TERM SHEET DURATION........

[Mach85ER]

FWAAA

If AA imposes a 6 year deal on the pilots, there is a 99% chance of a wildcat shutdown of American Airlines by the pilots. We can debate on paper all we want about what we think is legal, but when AA continues to go lightyears beyond what it needs from the pilots regarding competitive compensation and benefits compared to other carriers, even most pro-company fence sitters will walk out.

It wouldn't surprise me if AA tries to go down this path, typical stupidity and exceptionally bad leadership like we've seen for over the last decade. It should work out well for OneWorld in Asia, it is already a weakling there. It should also work well convincing LanTam to join Oneworld with the venomous atmosphere of Oneworld North America. It should also work well with some idiot's stand alone plan of trying to expand and capture new customers with a pissed off workforce. Great all around plan.

In the end, the Judge abrogates the existing contract. He doesn't enforce a new one. There isn't a new contract with a new length, just day to day terms imposed as AA sees fit. If they want a goverment to force the AA workforce to live under it's terms under the threat of imprisonment for 6 years, maybe they should move the operation to Havana so Raul can keep us in line. That is pretty close to what is already happening.

 

[olderguyAMT]

FWAAA

If AA imposes a 6 year deal on the pilots, there is a 99% of a wildcat shutdown of American Airlines by the pilots. We can debate on paper all we want about what we think is legal, but when AA goes lightyears beyond what it needs from the pilots regarding competitive compensation and benefits compared to other carriers, even most pro-company fence sitters will walk out.

It wouldn't surprise me if AA tries to go down this path, typical stupidity and exceptionally bad leadership like we've seen for over the last decade. It should work out well for OneWorld in Asia, it is already a weakling there. It should also work well convincing LanTam to join Oneworld with the venomous atmosphere. It should also work well with some idiot's stand alone plan of trying to expand and capture new customers with a pissed off workforce. Great all around plan.

How can Lean Manufacturing, 6 segma, Continuous Improvement, and Emplyoee Empowerment work for the company with a pissed off workforce?

For all these business plan improvements to work, the employees have to participate to make it all happen.

 

[FWAAA]

FWAAA

If AA imposes a 6 year deal on the pilots, there is a 99% chance of a wildcat shutdown of American Airlines by the pilots. We can debate on paper all we want about what we think is legal, but when AA continues to go lightyears beyond what it needs from the pilots regarding competitive compensation and benefits compared to other carriers, even most pro-company fence sitters will walk out.

It wouldn't surprise me if AA tries to go down this path, typical stupidity and exceptionally bad leadership like we've seen for over the last decade. It should work out well for OneWorld in Asia, it is already a weakling there. It should also work well convincing LanTam to join Oneworld with the venomous atmosphere of Oneworld North America. It should also work well with some idiot's stand alone plan of trying to expand and capture new customers with a pissed off workforce. Great all around plan.

You may be right. FWIW, I think six years is over-reaching. Three years would have probably not looked quite as greedy. The NW flight attendants signed a concessionary contract that, when combined with their 10 months of imposed terms, lasted 5.5 years.

In the end, the Judge abrogates the existing contract. He doesn't enforce a new one. There isn't a new contract with a new length, just day to day terms imposed as AA sees fit. If they want a goverment to force the AA workforce to live under it's terms under the threat of imprisonment for 6 years, maybe they should move the operation to Havana so Raul can keep us in line. That is pretty close to what is already happening.

The judge doesn't enforce a new contract, but AA has asked his permission to impose the six year term sheets on the three unions, so it's not day to day terms, it's a six year imposed contract. Like I posted above in response to Bob Owens, I don't know the term of the NW FA failed TA that NW imposed on its flight attendants, but I'm certain that the failed March 1 TA was not a day to day contract.

Sure, you can wildcat and burn the place down, but you always have had that power. You guys tried that when AA bought RenoAir instead of filing a grievance and the APA ended up costing AA hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue in the first quarter of 1999. This discussion (this entire thread) is about the length of term of the new imposed contracts if the judge permits AA to reject your CBAs. And despite the incorrect postings of Bob Owens and others, it appears that AA has asked the judge to permit AA to impose a six year concessionary CBA. That much was obvious the day AA released the term sheets and it became a certainty the day that AA filed the motion to abrogate your contracts. The proposed Order in the motion makes clear that AA will impose the term sheets, and one key part of those term sheets is a six year length period before the contract becomes amendable.

