Too many of you celebrated without having the facts and without understanding the true meaning of what actually happened. Maybe there is a reason we are at the bottom of the industry and it doesn't seem it has to do with the International. Thank God we accepted the deal. The alternative is so much clearer now.
The fact is that the Judge held that AA went to far, that they asked for things that were not an itegral part of their business plan and that were inconsistant with the industry. In the pilots contract, with our pilots going into this near the top of the industry he found only two items but it was enough to have him deny the motion without prejudice, in other words fix those things and you can come back. In the M&R contract there are multiple items that are not itegral to their business plan and inconsistant with industry practices.
Tom Roth testified that the ask from the mechanics was "Gross Overkill", none of the other groups used such strong language or had the data to back it up. None of those groups was as far below industry average as the mechanics.
During discussions on eliminating System Protection Jim Ream admitted that it was not needed for their plan but they simply wanted the flexibility should something happen in the future to be able to layoff as much as they felt was needed. UAL mechanics have Furlogh Protection from 12/ 31/2011, (yes I know they still have people laid off but) the APA right here at AA were offered furlough protection that covered 95% of their members. We have ZERO, and they said they didnt need it, they simply wanted the flexibility.
Our Paid Time Off, (Holidays, vacation, Sick time) is much lower than the rest of the industry.
Our work rules as far as OT and Field trips are no more restrictive than the rest of the industry in their present form, once again, they said that they simply wanted it and the Judge would give it to them.
What was important in the Judges decision is that he denied the motion because the company
went too far, what they were asking for was n
ot needed in their business plan and was inconsistant withat the practices in the rest of the industry, we were told that those things didnt matter, that the Judge would grant the motion no matter what they asked for. When told that I asked , "What if they asked for a 20 year deal with no pay increases? Would the Judge abrogate based on those terms? At what point does the ask become onerous?" I got no real answer from them, we just got it from the Judge.
The Sky didnt fall, the Pilts at least got to hear what the judge had to say about their arguement, and based on their arguement, their postion in the industry he ruled as he did, we will never even get to make our case and never know how he would have ruled. its possible that in order to abrogate the company would have had to bargain on system protection and paid time off.
In requiring that they have destroyed everyone’s schedule. Our Eurotrash FAs must have picked that mentality up in France. It'’s Un-American.
