AA overreached

[Hopeful]

AA wanted unlimited codesharing so that they could take labor out of the decision process....

Or maybe just take labor OUT..period.

 

[TWU informer]

Owens - Schalk - Peterson, and all remaining AMFA clones:


All of you are missing the point. The judge was evaluating the term sheet, not the Company’s LBFO to the pilots. All the Company has to do to achieve abrogation is to change its term sheet to match up with its LBFO on these two items. On everything else the term sheet is far worse than the LBFO, and they will be allowed to impose the term sheet. So tell me what have they gained except, possibly, a few weeks? The judge approved of the Company’s business plan and rejected every one of the pilot’s valuation claims. He acknowledged that they will now be near the bottom of the industry, a result which he said is typical in a bankruptcy and gave him no problem. He has allowed huge concessions in scope. This is why the APFA has correctly stated that the judge ruled against the pilots on every significant item.

You keep saying that the judge would have found problems with the tentative agreement and told the Company to improve it. The judge wasn’t looking at the tentative agreement, he was evaluating the term sheet. If he found problems with the term sheet provided to the TWU (which is speculation because he only took issue with pilot specific matters) this decision makes clear he would have temporarily denied the motion and allowed AA to correct the term sheet. Once this happens we would have been exposed to the balance of the term sheet which calls for more lay offs, less pay, less, pension, and more outsourcing. So tell me how more jobs would have been saved if we rejected the LBF.

Are you really too stupid to see that even by your own logic the APA gained having at minimum the LBFO furlough and codeshare imposed instead of the original Term Sheet and negotiations will continue?

Tell me that you are not that ignorant to see that is what you just confirmed and described?

 

[Realityck]

APFA Special Hotline - August 15, 2012

Late this afternoon, the Bankruptcy Court issued a blistering indictment of the labor unions on American Airlines' property. The Court summarily rejected all but two arguments the pilots made in the Section 1113 hearing, including convergence - the argument that the company's ask would put the pilots below industry standard. Most of the pilots' arguments were identical to ours.

The Court's decision to reject the Company's motion, as it pertains to the APA, was based on two specific arguments that were unique to the Company's demand of the pilot work group. The Court decided that American did not need unlimited code sharing capabilities to reorganize its business. The second argument pertains to the Company's request for permission to make unlimited furloughs to the pilots. The APA contract, as it stands, limits the number of furloughs American can impose at 2,000. The Company's business plan stated that it needed 400 pilot furloughs in order to reorganize. The Court, therefore, decided that American did not need the ability to furlough an unlimited number of pilots. None of our arguments were equivalent to the two the Court sided with the pilots on.

APFA's legal counsel has stated that if the judge finds against AA's motion to abrogate (as he did in part with today's announcement), he will provide a clear roadmap to remedy any defects. Today's decision contains that roadmap. American says it intends to re-file its motion to abrogate the pilots current contract this Friday.
To reiterate, the remainder of the court's 100+ page decision validated each of American's arguments for its business plan and dismantled each of the unions' cases against it.

In fact, only two APFA arguments remain un-ruled upon by the Court: The first is our convergence argument, which included different evidence than the pilots'. The second is an information-sharing argument whereby we requested term sheets that pertained to non-unionized employees on the property and were not provided with them. The pilots requested other information from the Company that was not shared. The Court was unmoved by the pilots' similar information-sharing argument.

In short, today's ruling postpones the inevitable abrogation of the pilots' contract. Given the fact that most of our arguments have already been dismissed in this ruling, and that our LBFO addresses our arguments that are left outstanding, we do not expect the Court's 1113 ruling to go in our favor - should we vote to reject the LBFO.

It is more clear today than ever before that the best path for our membership is to accept the LBFO and continue to work towards achieving a merger with USAirways. We can now say with certainty that the Section 1113 process will leave flight attendants worse off than the LBFO. There is little doubt that the end result, should we reject, will be 2,000 furloughed flight attendants and many many more on reserve.

The Court's ruling, in it's entirety, is posted on our web site. Please take the time to examine it. Additionally, our professionals have excerpted certain pertinent facts and provided helpful explanations. Those will soon be available on the APFA website as well.