 

[olderguyAMT]

snipped in places.....
The judge doesn't enforce a new contract, but AA has asked his permission to impose the six year term sheets on the three unions, so it's not day to day terms, it's a six year imposed contract. ......... The proposed Order in the motion makes clear that AA will impose the term sheets, and one key part of those term sheets is a six year length period before the contract becomes amendable.

You are forgetting something....... any term sheet is just a proposal, and it becomes a contract once it's ratified with a vote. So its not a contract without a vote to approve it by the membership. and the world turns as negotiations continue. don't get mad its JMO.

 

[Bob Owens]

You'd have to ask a NW (now Delta) flight attendant what their failed March 1, 2006 TA said about the term of the agreement - since that was the CBA that was imposed by NW on its FAs at the end of July, 2006 until the FAs narrowly ratified another offer about May 29, 2007. "Terms" are not a contract? Your lack of expertise in contract law is showing. AA has asked the judge for permission to reject your current CBA and replace it with a new six year CBA. The terms of that new CBA are the old CBA as modified by the term sheets provided to you in March.

AA is asking the judge to abrogate the CBA and allow them to do so under the terms proposed on March 22.

Define CBA-Collective Bargaining Agreement By definition its not a CBA unless if was negotiated.

http://en.wikipedia....ctive_agreement

Who should we believe? Some guy who claims to be a lawyer or a real lawyer that was hired by the Pilots who made a statement in court yesterday and the Judge did not challenge. She said flat out that if the motion is granted there is no contract, no six year term, and the company, while under oath, not posting anonymously on a blog, agreed.

 

[Bob Owens]

Some more terms(contracts? CBAs?) FWAAA does not know the meaning of;
Terms

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=terms&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTerm&ei=i2m-T5GvJ4u16AGVrp1J&usg=AFQjCNGnKG_hU0LN3xOLmWTJfixOiSQoHQ

Abrogate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abrogate

You can work under Terms but that does not mean you are working under a CBA

If you abrogate a contract you are doing away with it, not modifyiny it.

So you can abrogate a contract or CBA and modify terms of employment, that does not mean you have a new contract or CBA. Its not a CBA can not be imposed, new terms can. FWAAA has lost a lot of credibility today, we probably wont see him for a week now.

 

[FWAAA]

You are forgetting something....... any term sheet is just a proposal, and it becomes a contract once it's ratified with a vote. So its not a contract without a vote to approve it by the membership. and the world turns as negotiations continue. don't get mad its JMO.

Once AA obtains the court's approval to impose the term sheet modifications to your current CBA upon you, the term sheets are no longer a proposal but become the imposed terms and conditions of your employment and will be amendable in six years.

 

[FWAAA]

Some more terms(contracts? CBAs?) FWAAA does not know the meaning of;
Terms

http://www.google.co...LmWTJfixOiSQoHQ

Abrogate
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/abrogate

You can work under Terms but that does not mean you are working under a CBA

If you abrogate a contract you are doing away with it, not modifyiny it.

So you can abrogate a contract or CBA and modify terms of employment, that does not mean you have a new contract or CBA. Its not a CBA can not be imposed, new terms can. FWAAA has lost a lot of credibility today, we probably wont see him for a week now.

When you start citing wikipedia and the dictionary to me, it's clear that you win the war of semantics. Argue the semantics all you want, Bob, but the fact is, the imposed terms and conditions of your employment, which will become amendable in six years, will look like and will operate just like a CBA for those six years.

 

[Bob Owens]

You can work under Terms but that does not mean you are working under a CBA. Delta and other workers work under terms that are not CBAs. Like I said, lets say Delta mechanics went Union and the company decided before the vote that every mechanic must sign a 20 year agreement to terms they dictated, do you think if they told the NMB and the Union to come back in 20 years it would hold up?

If you abrogate a contract you are doing away with it, not modifying it.

So you can abrogate a contract or CBA and modify terms of employment, that does not mean you have a new contract or CBA. Its not a CBA can not be imposed, new terms can. FWAAA has lost a lot of credibility today, we probably wont see him for a week now.

Like I said, show me where it says that the Judge, outside of 1113e can impose a new agreement. The motion is to abrogate and allow the company to impose new terms, not a new CBA because its not a CBA unless we negotiate and agree to it. There is nothing in the cose that allows the judge to impose anything on us outside of the 1113e. The law only allows Congress to impose new terms for a term of their choosing but that would be based upon the recommendations of a PEB after a travel emergency is declared.
You can work under Terms but that does not mean you are working under a CBA. Delta and other workers work under terms that are not CBAs. Like I said, lets say Delta mechanics went Union and the company decided before the vote that every mechanic must sign a 20 year agreement to terms they dictated, do you think if they told the NMB and the Union to come back in 20 years it would hold up?

