which will it be? the ta or term sheet?

[FWAAA]

I had read Levine's article some time ago and asked last night about how what happened at NWA applies to us.

It seems the twu is now saying (in conflict with Levine's article and their own advice of some time ago) we won't have a contract at all and the company will be free to do as it wishes and impose the original term sheet (not following precedent set in the NWA bankruptcy) even though being locked into negotiations with the company, should this TA not be passed so - the question remains - why is the twu putting lipstick on this pig when all that's required is a vote and acceptance by little jimmy afterward?

Per precident established by NWA, the POS we're supposedly going to vote on will be imposed if our contract is abrogated.

Is the twu afraid Judge Lane will not abrogate the contract? Why would they push so hard for acceptance if that wasn't the case?

I just read the TWU Q&A where it (incorrectly, IMO) claims that abrogation means there's no contract:

Q: If we vote “no,” what happens next?
A: We will await the judge's ruling after the 1113 case is finished. Well over 90 percent of the union cases are lost in major 1113 corporate cases. Based on that track record, many expect we will have our contracts rejected. If this happens, we will have no contract. We will have to negotiate a new CBA (as if it were our first ever contract). While bargaining the new CBA, the carrier has indicated that the March 22 ask will be in place.

Q: What is the legal status of our contract if the judge grants AA's 1113 motion to reject our CBAs?
A: We have no contract at all and we enter into negotiations for what is in essence a first ever contract. During this period, after we exit bankruptcy, there is no status quo protection. This means that while AA is bargaining, the Company may argue that under past court decisions, it can change anything it wants to change. (AA has indicated that it will only impose the terms of the March 22 1113 ask—as we would expect. But there is no guarantee that will be the case.)

http://www.twubkfacts.org/HOME/AAVoting/tabid/1804/HOME/AAVoting/MR/tabid/1811/Default.aspx

I believe that the answers to both of these questions are both incorrect. If the court abrogates the contract, AA would be free to impose the April LBO, along with its six year term. If the AA bankruptcy court follows the NW bankruptcy court (there's no guarantee it would), then AA would not be able to impose the March ask but could only impose the April LBO.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I just read the TWU Q&A where it (incorrectly, IMO) claims that abrogation means there's no contract:


http://www.twubkfacts.org/HOME/AAVoting/tabid/1804/HOME/AAVoting/MR/tabid/1811/Default.aspx

I believe that the answers to both of these questions are both incorrect. If the court abrogates the contract, AA would be free to impose the April LBO, along with its six year term. If the AA bankruptcy court follows the NW bankruptcy court (there's no guarantee it would), then AA would not be able to impose the March ask but could only impose the April LBO.

Bankruptcy being a federal court matter, one would think the precident set by another federal court/district would be followed - this ain't the 9th circuit liberals we're dealing with here but a federal bankruptcy court, the decisions of which establish case law.

Unless there were circumstances not cited in Levine's writing (re: PFAA), there's really not any good reason for Judge Lane to reinvent the wheel and rule differently re: what to impose. Again, it sounds more like the judge is leaning toward against abrogation, with the twu being the only union willing to roll over and pee on its belly for the company - probably in hopes of favors later on.

 

[paul1]

its not a consenual agreement! vote no!!!!!!!!!!!! Little screwed up when he told us we would vote on the lbo. the company then had no reason to offer us anything.

AA/judge can impose whatever they want , but they still have to come back to the table one we or another. 9 fricken years way to long.




whats the word in tulsa?

 

[TWU informer]

whats the word in tulsa?

FEAR and believing the liars.

 

[787nightmare]

I realize the compAAny needs relief, but a 6 yr deal is a no-go issue.
More like 2-3 yrs should be the term(amendable/open up nego 6 mos early).

A "NO" vote on Last/Best Offfer.
A "YES" for representation election.
The cards should be flooding in by now.

Watch...TULE will vote this thing in soley on fear. Bet my next check.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Bankruptcy being a federal court matter, one would think the precident set by another federal court/district would be followed - this ain't the 9th circuit liberals we're dealing with here but a federal bankruptcy court, the decisions of which establish case law.

One would be wrong to believe that. First, the NW/AFA case was about the ability to strike after contract abrogation - the details of the case DO make a difference. Second, rulings by one court are not binding on other courts at the same level. One District Court doesn't necessarily set precedence for another District Court, one Circuit Appeals Court doesn't set precedence for another Circuit Appeals Court. The Appeals Court for a Circuit does set precedence for the District Courts in that that Circuit, but then it goes back to the first point - if the details of two cases aren't identical District Courts in the same Circuit can and do rule differently.

Only SCOTUS sets precedence for all courts, but again it goes back to the first point above - even SCOTUS has ruled differently depending on the specific facts surrounding two different cases.

