What's new

AA reaches tentative agreement with TWU fleet service

Negotiations before a bankruptcy filing has nothing to do with Section 1113, once a company files they have to follow Section 1113 in order for an abrogation to occur. Negotiations have to start all over again.

The steps have to be followed AFTER, what happens prior has no bearing, trust me I lived it at US as I was on the M&R NC.

Your experience was with what I recall was a settled contract. If they're still without an agreement, and the company goes into court with a term sheet for the last TA, I suspect it would be a much different outcome.
 
$1.50/hr


I don't know where they get the idea people are going to jump through hoops for a minimum wage job.

Google "thousands line up for jobs" Numerous reports of thousands lining up for jobs.....That is where they got the idea.

How many thousands would line up for these jobs?
 
Your experience was with what I recall was a settled contract. If they're still without an agreement, and the company goes into court with a term sheet for the last TA, I suspect it would be a much different outcome.
Remember,these contracts "technically" never expire per the RLA
 
Section 1113 has not changed and like DFWTWU says status quo remsains in effect and there is a CBA that both parties are subject too.

§ 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements
How Current is This?
(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(B)
(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall—
(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and
(B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
(2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
(d)
(1) Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.
(2) The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.
(3) The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee’s proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.
(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.
 
You're correct that they have to negotiate after a filing.

But....... how would you expect the court to rule if:
  • there's no consensual agreement, and
  • the company is proposing a similar term sheet to what they're offering right now, and
  • the same authorized representative of the employees had put a similar proposal out for vote just months/weeks/days earlier

All I'm saying here is I wouldn't bet on much better if it winds up in a court, which admittedly isn't going to happen unless someone goes on strike, and it appears the NMB seems to be willing to sit on their hands for the next six months, so it's even less likely.
 
The topic is the TA between AA and the TWU. Next person to go off on a rant about executive bonusses earns time off and moderator preview. Posts have been deleted. Board privileges can be denied.
 
Sigh

Why am I not suprised this was pushed thru. I'm sure 90% of air frieght (jfk) will say they voted no but really voted yes on another concessionary contract.

In my 23 years of service i've NEVER voted yes on a contract.....i'm not about to now. VOTE NO

The TWU (Totaly Worthless Union) is the Neville Chamberlain of unions.

Reminds me of growing up in Alabama in the 50's. Big Jim Folsom was elected governor two or three times--once without a runoff in an open primary that had 14 candidates for the office!!! Yet, (according to my father) you could never find anyone who had ever voted for him even once, much less 3 times.
 
" Provide a one time option for all current employees for changing from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. Defined benefit plan to be subject to a “hard freeze” for those employees electing to participate in the new 401k DC plan."
_____________________________________________________

How is it that the TWU Ramp was able to negotiate a hard freeze of their DBP and convert to the DCP while the TWU M&R did not negotiate the same terms?

Prior to any TWU "negotiated" TA for M&R passing, many I work with would prefer that option. Their sentiment, one I agree with, is that we should immediately take all steps to separate ourselves from the future of AA and the TWU by taking away all of the threats from the removal of negotiated benefits by AA and the TWU.

It is AA and the TWU that have changed this from a career to a job, give us what you owe us on a weekly basis.

Given the inability of AA to construct a profitable business plan, with the billions conceeded by labor, and the inability of the TWU to negotiate anything other than a continual failure to improve the wages, hours of work and working conditions for anyone other than AA Management and the TWU International: the individuals I work with want a prenegotiated divorce, "in the can," that hits them both.

Atlas Shrugged: game over.
 
" Provide a one time option for all current employees for changing from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. Defined benefit plan to be subject to a “hard freeze” for those employees electing to participate in the new 401k DC plan."
_____________________________________________________

How is it that the TWU Ramp was able to negotiate a hard freeze of their DBP and convert to the DCP while the TWU M&R did not negotiate the same terms?

