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

[JABORD]

We are getting a six year deal any way you look at it. If we don't vote for it then the judge is going to impose the AA six year contract.

To me the vote seems to be very clear. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a yes vote will voluntarily lock us into the 6 year period but a hell no vote would provide for the door to remain open to attempt to recoup some of our losses within the 6 year period. Why wouldn't we give ourselves the option? The question was asked " to what point do we actually demand real change instead of more of the same failures?" Maybe now the fence sitters will get upset enough to push the card drive over the hump and we can stop dick'n around with the incompetence of the TWBoo! Then we can bring in a Union that can pursue quality representation for all of Maintenance. AMP or AMFA would undoubtedly serve our interests in their efforts.

 

[Buck]

Heading to #bankruptcy court for Day 4 of #AMR. Company’s HR head Jeff Brundage (who oversees labor issues) will take the stand.

Brundage to argue biz plan maintains base pay rate as much as possible, outsources certain jobs where necessary. #AMR

Brundage concedes what #AMR unions have argued: that biz plan seeks steeper labor cuts than pre-#bankruptcy negotiations. But justifies:

Back then we were just trying to avoid bankruptcy; now we need long-term stability. #AMR

Back at court now, Brundage on the stand but was banished to hallway so judge could discuss scope of testimony w/ lawyers.#AMR

Debate brewing over how deep we can get into details of union negotiations. #AMR

Brundage now discussing how company’s perspective changed after #bankruptcy. #AMR set new goals for labor negotiations.

Before Ch. 11, company was just trying to avoid bankruptcy. trying to “limp along,” Brundage said. Now seeking substantive change.#AMR

Brundage saying #AMR has tried its best to leave employees’ base pay as is.

Brundage now refuting idea that #AMR has taken a “take it or leave it” approach. Saying has only asked for what’s necessary to be viable.

Brundage defends #AMR‘s unwillingness to back off labor reduction targets, saying they are allocated proportionately to each group…

…based on each group’s percentage of total costs for the company.#AMR

Brundage saying other airlines, including United & Delta, did it the same way. #AMR

Union lawyer points out that Brundage explanation doesn’t detail how he reached the underlying ask, just how they allocated them.#AMR

Rob Clayman now starting cross-exam on Brundage for APFA.#AMR

Clayman questioning Brundage over 2003 labor renegotiations. Points out that unions were accommodating, gave #AMR what it needed.

Brundage saying at the time #AMR thought that was good enough for survival, but didn’t realize competitors would use Ch 11 to overhaul costs

Clayman questioning Brundage on certain profit-sharing/pay increase terms within the #AMR biz plan.

Clayman seems to be laying foundation for argument that, if #AMR has capacity to profit-share, why not just reduce projected labor cuts?

but it’s all still a bit opaque… #AMAR

Break time. Judge Lane discussing possibility of going late tonight as they try to cram a bunch more witnesses by end of day tomoro.#AMR

 

[Bob Owens]

We are getting a six year deal any way you look at it. If we don't vote for it then the judge is going to impose the AA six year contract.

The Judge either grants the motion to abrogate or denies it. If they abrogate there is no contract so no six year term. If he abrogates negotiations continue under Sect 6 until another agreement is reached or the parties are released to self help.

A yes vote gets you pretty much guaranteed bottom of the industry wages till at least 2018, there is no way to get more than the deal offers but they could come back for more at any time.

A No vote leaves options open. The company would be allowed to impose new terms but if anything it would complicate the BK process for the company, and give the Unions more leverage. Sure it couild be very rough for a few months but thats better than wiating till 2018 for an improvement.

Most of our peers, who already earn more than us , have contracts coming due soon.

 

[700UW]

Wrong,

Why are you posting misinformation?

If the judge abrogates, he imposes the term sheet the company files in the Section 1113C motions.

 

[BigMac]

Clayman questioning Brundage over 2003 labor renegotiations. Points out that unions were accommodating, gave #AMR what it needed.