 

[amt66]

Owens - Schalk - Peterson, and all remaining AMFA clones:


All of you are missing the point. The judge was evaluating the term sheet, not the Company’s LBFO to the pilots. All the Company has to do to achieve abrogation is to change its term sheet to match up with its LBFO on these two items. On everything else the term sheet is far worse than the LBFO, and they will be allowed to impose the term sheet. So tell me what have they gained except, possibly, a few weeks? The judge approved of the Company’s business plan and rejected every one of the pilot’s valuation claims. He acknowledged that they will now be near the bottom of the industry, a result which he said is typical in a bankruptcy and gave him no problem. He has allowed huge concessions in scope. This is why the APFA has correctly stated that the judge ruled against the pilots on every significant item.

You keep saying that the judge would have found problems with the tentative agreement and told the Company to improve it. The judge wasn’t looking at the tentative agreement, he was evaluating the term sheet. If he found problems with the term sheet provided to the TWU (which is speculation because he only took issue with pilot specific matters) this decision makes clear he would have temporarily denied the motion and allowed AA to correct the term sheet. Once this happens we would have been exposed to the balance of the term sheet which calls for more lay offs, less pay, less, pension, and more outsourcing. So tell me how more jobs would have been saved if we rejected the LBF.

Don't waste your time trying to explain it to those ass clowns! They only see what they want to see and everyone else is wrong! Those clowns have cost us all a lot of money although we are all free to vote the way we want to.

 

[Hopeful]

Don't waste your time trying to explain it to those ass clowns! They only see what they want to see and everyone else is wrong! Those clowns have cost us all a lot of money although we are all free to vote the way we want to.

You accuse Owens, Schalk, Petersen, and others of costing you alot of money....How about those in the TWU heirarchy who are IMMUNE FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO US OVER THE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Owens, Schalk, and Petersen, and the rest have to live under the same crap the rest of us do.

The TWU leadership does not.

 

[FWAAA]

Yea, it is obvious....And most likely will change the denial to approval of the abrogation request.
But when you think about, the fact that he denied the request on TWO provisions concerned him so much that he denied abrogation. That in itself says something.

Should certainly put to rest the OWS-style nonsense that federal bankruptcy courts merely rubberstamp the demands of the 1% and are bought and paid for by the man, but it probably won't.

I'll admit that I wasn't smart enough to see it before, but reading the judge's decision makes it clear that whomever wanted the unlimited domestic codesharing and unlimited rights to furlough completely failed to make the case for them. The competition doesn't have those nor are they really necessary. AA got sloppy, tried to slip one past everybody, and the judge called them out on it.

 

[Hopeful]

Should certainly put to rest the OWS-style nonsense that federal bankruptcy courts merely rubberstamp the demands of the 1% and are bought and paid for by the man, but it probably won't.

I'll admit that I wasn't smart enough to see it before, but reading the judge's decision makes it clear that whomever wanted the unlimited domestic codesharing and unlimited rights to furlough completely failed to make the case for them. The competition doesn't have those nor are they really necessary. AA got sloppy, tried to slip one past everybody, and the judge called them out on it.

I agree.. The judge obviously knows his stuff.
Ruling the way he did and making it clear that all AA has to do is modify those two provisions and submit to get the abrogation ruling reversed, I think puts the pilots in a more precarious situation.
There will be no more negotiations barring new developments. If the judge is happy Friday, this victory was sweet but short.


BTW....You wrote "OWS-style nonsense".......Do you mean OWENS-style?

 

[strikeforce]

Don't waste your time trying to explain it to those ass clowns! They only see what they want to see and everyone else is wrong! Those clowns have cost us all a lot of money although we are all free to vote the way we want to.

How about the ass clowns that voted in 9 years of voluntary concessions in 2003.....oh, and the ass clowns that diminished the a&p license by voting in SRP's in 1995......oh, and the new ass clowns that just voluntarily gave the company 6 more years of concessions. The ass clowns you refer to is called the Transport Workers Union of America. Too bad the real clowns at the top are laughing all the way to the bank.....on your dime.....ass clown!

I highly doubt the pilots have a bunch of ass clowns that will sit idly by for the next 6 years and watch their profession get dismantled like the amt's. The judge could have granted rejection, but he didn't....and we'll probably never know the real reason why he picked code-sharing and furlough protection out of the entire term-sheet to reject the motion. If anything, his rejection made the pilots union a lot stronger and more unified. Kudos to the judge!

 

[will fix for food]

Are you really too stupid to see that even by your own logic the APA gained having at minimum the LBFO furlough and codeshare imposed instead of the original Term Sheet and negotiations will continue?

