AMR Wins U.S. Court Approval for $1.5 Billion Financing

[eolesen]

What does any of this have to do with US Bank not getting their way on a debt repayment?

There are plenty of other posts here that piss & moan about your pay. Try taking it to one of those.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Oops, the boss of the internet has spoken. Yes your A$$holiness. Hey, why don't you take all your comments to a board for people like you with a superiority complex and leave us alone?

 

[Bob Owens]

Oops, the boss of the internet has spoken. Yes your A$$holiness. Hey, why don't you take all your comments to a board for people like you with a superiority complex and leave us alone?

He forgets that he is "Former Moderator"

 

[eolesen]

No, I'm a current moderator. Just not here. Too many asshats to babysit.

 

[Bob Owens]

No, I'm a current moderator. Just not here. Too many asshats to babysit.

Yet you are here. Pretty much every day, so what does that make you?

 

[IORFA]

Oh, I know, I know. Pick me.

 

[FWAAA]

Ok let me try to explain..........

There's no need to explain with your condescending tone. Apparently, you passed right over this part of my post, "I understand that the 2010 TA conditioned its small payraises on concessions that you and others found unacceptable." Hundreds of posts from 2010 when the TA was rejected made it clear that many of you found the tradeoffs unacceptable. No need to re-edumacate and re-argue the point.

He forgets that with the 2010 TA we still would have had a weeks less vacation every year, the lowest Holiday pay, the least amount of sick time, no doubletime and other concessions that our peers who went through BK still have to this day.

On the retiree medical those of us under 50 would have lost it all, we would have had to trade our contributions for "sick time credts" to be used towards company provided retiree medical that we would have lost anyway.

I didn't forget anything. Poor reading comprehension resulted in re-hashing the reasons for rejecting the TA despite my post that "I understand that the 2010 TA conditioned its small payraises on concessions that you and others found unacceptable."

 

[FWAAA]

US Bank doesn't consider this matter over and today asked the court to require that AA deposit $500 million in escrow to cover the "Make-Whole" amounts in the event that US Bank wins on appeal:

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/6393_15463.pdf

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/6379_15463.pdf

 

[FWAAA]

AMR wins on appeal, US Bank loses. Barring a reversal by the US Supreme Court, AMR will not have to pay the bondholders the "make-whole" amounts that US Bank argued that AA had to pay: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-12/amr-wins-appeal-in-dispute-over-make-whole-payment-on-notes-1

 

[Thomas Paine]

AMR wins on appeal, US Bank loses. Barring a reversal by the US Supreme Court, AMR will not have to pay the bondholders the "make-whole" amounts that US Bank argued that AA had to pay: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-12/amr-wins-appeal-in-dispute-over-make-whole-payment-on-notes-1

Isn't this what the real purpose of C-11 was, to allow companies to escape onerous terms? What did the bank really lose? They got paid. Is the court now pressuring those banks to agree to below market terms like they did to Labor? Will they force the banks to allow AA to keep those funds and only pay the banks what they feel like paying them?