PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Dear Members of Local 40,
AFA has submitted to the court a motion to CHALLENGE the 21% court ruling of
October 15, 2004.
You will soon hear this in the media as a press release has been sent.
The main reason for the CHALLENGE is because the 21% pay reduction
authorized by the court is independently excessive for the flight attendants
because it failed to account for the pension contributions which USAirways
unilaterally forgone without court authorization. By not paying into the f/a
pension plan, the amounts required by the contracts and by federal law,
USAirways has realized savings of approximately $3.9 million per month
totaling $15.6 million during the 4 month interim relief period well beyond
the savings amount which the Debtors had used in constructing the $5.4
million savings target for flight attendants.
Neither the value of the reduced benefit obligation nor the value forgone
pension payments were addressed by the court in issuing its order
authorizing interim relief. The AFA respectfully submits that it is not
addressing those critical issues of cash savings to the Debtors. This court
inadvertently authorized pay reductions which exceeds the "minimum
necessary" for the Debtors to survive. Accordingly, the AFA respectfully
submits that the Court's order should be modified.(taken from the "Motion
for Reconsideration", page 7, sec. 20 and 21).
Teddy
Local 40
AFA has submitted to the court a motion to CHALLENGE the 21% court ruling of
October 15, 2004.
You will soon hear this in the media as a press release has been sent.
The main reason for the CHALLENGE is because the 21% pay reduction
authorized by the court is independently excessive for the flight attendants
because it failed to account for the pension contributions which USAirways
unilaterally forgone without court authorization. By not paying into the f/a
pension plan, the amounts required by the contracts and by federal law,
USAirways has realized savings of approximately $3.9 million per month
totaling $15.6 million during the 4 month interim relief period well beyond
the savings amount which the Debtors had used in constructing the $5.4
million savings target for flight attendants.
Neither the value of the reduced benefit obligation nor the value forgone
pension payments were addressed by the court in issuing its order
authorizing interim relief. The AFA respectfully submits that it is not
addressing those critical issues of cash savings to the Debtors. This court
inadvertently authorized pay reductions which exceeds the "minimum
necessary" for the Debtors to survive. Accordingly, the AFA respectfully
submits that the Court's order should be modified.(taken from the "Motion
for Reconsideration", page 7, sec. 20 and 21).
Teddy
Local 40
