TERM SHEET DURATION........

[700UW]

Once a company has entered the bankruptcy process, it must proceed through the 1113 process of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to alter agreements with employee groups.
• 1113c of that process is used to obtain PERMANENT changes.
• 1113(e) of that process is used to obtain TEMPORARY (“emergency” relief) changes.

 

[Mr Red]

Once a company has entered the bankruptcy process, it must proceed through the 1113 process of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to alter agreements with employee groups.
• 1113c of that process is used to obtain PERMANENT changes.
• 1113(e) of that process is used to obtain TEMPORARY (“emergency” relief) changes.

No airline has ever done that.And if they did, it would be time to liquidate.

 

[700UW]

NW did, but reached an agreement later on, and US did, but had us vote on it.

 

[john john]

Did IAM at USAirway negotiate with the company after the judge abrogated and then put out to vote

Yes, but only to help insure a yes vote. All the changes weren't renegotiated with any group starting right after abrogation. Just look at US. Despite a merger resulting in the need for combined contracts, the FA's and pilots still don't have conbined contracts more than 7 years after the merger. So much for immediately going right back to the table and negotiating improvements after abrogation.

At best the Judge will order limited negotiations after approving abrogation - a few weeks at most. As I've said before, he would rather have consensual agreements than not. However, assuming that the Judge approves abrogation AA won't wait any longer than they have to before abrogating the contracts and imposing the term sheet.

I have to admit, john john - for someone seemingly so pro-union you don't seem to know much about how all this works.

Jim

No. The last negotiation session was held the night before the abrogation, and we were at CCY until 4am in the morning.

That morning, I assembled the final offer, with the cover letters, proof read it, sent it off the printers to get it printed and overnighted to all the Grievance Committee Chairman to get it out to the membership.

There was no negotiations after the abrogation was approved and held in abeyance.

Which is it boys
Jim do you

 

[Mr Red]

NW did, but reached an agreement later on, and US did, but had us vote on it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There was no negotiations after the abrogation was approved and held in abeyance.

So much for my believing rumors...I had heard that there were some last minute negotiations after the Judge approved abrogation. I know that you've said before that the Judge insisted on a last offer going out for ratification when he did approve abrogation.

Jim

 

[700UW]

We negotiated all day the day before the abrogation. We took a dinner break at 8pm and returned to CCY at 10pm where the company presented us with their final offer, we tweaked it until 4am, the judge abrogated that morning and the company presented the final "tweaked" offer to the court and the judge had us vote on it as he held is ruling in abeyance until it was ratified or be imposed if it wasnt.

 

[CMH_GSE]

I believe it's already been stated that the judge in this case will not impose a final "tweaked" offer, he will only impose the March 22 term sheets, the "untweaked" version.

 

[Mr Red]

I believe it's already been stated that the judge in this case will not impose a final "tweaked" offer, he will only impose the March 22 term sheets, the "untweaked" version.

The bottom line is the company wants a consensual agreement,Term sheet would be putting gun to THEIR HEAD.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Red, I have heard that implied before, how is it putting a gun to their head if they have a 6 yr term imposed to their liking?

 

[Mr Red]

Thats not the way it works! they want you to believe it does.
Google 1113e Has all airline B/Ks and outcome of 1113 c/e
If they were to impose abrogation on Flight and Maint.it
would get really ugly really fast !!!

 

[FWAAA]

Show me where a Judge has authority to do that. Under 1113(e) it says he can impose temporary terms but show me where it says he can impose permanent terms. If they could then why would there even be a requirement top bargain.

Show me one example of a non-consentaual deal that was put in place by the court outside of 1113(e) .

The bankruptcy judge does not impose permanent terms under 1113c. As a general rule, debtors (including AA) are free to reject any executory contract, but labor contracts can be rejected by the debtor only if the debtor satisfies 1113c. If the judge determines that the debtor has satisfied 1113c, then AA may reject the labor agreements. If that happens, the judge imposes nothing. The debtor - AA - is free to impose its terms, and case law interprets that to mean the term sheets.

About the bolded portion: One of the requirements of 1113c is that the parties attempted to negotiate changes to the labor agreements. If AA had refused to do so, then it could not possibly satisfy the provisions of 1113c.

IMO, you have sold your members a bill of goods. You have repeatedly posted that rejecting TAs and then the LBO would result in better offers down the line. So far, that hasn't happened. You have repeatedly posted that abrogation sends the parties to immediate section 6 negotiations and that the members will not have to live with the term sheets for six years. On that one, I think you'll again be proven incorrect (although it's likely that AA will continue to negotiate so it won't have to impose the term sheets).

For nearly six months now, it's been posted that bankruptcy means concessions - either approved by the membership or imposed by the company following abrogation under 1113c.