Brundage saying at the time #AMR thought that was good enough for survival, but didn’t realize competitors would use Ch 11 to overhaul costs

"didn't realize competitors would use CH 11 to overhaul costs."
Are you friggin kidding me? Is this guy a bonehead?

 

[Birdman]

If the judge abrogates, he imposes the term sheet the company files in the Section 1113C motions.

That seems consistent with the Q&A's although the compAAny left itself a lot of latitude in the term sheet.

 

[Hopeful]

That seems consistent with the Q&A's although the compAAny left itself a lot of latitude in the term sheet.

Actually if you read the Q&A regarding consenual agreements not being reached...It says the company may implement "only those proposal made during 1113 negotiations."

But it does not say "last best offer." I would like to know what TWU council says. I tend to believe that the term sheets would get imposed as I tend to believe the union is heeding council's advice.

So, Little puts the fate in the hands of the members. If we vote yes, it was our doing....If we vote no, it's the judge's doing.

 

[TWU informer]

Wrong,

Why are you posting misinformation?

If the judge abrogates, he imposes the term sheet the company files in the Section 1113C motions.

And then negotiations resume to reach a consensual agreement.

Has any judge ever approved a reorg plan with one and/or all three unions not reaching consensual agreements?

I mean how can a company successfully emerge if the unions are still not in consensual agreement with working conditions?

 

[Hopeful]

And then negotiations resume to reach a consensual agreement.

Has any judge ever approved a reorg plan with one and/or all three unions not reaching consensual agreements?

I mean how can a company successfully emerge if the unions are still not in consensual agreement with working conditions?

Maybe USAIR? Maybe our USAIR posters here can give us some details on what happened there.

 

[700UW]

We never reached a consensual agreement. The judge abrogated our CBA and held the motion in abeyance and we voted on the last and final offer and it was ratified by the membership.

I know the FAs at NW has their CBA abrogated also.

 

[texasreb]

And then negotiations resume to reach a consensual agreement.

Has any judge ever approved a reorg plan with one and/or all three unions not reaching consensual agreements?

I mean how can a company successfully emerge if the unions are still not in consensual agreement with working conditions?

That's exactly what happened at Northwest. The contracts were imposed.

 

[TWU informer]

That's exactly what happened at Northwest. The contracts were imposed.

Seems to be a pattern here of non-consensual agreement equals never succeeding long term.

 

[TWU informer]

The Judge either grants the motion to abrogate or denies it. If they abrogate there is no contract so no six year term. If he abrogates negotiations continue under Sect 6 until another agreement is reached or the parties are released to self help.

A yes vote gets you pretty much guaranteed bottom of the industry wages till at least 2018, there is no way to get more than the deal offers but they could come back for more at any time.

A No vote leaves options open. The company would be allowed to impose new terms but if anything it would complicate the BK process for the company, and give the Unions more leverage. Sure it couild be very rough for a few months but thats better than wiating till 2018 for an improvement.

Most of our peers, who already earn more than us , have contracts coming due soon.

Bob Owens, I have a question concerning the Prefunding Reserves.

Earlier you had pointed out that if we were to consensually agree to terms that eliminate the prefunding when we only get our contributions plus interest.

If the Judge abbrogates and the prefunding is elminated, do we get the company match from the reserves?

I called last week, my balance was just under $8,000.00

This could mean by voting yes, we would not get the company match which would double that balance.

There is a TWU stooge running around Tulsa saying there is a letter of agreement that states we will never get the company match regardless of how the plan in elminated.

Clarification before this vote and accurate information should be in our hands.

 

[Birdman]

Actually if you read the Q&A regarding consenual agreements not being reached...It says the company may implement "only those proposal made during 1113 negotiations."

The latitude I'm referring to is the ability they have to control OSM count and usage, unlimited base 7-day coverage, blanket system protection removal, etc.....that doesn't mean they will, but they can.

 

[Hopeful]

The latitude I'm referring to is the ability they have to control OSM count and usage, unlimited base 7-day coverage, blanket system protection removal, etc.....that doesn't mean they will, but they can.

I agree....So if you go back and read the term sheets..I guess the answer is there.