Us Plan To Ask Court For Pay Cuts

[High Iron]

Hey cuts suck,

But what I want to know if being in BK lessens the opportunity to negotiate returns as compensation for the cuts now...

[post="182173"][/post]​

I don't know. What happened last time?

 

[ClueByFour]

ClueByFour:

ClueByFour said: “According to any number of legal experts (including a very detailed analysis of S1113 law that was linked to on this very forum last week) your understanding is incorrect.â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: That’s not what ALPA’s legal advisors have said, but I guess as on an outsider with no legal background you know better.

As opposed the almighty and knowing team of ALPA advisors: the same folks who advised the U pilot group to take the concessions the last time, failed the save the pension, liked what they saw in terms of the viability of U's last POR, and whose primary interest is in keeping as many dues paying members on the property?

So, in a sense, I'm better suited to at least read the available information and form a judgement, because unlike the ALPA "advisors" I don't have an agenda. Question: is the company paying for ALPA's legal "advisors" much like they paid for ALPA's "investment banker?"

But hey, read it about it yourself: www.lowenstein.com/new/Unionlabor020303.pdf

(just so that you are aware, this paper is published by a law firm with extensive banruptcy experience--as opposed to unsubstantiated character assasinations brought by line pilots holding no union position)

What I find interesting is that union leadership actions could create deeper cuts imposed on the rank-and-file than were necessary, which is something ALPA’s financial advisors, professional negotiators, legal advisors, and economists from E&FA have also said.

Is the company paying for all of these folks (again)? Or (since they apparently don't teach "conflicts of interest" in flight school), how much success have these folks had on behalf of the AAA pilot group? I'll bet I can find 1,879 people who would comment on their performance in a less than stellar way. But hey, I'm just an outsider as far as you know--that I share my domestic office water cooler with the counsel for one of UAIR's largest creditors and that your job directly depends on various things that my employer produces is not really germane to the fact that I can read the available information on the subject and form an objective opinion--something that neither you nor ALPA's "advisors" can do with a straight face (agendas and all).

Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Clue,

That's ok - remember how long he has said that going into a BK without an agreement would mean that the company would seek 125% - 150% of what their proposals entailed? According to ALPA experts, of course.

Today, that's changed into:

"There is reason to believe the September 10 ALPA and AFA company proposals and the next proposal to the IAM units, the CWA, and the TWU units, will be the contract terms the company will seek to impose on the unions."

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

USA320Pilot says:
If the court orders employees to work under new terms and does not allow "self help", any union or member who does not abide by the ruling could be held in contempt of court and could be fined or put in jail.

Do you have a list of people who have been put in jail under these circumstances?
Fear mongering is a tiresome tune. Do you know any other?

Separately, it's my understanding the ALPA by-laws require a strike vote be membership ratified, therefore, the vote cold not be roll called.

Didn't the TA that wasn't a TA require a membership ratification? The last thing the MEC would want would be for the pilots to vote over whether or not to strike. The fact is the MEC would do all it could to prevent a strike vote as it would tip their hand to management and lay bare how out of touch the leadership of USALPA is with the rank-and-file.

[post="182055"][/post]​

 

[allegheny1]

Jim

I understand that 2 things are currently being formulated in ccy.

1. A request to the court for temporary pay cuts that will be filed
sometime between monday 9/20 to 10/07.

2. They are evaluating the expected costs of the banruptcy and will
add more to the...ask...figure given to each union.

Pretty soon being a taser salesman is going to look like an excellent
job opportunity.

regards

 

[BoeingBoy]

allegheny1,

As for #1, that makes sense. Not being a lawyer (but having slept in a Holiday Inn Express at some point), that seems to be the quickest to get in place.

#2 - Guess we'll just have to see what transpires. My layman's mind says that would "reset the clock" on the process whereas going with the last offer could possibly "check off" the making an offer and negotiating in good faith steps (though opinions surely differ on the "good faith" part). It has been a good while since I slept in that Holiday Inn Express, though!!!

Jim

 

[allegheny1]

Jim
I don t know about reseting the clock but I do have an opinion on good
faith negotiations. There haven t been any.

If you look at all of the term sheets that have made it into the public
domain...company to union...they all look the same except for percentages.
Take the percentages away and you would not know what union they
belonged to.

If good faith negotiations were present each would look somewhat to
substantialy different depending on each unions needs for their members.

I am afraid that the controversy over alpa mec disagreements have obsured
the obvious....no good faith negotiations have occures.

regards