine, Lowenstein Sandler PC

Since the International and its lawyers no longer answer my questions;
1. So if the LBO is not to be considered as to whether a Contract is to be rejected or not then if the initial filing is so out of line as to not meet the standards for abrogation then an "improved version" can not be submitted to justify termination correct? In other words if the company asked for too much, such as in our case being allowed to extract funds that we are entitled to from a Trust, they could not change it later, the decision would be based on what they originally filed and could be grounds for rejecting the debtors motion, correct? The ruling was an admonishment against debtors reaching for too much because they are only supposed to ask for what is necessary. How is taking funds that were specifically put outside the company, in order to protect workers, necissary for AA's business plan?

2. What was left out is that we can strike if we exhaust the sect 6 process and we are not hit with a PEB. We were already at that point, set to ask for a release on November 30th. The BK process and RLA are seperate. We would need to submit our request for release immediately and make our case to the NMB, how could the NMB comply with the intent of the RLA and deny our request after as much as 6 years of negotiations, failed TAs, BK filings, and failed Pre-1113 negotiations? If released, more than likely after the 30 days we would be hit with a PEB, where, thanks to the companys own testimony, the union could argue that the company can afford to bring us up to industry standards because it would not cost them $1.75 billion to do so.(thats how much in profits they expect to make without any labor concessions when they get out of BK)

3. Amtrack is a complicated story, they did not push that hard for release because even though they were in negotiations they continued to get COLA raises, their contracts were not abrogated, (has the NMB ever denied a union the right to strike when there was No contract in place and the union bargained over several years?) which were part of their old agreements, and AMTRAK workers got FULL RETRO. So AMTRAK workers , who by the way are protected under 1167 and can not have their contracts abrogated in BK didnt fare that bad. From those I spoke to, who got a nice retro check on top of their COLA raises were pretty satisfied with the Bush appointed PEB.

So No, the Internationals lawyers wont lie to you, they just dont tell you everything. I am not offended by the fact that they do what they do, after all I'm not paying them, the International is. They are not paid to give us the whole story so we can make an informed decision. On that we are on our own.