TERM SHEET DURATION........

[BoeingBoy]

How, pray tell, could the SOBs offer all this for a "yes" vote yet threaten to return to the term sheet if the company is so "bankrupt", without quite a few "someones" going to jail for bankruptcy fraud?

Going back to the term sheet if the Judge allows abrogation is established precedent unless/until SCOTUS rules differently. That was established in the Frontier bankruptcy by the Appeals Court. AA doesn't have to, but without a consensual agreement what else would they impose if not their version of the cuts they say are needed?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

the judge abrogated that morning and the company presented the final "tweaked" offer to the court and the judge had us vote on it as he held is ruling in abeyance until it was ratified or be imposed if it wasnt.

Well, at least my memory hasn't completely left. US could have abrogated as soon as the Judge ruled but allowed a ratification vote on the last offer.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I never saw any assurances or promises that a better deal is down the road with a no vote, only that negotiations would continue with a no vote, and not so with a yes vote.

Bob was still talking about contract improvements and retro pay after AA filed. Not assurances or promises per se, but when a union official says something it does carry some weight.

Jim

 

[Mr Red]

I agree with most of your post. Before bankruptcy, AA was dangling a small amount of additional pay in exchange for more concessions. Once AA filed a Ch 11 petition, the idea of additional pay went out the window and the only uncertainty was the size of the concessions.

There's no way AA could offer higher pay to M&R upon signing while in bankruptcy - companies don't raise pay for some workgroups (but not others) in 1113c negotiations. The pilots and FAs would have already walked off the job and permanently shut down AA if M&R had been offered pay raises upon ratification of their LBO.

About the bolded portion above - implicit in "Vote no and negotiations continue" is an unspoken assertion that voting no will result in a better offer later.

Guess what, we voted NO! they continue to negotiate with extended period and help from another judge
A yes vote would have been final.

 

[Bob Owens]

You need to debate 700UW on this one. I believe he experienced first hand this issue.


At this point I don't know what the judge can, will, won't, can't do with respects to abrogation.
I am no expert.
From here on end, since I am no expert like others here, I will return to this forum when either an agreement is reached or on June 22 when the judge makes his ruling.
I am no longer going to give my opinion nor am I going to listen to others opinions like they are right from Chapter 11 text books.

I will wait for the one person who will decide things....And that's the judge!
If a lawyer cannot give a definitive answer to a simple question, then who is anyone else here to speak as if they are end all?

No need to debate him he is being an ass, he supported all the concessions at USAIR and is probably here hoping we do the same to make him look better for supporting concessions there.

The issue actually came up in discussion today between the Pilots lawyer and the company. They were talking about the labor concessions and the term. The Pilots lawyer indicated that theres a good chance that their Business plan may have to be adjusted and clearly stated to the Company witness that there will be no imposing of a six year term.. She said "Are you aware that if the 1113 is granted that it does not impose a new contract?"
Company witness "Yes, I'm aware."

If there is no contract there is no term.

I hear that some are claiming thats not the case but look at what the motion is, its to abrogate. There is no contract so there is no six year term. 700UW may be getting confused between an 1113(e) motion, where a Judge can impose changes to the contract but they are temporary till they either negotiate changes or the judge abrogates and an 1113c motion to abrogate. With $4.8 billion and climbing the company would be hard pressed to prove their case for an 1113(e), thats why they didnt bother. Like I said I see nothing in the law that gives the Judge the right to impose upon workers anything other than temporary changes.

 

[Bob Owens]

I believe it's already been stated that the judge in this case will not impose a final "tweaked" offer, he will only impose the March 22 term sheets, the "untweaked" version.

No, the Judge either abrogates or he doesnt. When he makes his decision he will decide whether or not we had good reason to reject based upon the March 22nd term sheet. You have to remember the intent. The Intent was for the company to approach the unions with what was necissary, they are not supposed to ask for things that are not necissary. So if the company does like AA did and asks for everything, and therefore helps the Unions show they have good reason but then negotiates something less ridiculous, the judge should only look and see if they were justified in rejecting the terms presented.

 

[FWAAA]

I hear that some are claiming thats not the case but look at what the motion is, its to abrogate. There is no contract so there is no six year term. 700UW may be getting confused between an 1113(e) motion, where a Judge can impose changes to the contract but they are temporary till they either negotiate changes or the judge abrogates and an 1113c motion to abrogate. With $4.8 billion and climbing the company would be hard pressed to prove their case for an 1113(e), thats why they didnt bother. Like I said I see nothing in the law that gives the Judge the right to impose upon workers anything other than temporary changes.

You are mistaken. The bankruptcy code authorizes the judge to permit the debtor to reject your labor agreements and the judge may permit the debtor to impose the debtor's terms.

Here is the language of the proposed order filed as part of the motion to reject the labor agreements:

ORDERED that pursuant to section 1113© of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors​

are authorized to reject the CBAs; and it is further​

ORDERED that the Debtors are authorized to implement and perform under the​

terms of the proposals[/b[ under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, as more fully described in the​

Motion, and to take any and all actions that may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to​

effectuate the same and perform all obligations contemplated under such proposals; and it is​

further . . .