Jim

 

[dc10boy]

No NO NO absolutely not. we must not give into fear and accept this.If we accept this we are just about done.Follow the lead of the pilots and F/As take this to the judge! Recognize the legal precedence.Question the motivations of little and the TWU.Many observers are reporting the Company is having trouble justifying the depths of their demands to the court.If Judge lane rules to reject, legal precedence states that offers cannot be removed from the table.this is blackmail!if we reject this we stand a chance of a better offer down the line.if we accept this...it is our ratified baby for 6 (probably extended through 10 if history is any guide) long years.I also seriously question the intentions this company may have to "abrogate and trash" our agreements (as do others who are closer to this)the ensuing labor war would not be good for the company or creditors....And AA knows this as the pilots and F/As have waned them in no uncertain terms.THEY are standing firm.So should we.the pilots union went to Charlotte today to negotiate with the USairways pilots union.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/30/147219/pilots-unions-for-us-airways-american.html#storylink=cpy

By the way,Brundage announced today he was leaving after the labor portion of BK was completed. HMMMMM.
Does this tell you guys anything? We must not be the weak link.Do you really want to accept this trash and then sit back and watch the other unions negotiate more favorable terms?Then vote NO
for once in our careers STAND UP FOR OURSELVES!

 

[Frank Szabo]

One would be wrong to believe that. First, the NW/AFA case was about the ability to strike after contract abrogation - the details of the case DO make a difference. Second, rulings by one court are not binding on other courts at the same level. One District Court doesn't necessarily set precedence for another District Court, one Circuit Appeals Court doesn't set precedence for another Circuit Appeals Court. The Appeals Court for a Circuit does set precedence for the District Courts in that that Circuit, but then it goes back to the first point - if the details of two cases aren't identical District Courts in the same Circuit can and do rule differently.

Only SCOTUS sets precedence for all courts, but again it goes back to the first point above - even SCOTUS has ruled differently depending on the specific facts surrounding two different cases.

Jim

SCOTUS is the "End-All", as you rightfully point out, re: the interpretation of any law but - until the dissention makes its way to DC, there are points of case law established as precedent which can be followed or taken to increasingly higher authority, up to the SCOTUS for a defniitive ruling as to the method used by the cow eating the cabbage.

As you rightfully point out, the judge has some leeway and that will have to be fought for - I can't see the twu doing a thing for its membership, however.

 

[Frank Szabo]

... snip


whats the word in tulsa?

Legs - spread the word.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Legs - spread the word.

There's enough in it for me to vote yes.

Yes means 401 with match, profit sharing, early out for separation, 10 yr recall rights vs 5 yr, pay adjustment for AMT's relative to the average of DAL, UA, and US, many jobs saved which means many families not subjected to a horrible hardship.

We lose a lot with voting yes, we lose much much more by voting no.

An additional 4 stations remain manned with AMT's and Clerks. That's a lot of families not having to move or get broken up.

We are in BK folks, we are going to lose, we have to try and lose the least we can, a yes vote, while painful, helps a lot of people from losing a lot.

I am getting laid off either way, a yes vote gives me more options.

 

[aapitbull]

There's enough in it for me to vote yes.

Yes means 401 with match, profit sharing, early out for separation, 10 yr recall rights vs 5 yr, pay adjustment for AMT's relative to the average of DAL, UA, and US, many jobs saved which means many families not subjected to a horrible hardship.

We lose a lot with voting yes, we lose much much more by voting no.

An additional 4 stations remain manned with AMT's and Clerks. That's a lot of families not having to move or get broken up.

We are in BK folks, we are going to lose, we have to try and lose the least we can, a yes vote, while painful, helps a lot of people from losing a lot.

I am getting laid off either way, a yes vote gives me more options.

Please read the following link and pay close attention to the conclusion, you will see where the most likely outcome if we vote no is the judge will impose what you are voting on right now. not the worst first offer but the last best offer. therefore there is no reason to vote yes because a no vote allows for the possiblity of a better deal if you vote yes they can tell you to piss off for the next six years! so follow the pilots & f/a's lead and press on with the process.

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

 

[iluvaa]

I GOT MINE BROTHER

 

[TWU informer]

TWU QUOTE:

If the judge rules to reject our
CBA, we would have no contract and
no duration. We would have to go
back to the table, but in the
meantime, we would be without a
contract.

If this is true then this means there isn't a "NO STRIKE, NO LOCK OUT CLAUSE"

Does anyone actually believe that AA is about to place themselves to be open to JOB ACTIONS from the Pilots, F/A's, and AMT's all at once?

This is a lie.

This would be better than the NMB Request for release and a 30 day cooling off period.

No CONTRACT, then NO NMB

NO NMB, No need for a release.

NO need for a RELEASE,
Then let the real games begin.


Just think about it.

 

[eolesen]

To everyone quoting Sharon Levine and the NWA case....

Don't count on that to be the outcome at AA.

NWA was replacing the CBA outright as opposed to modifying.

Both the term sheet and the April LBO are modifications to the current CBA, so it's a totally different situation in my opinion.

 

[Overspeed]

Please read the following link and pay close attention to the conclusion, you will see where the most likely outcome if we vote no is the judge will impose what you are voting on right now. not the worst first offer but the last best offer. therefore there is no reason to vote yes because a no vote allows for the possiblity of a better deal if you vote yes they can tell you to piss off for the next six years! so follow the pilots & f/a's lead and press on with the process.

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

Not true. The judge rules on abrogating the CBA only, he does write a contract or rule on individual items to change. The Company has the right to implement changes and disregard the entire contract if they want. We also have the right to continue negotiating after abrogation however the Company not give us what is in the Final Best Offer. The FBO is an "offer" not the "ask" that's in the 1113c filing.