Tell me that you are not that ignorant to see that is what you just confirmed and described?

Where did you read that negotiations will continue? I must have missed that. All I have seen is that A/A will amend those two sections and resubmit on Friday to complete the abrogation and imposition of the 3/21 term sheet.

 

[Hopeful]

Where did you read that negotiations will continue? I must have missed that. All I have seen is that A/A will amend those two sections and resubmit on Friday to complete the abrogation and imposition of the 3/21 term sheet.

Isn't it amazing that those who call others ignorant don't read the details?

AA is two minor rewrites away from having a judge satisfied to abrogate an agreement.

Says nothing about returning to the table.

 

[iluvaa]

Anyone that thinks AA won't keep neg with pilots is truly a fool

 

[FWAAA]

Anyone that thinks AA won't keep neg with pilots is truly a fool

Sure, AA will continue negotiating with the pilots, but AA already released a statement that it will file its revised 1113 motion by tomorrow and if AA deletes the unlimited codesharing and changes to furlough provisions, it knows how the Judge will rule. Excise those provisions and AA gets authority to abrogate the contract. Once abrogated, I'm sure that negotiations will continue, but there's no rush to improve on the LBO if AA has the power to impose the term sheet.

Hopeful's point is that the Judge's ruling on Wed does not require that 1113 negotiations start all over again, as some have mistakenly asserted. The ruling makes it clear that AA will get what it wants if it lets go of those two items.

 

[Overspeed]

Sure, but those were not the only things the pilots had that was industry leading, they are not at the bottom as far as Pay, Holidays, Vacation, sick time etc etc. What AA was demanding from M&R, and got, was unprecidented. We had a much better case than the pilots against abrogation because the only things that we had, the Pension and retiree medical, we were willing to bargain, but the International and their "Experts" said that abrogation was all but guaranteed. The company was not demanding that the pilots settle for bottom of the industry in nearly every category like they were with us.

As usual you are wrong again. The decision does not force the Company to move closer to the pilots even on the two issue that it says they overreached on. The judge was evaluating the Term Sheet. The Company had already come closer to the pilots on these exact issues in the LBFO and, if you read the opinion, it is clear that all the Company has to do is line up the term sheet with its LBFO on codesharing and furloughs and the motion will be granted. The decision says the Company cannot reorganize with its present pilot agreement, that it is entitled to the amount of economic relief it demanded, that it was correct in all of its valuations, and goes on to validate a whole string of concessions including major scope relief. The flight attendants have made clear that this is no victory and I agree with them. They know that the principles of this opinion make contract abrogation inevitable, probably sooner rather than later.

As for Delta and United, with the pay increases that go into effect at the end of the year (not end of contract) at Delta and on DOS at UAL (assuming, as I do, that the increases bring them near Delta rates), AA pilots will be at least 20 percent behind in compensation.

 

[strikeforce]

Anyone that thinks AA won't keep neg with pilots is truly a fool

I'm betting that AA is in for a rude awakening if they decide to pursue abrogation......if you can read between the lines of APA Presidents statement to the pilots....."providing additional resources to the strke preparedness committee operations".......not exactly sure where AA will find 10K pilots by Saturday morning.

 

[Overspeed]

Are you really too stupid to see that even by your own logic the APA gained having at minimum the LBFO furlough and codeshare imposed instead of the original Term Sheet and negotiations will continue?

Tell me that you are not that ignorant to see that is what you just confirmed and described?

Negative buddy. They gained nothing on the furlough language. Judge Lane stated that AA did not present adequate arguments to abrogate the existing APA language that limits furloughs to 2,000 which would have allowed AA no restrictions on RIFs. AA's current business plan has pilot RIF's at 400 so they can RIF up to 2,000 more.

The TWU language in the new CBA caps maintenance spend at 35% outsourced so we have a cap as well. AA was not asking for unlimited outsourcing (like UA has in the IBT CBA) or outsourcing all engine and components with a cap of 4 AO lines in-house like WN. AA would have easily won abrogation on the TWU M&R CBA based on what industry standard outsourcing is at now. The judge in his decision looked at AA's arguments on labor costs and agreed with them. Read the decision. Lane gave AA the road map to abrogating their agreement and told them only unlimited code sharing and unlimited RIFs were not okay. This is a delay of weeks not an opening for the APA to get more.