For those of you who have stuck around for the last nine years hoping that things would get better - it's obvious that they are not going to get better. That became crystal clear for most on November 29, 2011. AA's employees have now had nearly six months to prepare resumes and seek better opportunities. For those still on the payroll - what the hell are you waiting for?

 

[TWU informer]

The bankruptcy judge does not impose permanent terms under 1113c. As a general rule, debtors (including AA) are free to reject any executory contract, but labor contracts can be rejected by the debtor only if the debtor satisfies 1113c. If the judge determines that the debtor has satisfied 1113c, then AA may reject the labor agreements. If that happens, the judge imposes nothing. The debtor - AA - is free to impose its terms, and case law interprets that to mean the term sheets.

About the bolded portion: One of the requirements of 1113c is that the parties attempted to negotiate changes to the labor agreements. If AA had refused to do so, then it could not possibly satisfy the provisions of 1113c.

IMO, you have sold your members a bill of goods. You have repeatedly posted that rejecting TAs and then the LBO would result in better offers down the line. So far, that hasn't happened. You have repeatedly posted that abrogation sends the parties to immediate section 6 negotiations and that the members will not have to live with the term sheets for six years. On that one, I think you'll again be proven incorrect (although it's likely that AA will continue to negotiate so it won't have to impose the term sheets).

For nearly six months now, it's been posted that bankruptcy means concessions - either approved by the membership or imposed by the company following abrogation under 1113c.

For those of you who have stuck around for the last nine years hoping that things would get better - it's obvious that they are not going to get better. That became crystal clear for most on November 29, 2011. AA's employees have now had nearly six months to prepare resumes and seek better opportunities. For those still on the payroll - what the hell are you waiting for?

"Better deal" can be defined many ways depending on who you are.

A contract that has higher pay and less people would be better to some.
A contract with less pay and more people is better to others.

My point is that there is a monetary cost reduction requested, it is not in stone how we get there.

I never saw any assurances or promises that a better deal is down the road with a no vote, only that negotiations would continue with a no vote, and not so with a yes vote.

 

[FWAAA]

"Better deal" can be defined many ways depending on who you are.

A contract that has higher pay and less people would be better to some.
A contract with less pay and more people is better to others.

My point is that there is a monetary cost reduction requested, it is not in stone how we get there.

I never saw any assurances or promises that a better deal is down the road with a no vote, only that negotiations would continue with a no vote, and not so with a yes vote.

I agree with most of your post. Before bankruptcy, AA was dangling a small amount of additional pay in exchange for more concessions. Once AA filed a Ch 11 petition, the idea of additional pay went out the window and the only uncertainty was the size of the concessions.

There's no way AA could offer higher pay to M&R upon signing while in bankruptcy - companies don't raise pay for some workgroups (but not others) in 1113c negotiations. The pilots and FAs would have already walked off the job and permanently shut down AA if M&R had been offered pay raises upon ratification of their LBO.

About the bolded portion above - implicit in "Vote no and negotiations continue" is an unspoken assertion that voting no will result in a better offer later.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I agree with most of your post. Before bankruptcy, AA was dangling a small amount of additional pay in exchange for more concessions. Once AA filed a Ch 11 petition, the idea of additional pay went out the window and the only uncertainty was the size of the concessions.

There's no way AA could offer higher pay to M&R upon signing while in bankruptcy - companies don't raise pay for some workgroups (but not others) in 1113c negotiations. The pilots and FAs would have already walked off the job and permanently shut down AA if M&R had been offered pay raises upon ratification of their LBO.

About the bolded portion above - implicit in "Vote no and negotiations continue" is an unspoken assertion that voting no will result in a better offer later.

If that is truly the case, how could this poor, downtrodden and BANKRUPT company offer an early out/buyout package amounting to 13 weeks severance pay, a $10k special allowance, plus $12.5 k to leave the company with no recall rights IN ADDITION TO (in my case) nearly $40k in early retirement prefunding? That's neary $80k (taxed all to hell, of course) that I would have gotten for walking out the door had the vote of last weekend ended with a "yes" instead of a "no".

The twboo said M&E had committed to letting everyone go under these terms that desired to - stop and consider, that would add up to some "real money" (per Everet Dirkson). If the company can't afford to pay wages and still give 5 holidays per year, it's very evident someone is lying - then again, isn't that SOP for business anymore now that bankruptcy has become a strategic option? Obviously, MBAs, CPAs and bean counters are beginning to share the scum spotlight with lawyers.

WTF??

How, pray tell, could the SOBs offer all this for a "yes" vote yet threaten to return to the term sheet if the company is so "bankrupt", without quite a few "someones" going to jail for bankruptcy fraud?