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/2035_15463.pdf

What do you think the bolded portion "implement and perform under the terms of the proposals" means? It means that if the motion to abrogate is granted, AA will be free to impose the term sheets, which contain a six year term. I realize that you were in the courtroom, but that does not make you a lawyer, nor does it enable you to render competent advice about bankruptcy law. Only a lawyer can do so - I advise you and other TWU officers to seek and follow such advice from your lawyers.

 

[Bob Owens]

The bankruptcy judge does not impose permanent terms under 1113c. As a general rule, debtors (including AA) are free to reject any executory contract, but labor contracts can be rejected by the debtor only if the debtor satisfies 1113c. If the judge determines that the debtor has satisfied 1113c, then AA may reject the labor agreements. If that happens, the judge imposes nothing. The debtor - AA - is free to impose its terms, and case law interprets that to mean the term sheets.

About the bolded portion: One of the requirements of 1113c is that the parties attempted to negotiate changes to the labor agreements. If AA had refused to do so, then it could not possibly satisfy the provisions of 1113c.

IMO, you have sold your members a bill of goods. You have repeatedly posted that rejecting TAs and then the LBO would result in better offers down the line. So far, that hasn't happened. You have repeatedly posted that abrogation sends the parties to immediate section 6 negotiations and that the members will not have to live with the term sheets for six years. On that one, I think you'll again be proven incorrect (although it's likely that AA will continue to negotiate so it won't have to impose the term sheets).

For nearly six months now, it's been posted that bankruptcy means concessions - either approved by the membership or imposed by the company following abrogation under 1113c.

For those of you who have stuck around for the last nine years hoping that things would get better - it's obvious that they are not going to get better. That became crystal clear for most on November 29, 2011. AA's employees have now had nearly six months to prepare resumes and seek better opportunities. For those still on the payroll - what the hell are you waiting for?

Check the record before you make accusations. I've repeatedly said we must keep voting No until we get a better deal and we will not get the best deal before the 11th hour of the 29th day. I still hold that to be true. We must prepare to battle the company, if they impose we must shut them down, wether the courts like it or not. If everyone else who has contracts imnposed in a one sided process can do it then we must assert our rights to be treated equally under the law.

 

[Mr Red]

You are mistaken. The bankruptcy code authorizes the judge to permit the debtor to reject your labor agreements and the judge may permit the debtor to impose the debtor's terms.

Here is the language of the proposed order filed as part of the motion to reject the labor agreements:

[/font]
What do you think the bolded portion "implement and perform under the terms of the proposals" means? It means that if the motion to abrogate is granted, AA will be free to impose the term sheets, which contain a six year term. I realize that you were in the courtroom, but that does not make you a lawyer, nor does it enable you to render competent advice about bankruptcy law. Only a lawyer can do so - I advise you and other TWU officers to seek and follow such advice from your lawyers.

There is a reason that its never been done before at an airline.
It would be liquidation time !

 

[FWAAA]

There is a reason that its never been done before at an airline.
It would be liquidation time !

"Never been done before at an airline?" Incorrect.

NW imposed its terms (the failed March 1 TA) on its AFA-represented flight attendants. Had NW not imposed its terms on the FAs, we would not have the Second Circuit opinion that holds that airline employees may not strke when their employer abrogates their contract and imposes new terms on the employees.

 

[Mr Red]

"Never been done before at an airline?" Incorrect.

NW imposed its terms (the failed March 1 TA) on its AFA-represented flight attendants. Had NW not imposed its terms on the FAs, we would not have the Second Circuit opinion that holds that airline employees may not strke when their employer abrogates their contract and imposes new terms on the employees.

They came to an agreement

 

[FWAAA]

They came to an agreement

They reached agreement the following year, AFTER NW imposed its terms on the FAs.

Despite having their contract abrogated, and working under an imposed contract, and being told they had no legal right to strike, the NW FAs showed up for work anyway.

 

[Mr Red]

They reached agreement the following year, AFTER NW imposed its terms on the FAs.

Despite having their contract abrogated, and working under an imposed contract, and being told they had no legal right to strike, the NW FAs showed up for work anyway.

And they ended up with an AGREEMENT with an ailine that really was BROKE !

 

[FWAAA]

And they ended up with an AGREEMENT with an ailine that really was BROKE !

And the NW FAs worked under an imposed agreement from July, 2006 until May 30, 2007. NW sought and received a reduction of about 40% to its labor costs and was going to exit Ch 11 with or without agreement from the FAs:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-05-30-northwest-flight-attendants_N.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a07FkG9f4GOY&refer=home

Earlier, you said that imposed contracts had never happened at a US airline. NW FAs worked under an imposed contract for nearly a year before accepting an agreement. US mechanics had their contract rejected but voted to accept the LBO overnight before the new terms could be imposed. Like it or not, a similar fate awaits AA's employees. Concessions will happen by vote or by judge.

 

[Mr Red]

And the NW FAs worked under an imposed agreement from July, 2006 until May 30, 2007. NW sought and received a reduction of about 40% to its labor costs and was going to exit Ch 11 with or without agreement from the FAs:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-05-30-northwest-flight-attendants_N.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a07FkG9f4GOY&refer=home

Earlier, you said that imposed contracts had never happened at a US airline. NW FAs worked under an imposed contract for nearly a year before accepting an agreement. US mechanics had their contract rejected but voted to accept the LBO overnight before the new terms could be imposed. Like it or not, a similar fate awaits AA's employees. Concessions will happen by vote or by judge.

Thats why we said F U take it to the judge !