[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 6:12:48 AM LavMan wrote:
Andy S, back up your opinion with facts, otherwise your opinion is not worth anything. I have posted facts.
You have posted your opinion and you know what they say about them!
----------------
[/blockquote]
You have posted a mixture of "facts" and opinions. The problem is that about half of your "facts" are wrong, and several of your opinions are speculative.
Take for example this quote:
[blockquote]
----------------
Under BK code like in 82 when Lorenzo abrogated all the contracts and broke all the unions, so then Congress enacted sections 1113 and 1114 to prevent a blanket abrogation. The RLA does not mean squat when the company is in BK as BK code takes presidence, in the bilcoe case, go look it up.
-----------------
[/blockquote]
Congress did not enact 1113 because of Lorenzo. Congress acted in response to the 1984 Supreme Court of NLRA v. Bildisco & Bildisco (which you apparently try to reference in your comment about "bilcoe"). Section 1114, on the other hand, was enacted in reponse to the LTV bankruptcy.
But don't take my word for it. Anyone who wants to educate themselves about Section 1113 and labor law can start here:
http://www.law.msu.edu/lawrev/2001-4/Smith-Bales.pdf
There's a lot more material out there, but this will be a good start.
However, you are definitely missing the significant point here. That point is this:
SECTION 1113 IS NOT BEING INVOKED IN THE US AIRWAYS MOTION.
Do you understand the importance of this? In fact, the only part of Section 1113 that applies in this motion is Section 1113(f). Of course, any competent seminar attendee would know that paragraph (f) states that US Airways must abide by the labor contract until they have been relieved by their obligation by the Court under the provisions of Section 1113© or (e).
So LavMan, go back in read the article at the above URL. Then next time you want to make a claim about what can and cannot happen under the Bankruptcy Code, please cite the case law.
Andy S.