If you abrogate a contract you are doing away with it, not modifying it.

So you can abrogate a contract or CBA and modify terms of employment, that does not mean you have a new contract or CBA. Its not a CBA can not be imposed, new terms can. FWAAA has lost a lot of credibility today, we probably wont see him for a week now.

Like I said, show me where it says that the Judge, outside of 1113e can impose a new agreement. The motion is to abrogate and allow the company to impose new terms, not a new CBA because its not a CBA unless we negotiate and agree to it. There is nothing in the cose that allows the judge to impose anything on us outside of the 1113e. The law only allows Congress to impose new terms for a term of their choosing but that would be based upon the recommendations of a PEB after a travel emergency is declared.

 

[Bob Owens]

When you start citing wikipedia and the dictionary to me, it's clear that you win the war of semantics. Argue the semantics all you want, Bob, but the fact is, the imposed terms and conditions of your employment, which will become amendable in six years, will look like and will operate just like a CBA for those six years.

Then why in every case did the parties continue to negotiate? If NWA had a new CBA locked in why did they add $190 million to the deal in order to get a CBA?
Because you are wrong.

Show me one case where workers had new binding terms put in place for a duration of the companys choosing and did not either continue to negotiate or strike.



Show me where in the companys application they are asking the court to allow them to impose a new CBA on the workers.

 

[700UW]

They are imposing modifications to the CBA, read the motion.

And read this.

http://www.turnaround.org/cmaextras/Paper--Section1113.pdf

It happened at NW with the FAs, it has been shown to you many times, go ask Mrs Levine.

 

[Mr Red]

Once AA obtains the court's approval to impose the term sheet modifications to your current CBA upon you, the term sheets are no longer a proposal but become the imposed terms and conditions of your employment and will be amendable in six years.

There are only two paths for AA to go ,Mutual agreements with Pilots,Flight Attendants and Maintanence or liquidation

 

[aapitbull]

When you start citing wikipedia and the dictionary to me, it's clear that you win the war of semantics. Argue the semantics all you want, Bob, but the fact is, the imposed terms and conditions of your employment, which will become amendable in six years, will look like and will operate just like a CBA for those six years.

Dear FWAAA

We have contacted several well respested BK firms and they all agree with Bob the imposed terms are only good during the BK process once its over you can file with the NMB for negoiations you will work under those terms until a new agreement can be reached and of course there is always the threat of release from the NMB. check it out for yourself but that is why the judge keeps pushing all groups to reach a agreement.

 

[FWAAA]

Then why in every case did the parties continue to negotiate? If NWA had a new CBA locked in why did they add $190 million to the deal in order to get a CBA?
Because you are wrong.

NW and the FAs agreed on their new CBA ten months after impostition of the failed TA; the new CBA didn't cost NW anything more but allocated a claim to the FAs (which came from the unsecured creditors).

Show me one case where workers had new binding terms put in place for a duration of the companys choosing and did not either continue to negotiate or strike.

I don't know of any. Have no idea why everyone kept negotiating. Do you know the reason? If so, please post it.

Show me where in the companys application they are asking the court to allow them to impose a new CBA on the workers.

Like I said earlier - you win on the semantics, Bob. I posted this yesterday - it's AA's request to impose the term sheets upon the workers and is part of AA's proposed order, within the motion to abrogate:

ORDERED that pursuant to section 1113© of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors​

are authorized to reject the CBAs; and it is further​

ORDERED that the Debtors are authorized to implement and perform under the​

terms of the proposals under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, as more fully described in the​

Motion, and to take any and all actions that may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to​

effectuate the same and perform all obligations contemplated under such proposals; and it is​

further . . .

http://www.amrcasein.../2035_15463.pdf

Implement and perform under the terms of the proposals. That means impose the term sheets upon the employees. If it makes you feel better that those terms are not a "CBA," then by all means you're entitled to that.

 

[Bob Owens]

I don't know of any. Have no idea why everyone kept negotiating. Do you know the reason? If so, please post it.
  That means impose the term sheets upon the employees. If it makes you feel better that those terms are not a "CBA," then by all means you're entitled to that.

I already have , on several occasions, they keep negotiating because there is no contract. No contract no six year term, you were wrong.

It doesnt just make me feel better it makes you wrong. There is no six year term unless we agree to one.