TWU negotiations.........what?

[700UW]

Section 1167 only applies to railroads, not airlines, go ask Sharon Levine.

And do you realize most railroad CBAs are legislated by Congress as the companies and the unions in most cases fail to reach a new CBA.

 

[Birdman]

1167 of the BK code states that even in Bankruptcy labor contracts covered under the Railway Labor Act can not be abrogated in Bankruptcy, they have to follow the RLA, however in another clause they excluded airlines from this provision.

Section 1167 only applies to railroads, not airlines, go ask Sharon Levine.

Did Bob not say that?

 

[Birdman]

In other airline bankruptcies, has there been any incentive for workgroups to reach agreement with the company prior to a motion to abrogate?
In other words, if you vote no, and the company successfully abrogates the contract, would you be any worse off?

If you compare UA's rejected t/a along with Wedoff's 9.8% temporary wage cut in January of 05 with the accepted t/a it appears the furniture was just rearranged so no, we may not be better off.

In 2005 they get agreements from their mechanics with more concessions, terminate the pensions and leave bk.

I still contend the UA mechanics were no better off voting no on the Jan. 2005 t/a and accepting the next. That was the question posed. How can AA mechanics expect a different outcome by voting no on whatever is brought to a vote?

 

[TWU informer]

I still contend the UA mechanics were no better off voting no on the Jan. 2005 t/a and accepting the next. That was the question posed. How can AA mechanics expect a different outcome by voting no on whatever is brought to a vote?

That appears to not matter because somehow "we are different".

The facts are simply in the way as far as some want to believe so facts are ignored.

 

[FWAAA]

I still contend the UA mechanics were no better off voting no on the Jan. 2005 t/a and accepting the next. That was the question posed. How can AA mechanics expect a different outcome by voting no on whatever is brought to a vote?

Perhaps, but my question was whether airlines that abrogate the contracts ever impose terms that are worse than the ones they offered during 1113 negotiations?

Bob Owens wants to compare UA to AA in 2003 and assign blame for industry-wide trends - a subject that's better suited for an ancient history class than the real-world issue facing AA's employees now: Whether there is any benefit to negotiating and agreeing to a revised agreement or whether it's better to flip the middle finger and wait for the company to abrogate the agreement. The NW FAs saw their contract abrogated; were the imposed terms any worse than the contract they voted down?

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Perhaps, but my question was whether airlines that abrogate the contracts ever impose terms that are worse than the ones they offered during 1113 negotiations?

Bob Owens wants to compare UA to AA in 2003 and assign blame for industry-wide trends - a subject that's better suited for an ancient history class than the real-world issue facing AA's employees now: Whether there is any benefit to negotiating and agreeing to a revised agreement or whether it's better to flip the middle finger and wait for the company to abrogate the agreement. The NW FAs saw their contract abrogated; were the imposed terms any worse than the contract they voted down?

Judge Gropper’s decision makes clear that it is the terms of the last tentative agreement or if there is none, the debtor’s last proposal, that the debtor may impose. Now, debtors and unions involved in §1113 negotiations need to be cognizant of the impact that incremental negotiations, designed to achieve consensus and, ultimately, agreement, may have on a court imposed result if negotiations fail.

This is from the conclusion of an article about NWs bankruptcy process..

http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/pensionsbenefits/vol2num3/Decisions.html

I am no attorney, but it appears that precedent was set in this case and possibly if there is a TA that is voted down and AA moves to abrogate the last TA is what would be imposed..Again I am no attorney and have no real idea what may transpire..

On a side note NW took less than a month to file their 1113 motion..Next week AA and their unions will negotiate outside of 1113 which tells me they would like to settle without costly litigation.. Will their offer be palatable is the question...

 

[700UW]

Ok, who honestly believes if you voted the TA in, that AA would not have filed bankruptcy?

And do you actually believe if they did file that they wouldnt come after the Mechanic and Related?

If you answer yes to these questions, they you have no idea of how big business operates.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

That appears to not matter because somehow "we are different".

The facts are simply in the way as far as some want to believe so facts are ignored.

TI Please enlighten me about what is not different....The company involved? The Judge? The YEAR?
The only facts in this case come from the judges gavel dropping!!

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Ok, who honestly believes if you voted the TA in, that AA would not have filed bankruptcy?

And do you actually believe if they did file that they wouldnt come after the Mechanic and Related?

If you answer yes to these questions, they you have no idea of how big business operates.

Exactly. I think the plan was to get the prefunding with the T/A and then get the pension with BK. It is said our prefunding is protected by language from BK so it seems the only way they can get that is if we agree to give it back. I can picture the fat cats in a room at HDQ giving high fives and claiming total victory. I for one will vote to test the language and see if the prefunding is protected from BK. Just my opinion.

 

[Buck]

Exactly. I think the plan was to get the prefunding with the T/A and then get the pension with BK. It is said our prefunding is protected by language from BK so it seems the only way they can get that is if we agree to give it back. I can picture the fat cats in a room at HDQ giving high fives and claiming total victory. I for one will vote to test the language and see if the prefunding is protected from BK. Just my opinion.

I believe only your contribution to prefunding is protected?

 

[OldGuy@AA]

I believe only your contribution to prefunding is protected?

You may be right Buck, but there is no way to be sure unless we put it to the test. Supposedly lawyers came up with the language.

 

[Mr Red]

You may be right Buck, but there is no way to be sure unless we put it to the test. Supposedly lawyers came up with the language.

Two separate accounts at JPmorgan,the only way they can get to it is if we volutarily give it up,the only question is if its terminated is if we get match or it goes into
retirey fund. We shall see.

 

[TWU informer]

Exactly. I think the plan was to get the prefunding with the T/A and then get the pension with BK. It is said our prefunding is protected by language from BK so it seems the only way they can get that is if we agree to give it back. I can picture the fat cats in a room at HDQ giving high fives and claiming total victory. I for one will vote to test the language and see if the prefunding is protected from BK. Just my opinion.

Yeah that's it!

We gave up well over $10,000 in raises and signing bonus since T/A was voted down, to test and see if we keep the company match in prefunding which is worth less in value.

WE showed their asses didnt we?

Or was it our own asses that are showing now?

 

[Mr Red]

Yeah that's it!

We gave up well over $10,000 in raises and signing bonus since T/A was voted down, to test and see if we keep the company match in prefunding which is worth less in value.

WE showed their asses didnt we?

Or was it our own asses that are showing now?

TAKE ur Meds!

 

[TWU informer]

TAKE ur Meds!

Was I miscalculating again the deficit of the vote no?