What a bunch of crap. In a couple months, Don will furlough more and come after the A fund. I think you can count the B fund gone. Might as well not even have a union with this TA.
How much better will pilots and mechanics be in a BK court?
- Thread starter FA Mikey
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #47
----------------
On 4/2/2003 8
05 AM Bear96 wrote:
Actually Mikey that is not true. UA has petitioned the court to change our Agreement and impose certain terms-- not to throw the whole thing out and start over from scratch. In fact the terms UA wants the judge to impose on us look about like what the AA F/A TA looks like.
I agree with you though that Bob Owens is totally out of touch with the realities of BK. He is getting bad info from somewhere. "I''ll take my chances with the judge"-- ha-- that''s what the IAM here at UA said, and they took their chances right into a court-imposed 14% pay cut in January. No doubt with more to come. Companies get what they want, and unions lose, in BK. It may be unfair, but it''s reality.
----------------
Thanks for the correction. I know he spent a lot of time telling UAL people full pay to the last day. Me in this state of the industry and economy, I am a realist and will live to fight another day.On 4/2/2003 8
05 AM Bear96 wrote: ----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:31:55 AM FA Mikey wrote:
UAL is asking that the judge completely remove there CBA''s.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:31:55 AM FA Mikey wrote:
UAL is asking that the judge completely remove there CBA''s.
----------------
Actually Mikey that is not true. UA has petitioned the court to change our Agreement and impose certain terms-- not to throw the whole thing out and start over from scratch. In fact the terms UA wants the judge to impose on us look about like what the AA F/A TA looks like.
I agree with you though that Bob Owens is totally out of touch with the realities of BK. He is getting bad info from somewhere. "I''ll take my chances with the judge"-- ha-- that''s what the IAM here at UA said, and they took their chances right into a court-imposed 14% pay cut in January. No doubt with more to come. Companies get what they want, and unions lose, in BK. It may be unfair, but it''s reality.
----------------
----------------
On 4/2/2003 805 AM Bear96 wrote:
Actually Mikey that is not true. UA has petitioned the court to change our Agreement and impose certain terms-- not to throw the whole thing out and start over from scratch. In fact the terms UA wants the judge to impose on us look about like what the AA F/A TA looks like.
I agree with you though that Bob Owens is totally out of touch with the realities of BK. He is getting bad info from somewhere. "I''ll take my chances with the judge"-- ha-- that''s what the IAM here at UA said, and they took their chances right into a court-imposed 14% pay cut in January. No doubt with more to come. Companies get what they want, and unions lose, in BK. It may be unfair, but it''s reality.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 8
05 AM Bear96 wrote: ----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:31:55 AM FA Mikey wrote:
UAL is asking that the judge completely remove there CBA''s.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:31:55 AM FA Mikey wrote:
UAL is asking that the judge completely remove there CBA''s.
----------------
Actually Mikey that is not true. UA has petitioned the court to change our Agreement and impose certain terms-- not to throw the whole thing out and start over from scratch. In fact the terms UA wants the judge to impose on us look about like what the AA F/A TA looks like.
I agree with you though that Bob Owens is totally out of touch with the realities of BK. He is getting bad info from somewhere. "I''ll take my chances with the judge"-- ha-- that''s what the IAM here at UA said, and they took their chances right into a court-imposed 14% pay cut in January. No doubt with more to come. Companies get what they want, and unions lose, in BK. It may be unfair, but it''s reality.
----------------
With all due respect, UAL has asked the court to throw out all collective bargaining agreements, with the exception of the ALPA and the TWU (because of negotiated concessions - if ratified).
As for all other unions (IAM, AFA and PAFCA), the motion is to completely toss the agreements. See it for yourself here:
www.pd-ual.com/Downloads/DebtorsSection1113cMotionDocketNo11640.pdf
- Thread Starter
- #49
----------------
On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Who is out of touch? Which is worse a temporary 14% cut or 17.5% with massive concessions FOR SIX YEARS!. You admit that UAL is only asking the Judge to impose what the APFA is proposing their members accept. They have been in BK for 5 months. So that should be considered rock bottom.
What are they asking from their mechanics? Its likely that a lot of what UAL is asking for WE ALREADY GAVE. Our average cost per mechanic is the lowest in the industry once years of service and OSMs are factored in. What excuse other than the fact that they want it is AA going to use to convince the Judge to abrogate the contract? If you look at the Carey and Typesetters cases that our unions are pushing at us they are completely different, Careys costs were 60% above industry average and the Typesetters wanted to protect archaic rules that basically protected workers with skills that were no longer useful and resisted retraining. Neither of those factors are present here. If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?
