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

[Buck]

And how well off do you think you will be in 2018 earning $34/hr? Dont forget that you will be paying triple what you are now for Medical as well.

How can you even come up with such dribble? By 2018 no one will have to pay for Medical.

 

[john john]

Do you not get it?

If the NMB allows binding arbitration the results will be months away what will happen with the TWU and APFA contracts in BK court in the meantime. Were does the results of binding arbitration fit in down the road. Does binding arbitration meet the nine-step process?

 

[Mr Red]

Hold on. We would have been making more than that already if we passed the TA you recommended a no vote on! Now you are whining about what BK is doing to our CBA?!?! Bob, enough already. Say it, your strategy was wrong. You thought we would be better off voting and we are not. Your back up plan is to run AMR into Chap 7 (which isn't our call) unless you are advocating illegal job actions. And after we give AMR the big finger we will all be able to start over and hopefully be able to make $40/hour by 2018. Awesome Bob. You really thought this one through didn't you.

2/3 of membership voted it down for a reason !!!THEY READ THE T/A,Two dollars in one pocket Ten dollars out the other pocket. Stop trying to rewrite history !

 

[enough already]

2/3 of membership voted it down for a reason !!!THEY READ THE T/A,Two dollars in one pocket Ten dollars out the other pocket. Stop trying to rewrite history !

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!! There's still money on the table! Retro is coming!

 

[Vortilon]

How can you even come up with such dribble? By 2018 no one will have to pay for Medical.

They won't be paying medical for just their families, they will be paying medical for everybody who can get across the border as well.

 

[eolesen]

Yes it would be permitted if someone failed to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
Do you even have a clue how the LEGAL system in this Country works? Or are you just a wannbe?

Dave, my opinion has always been that IAM & AFA let things stand without appealing to the SCOTUS because they recognized their chances of being heard, much less being able to win on appeal.

Only 1% of all cases filed with SCOTUS wind up being heard, which ultimately leaves the lower court ruling to stand for the other 99% of appeals filed. When you consider that the 9th Circuit accounts for 20% of the population, and 33% of the cases heard by SCOTUS, that reduces the chances even more for a labor case being heard.

I know you probably believe that nothing risked is nothing gained, but the end result would have likely been the same --- the lower court's ruling would be upheld -- and that would have then created an even more undeniable fact of case law. At least now, there's the opportunity to take it to the higher court in the future.

 

[700UW]

I doubt AA will agree to Binding Arbitration, it will take too long and they dont need it, as they are in the driver's seat.

 

[Buck]

I doubt AA will agree to Binding Arbitration, it will take too long and they dont need it, as they are in the driver's seat.

The company has a epic history of doing whatever the TWU wants.

 

[FWAAA]

I doubt AA will agree to Binding Arbitration, it will take too long and they dont need it, as they are in the driver's seat.

I agree. I am beginning to wonder whether AA should have sought temporary imposed paycuts of 10% or 15% when it filed for Ch 11 protection so as to light a fire under the unions to quickly agree to contract modifications on scope, workrules, etc. So far, the 1113 process seems to be taking quite a bit of time.

 

[Buck]

I agree. I am beginning to wonder whether AA should have sought temporary imposed paycuts of 10% or 15% when it filed for Ch 11 protection so as to light a fire under the unions to quickly agree to contract modifications on scope, workrules, etc. So far, the 1113 process seems to be taking quite a bit of time.

See my post above,,,

 

[AANOTOK]

I agree. I am beginning to wonder whether AA should have sought temporary imposed paycuts of 10% or 15% when it filed for Ch 11 protection so as to light a fire under the unions to quickly agree to contract modifications on scope, workrules, etc. So far, the 1113 process seems to be taking quite a bit of time.

You "sideliners" are great. You're smarter than the Union, you're smarter than management, heck you're even smarter than the analyst. It's sure is easy to make decisions when they don't affect you one iota! Love your input though!!

 

[john john]

I agree. I am beginning to wonder whether AA should have sought temporary imposed paycuts of 10% or 15% when it filed for Ch 11 protection so as to light a fire under the unions to quickly agree to contract modifications on scope, workrules, etc. So far, the 1113 process seems to be taking quite a bit of time.

Why didn’t they ?

 

[Rogallo]

Why didn’t they ?

Ever heard "By the Book", "Work to Rule" etc, etc...

 

[Birdman]

Why didn’t they ?

They just recently hired consultants to run the show. It will take time to figure out some major items on their term sheet may not doable.

 

[Bob Owens]

Dave, my opinion has always been that IAM & AFA let things stand without appealing to the SCOTUS because they recognized their chances of being heard, much less being able to win on appeal.

Only 1% of all cases filed with SCOTUS wind up being heard, which ultimately leaves the lower court ruling to stand for the other 99% of appeals filed. When you consider that the 9th Circuit accounts for 20% of the population, and 33% of the cases heard by SCOTUS, that reduces the chances even more for a labor case being heard.

I know you probably believe that nothing risked is nothing gained, but the end result would have likely been the same --- the lower court's ruling would be upheld -- and that would have then created an even more undeniable fact of case law. At least now, there's the opportunity to take it to the higher court in the future.

If all the planes were sitting on the ground the case would be heard, and if that was the case the result would likely be different. Its time for Unions to act like Unions. I said back in 2002 that we all needed to get together and shut it down if they use BK to screw us. I said that it may be USAIR now but all the rest of us would be next. AA would only complete the first cycle. Hostess just filed with the intent of only going after labor contracts. BK has become the new way to get around collective bargaining. In our case the company exploited the RLA for four years then jumped into BK with over $4 billion in cash, by no means broke, bankrupt, by the liberal definition sure, morally as well. If AA is successful then why would UAL or any other carrier ever negotiate? Why wouldnt UAL drag talks out and file for BK? If AA can get away with filing with $4 billion then why couldnt UAL do the same after several years of profits? Show profits and hold off on writing stuff off till the year before you file.