Prior to any TWU "negotiated" TA for M&R passing, many I work with would prefer that option. Their sentiment, one I agree with, is that we should immediately take all steps to separate ourselves from the future of AA and the TWU by taking away all of the threats from the removal of negotiated benefits by AA and the TWU.

It is AA and the TWU that have changed this from a career to a job, give us what you owe us on a weekly basis.

Given the inability of AA to construct a profitable business plan, with the billions conceeded by labor, and the inability of the TWU to negotiate anything other than a continual failure to improve the wages, hours of work and working conditions for anyone other than AA Management and the TWU International: the individuals I work with want a prenegotiated divorce, "in the can," that hits them both.

Atlas Shrugged: game over.
I agree, the pilots were offered a 12% 401k match. I would go for a hard freeze and a 12% match in a heartbeat. If you have a 401K match the company /union can no longer tell its workers that they should accept pay cuts to save their pension because its as clear as day that a paycut is a pension cut.
 
I agree, the pilots were offered a 12% 401k match. I would go for a hard freeze and a 12% match in a heartbeat. If you have a 401K match the company /union can no longer tell its workers that they should accept pay cuts to save their pension because its as clear as day that a paycut is a pension cut.
management posted the entire agreement. Awful! Why do you guys put up with such a deadbeat deplorable union like the TWU? It's almost like the TWU threw in the towell after masquerading like they were negotiating. Can you get rid of your leadership that keeps screaming about how you need to take this concessionary contract or risk bankruptcy? Your management NEEDS contracts locked in so it can pick up USair....and it will have the money to do so.
 
Besides the cities below, which ones are still staffed with M/L FSC's?

BOS, JFK, LGA, ORD, DFW, MIA, LAX

I know i've asked before, but I've long forgotten... Thanks in advance!
 
Besides the cities below, which ones are still staffed with M/L FSC's?

BOS, JFK, LGA, ORD, DFW, MIA, LAX

I know i've asked before, but I've long forgotten... Thanks in advance!

It's around 40 including the hubs... . Just about anything with more than 7 mainline departures per day is staffed with mainline by contract.

East/Southeast: PHL, SJU, EWR, DCA, IAD, BWI, MCO, TPA, MSY, ATL. Not sure about FLL or PBI.
Midwest: STL, BNA, IND, DTW, MSP, TUL and MCI. Not sure about OKC, LIT, CMH.
Southwest: SAT, AUS, DEN, TUS, PHX, SAN, SFO, SJC, SEA, HNL. Not sure about SLC or ELP.
 
It's around 40 including the hubs... . Just about anything with more than 7 mainline departures per day is staffed with mainline by contract.

East/Southeast: PHL, SJU, EWR, DCA, IAD, BWI, MCO, TPA, MSY, ATL. Not sure about FLL or PBI.
Midwest: STL, BNA, IND, DTW, MSP, TUL and MCI. Not sure about OKC, LIT, CMH.
Southwest: SAT, AUS, DEN, TUS, PHX, SAN, SFO, SJC, SEA, HNL. Not sure about SLC or ELP.
........and how would a ratification of this contract affect that?
 
........and how would a ratification of this contract affect that?

FLL is AA people, PBI is not they only have 5 flights a day max.

I did hear with the new contract stations like TPA, FLL, MSY, IAH..etc could end up Eagle..Anyone know what they make? At this rate I'll end up having to transfer.
 
It's around 40 including the hubs... . Just about anything with more than 7 mainline departures per day is staffed with mainline by contract.

East/Southeast: PHL, SJU, EWR, DCA, IAD, BWI, MCO, TPA, MSY, ATL. Not sure about FLL or PBI.
Midwest: STL, BNA, IND, DTW, MSP, TUL and MCI. Not sure about OKC, LIT, CMH.
Southwest: SAT, AUS, DEN, TUS, PHX, SAN, SFO, SJC, SEA, HNL. Not sure about SLC or ELP.

Based on where people have been bumping in from I'll say ELP and FLL are definately mainline. I know CMH was at one time, but I think is Eagle now. Can't speak for SLC, OKC, LIT, or PBI.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top