----------------
Well, Mr. out of touch, APFA does not represent the flight attendants at UAL. The 14% was imposed by the judge because he agreed not with the mechanics, but the company that cuts were necessary. He put in place a temporary cut until negotiations or his time limit expire. At that point they get what the judge wants. The end.On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Who is out of touch? Which is worse a temporary 14% cut or 17.5% with massive concessions FOR SIX YEARS!. You admit that UAL is only asking the Judge to impose what the APFA is proposing their members accept. They have been in BK for 5 months. So that should be considered rock bottom.
What are they asking from their mechanics? Its likely that a lot of what UAL is asking for WE ALREADY GAVE. Our average cost per mechanic is the lowest in the industry once years of service and OSMs are factored in. What excuse other than the fact that they want it is AA going to use to convince the Judge to abrogate the contract? If you look at the Carey and Typesetters cases that our unions are pushing at us they are completely different, Careys costs were 60% above industry average and the Typesetters wanted to protect archaic rules that basically protected workers with skills that were no longer useful and resisted retraining. Neither of those factors are present here. If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?
----------------
----------------
On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:
If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?
----------------
On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:
If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?
----------------
Actually UA has not quite been in BK yet for four months. But on the fifth month anniversary (May 9), Bob, take a look at the mechanics'' and everyone else''s contracts at UA and see how "automatic" the process has been imposing even deeper cuts. They want to have the "permanent" changes in place by May 1, and they''ll get it either voluntarily or through the court. Negotiations are ongoing right now with the IAM and AFA; as you know ALPA reached a TA the other day.
If you think the judge will somehow take pity on a work group and say, "Gee, poor folks, they have already given SOOOO much and are treated SOOOOO badly by management I think I''ll make them exempt from massive cuts," you really have no clue about how this process works, or even the point of the Chapter 11 laws in the first place.
NEWS FLASH FOR BOB OWENS: Chapter 11 is not here to protect employees or to make up for perceived past wrongs! It is to give management the freedom to do basically whatever the heck they want to do (in terms of ignoring past obligations-- debt, labor and vendor contracts, etc.) to make one last ditch effort to stay alive.
In other words, unions, in Ch.11, YOU LOSE.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 6:16:43 AM Bob Owens wrote:
16000 mechanics making the same as SWA is not going to bankrupt the company. I''m confident that my work rules pay and benifits are competative.
Are you aware that the company says they are losing $5million/day, that comes to $1.825 billion? That means that in reality the company has done nothing and we are being told to absorb all the loss through our wages while the company continues to give away tickets. They could raise ticket prices tomorrow and make massive profits for the next six years while you are stuck with this crap for SIX YEARS?
Use your head,if you vote yes, in SIX years the only reminder of the current crisis will be your diminished paycheck and the memory of a better life.You will either curse your poor judgement or make excuses like "I did not know that they would recover so quickly and by so much".
----------------
On 4/2/2003 6:16:43 AM Bob Owens wrote:
16000 mechanics making the same as SWA is not going to bankrupt the company. I''m confident that my work rules pay and benifits are competative.
Are you aware that the company says they are losing $5million/day, that comes to $1.825 billion? That means that in reality the company has done nothing and we are being told to absorb all the loss through our wages while the company continues to give away tickets. They could raise ticket prices tomorrow and make massive profits for the next six years while you are stuck with this crap for SIX YEARS?
Use your head,if you vote yes, in SIX years the only reminder of the current crisis will be your diminished paycheck and the memory of a better life.You will either curse your poor judgement or make excuses like "I did not know that they would recover so quickly and by so much".
----------------
You crack me up.
Several points:
1. Your 16,000 mechanics are working for a bankrupt company (it just hasn''t filed yet).
2. You''re a little overconfident about your competitiveness with WN mechanics. They work much more efficiently than AA''s TWU. See how many they employ to fix their fleet.
3. You mean all AA has to do is raise ticket prices and everything would be rosy? This is where I almost wet myself.
If raising ticket prices right now would really bring in more revenue, then why do you suppose nobody in management has done that? Just to screw labor? Like I said, this is where it really gets funny.
4. Do you know why the concessions must run for 6 years?
Because the only lenders who will loan AA more money are demanding that the contracts run for 6 years. Do you have any idea what kind of barrel AA is over right now? It''s not like 1998 when AA could dictate the terms of its borrowings - today AA is begging creditors to loan it about $2 billion as soon as the concessions are approved. And those lenders get to set the terms, including six year concessions. They probably wanted longer terms - and AA probably went to bat for the employees to cut it to six years.
Without those loans, AA will file for Chapter 11 and fall back on Plan B ($1.5 billion in DIP financing) and the court will abrogate your contract before the end of the baseball season.
Recover quickly? I hope so, ''cause I still own lots of AMR.
----------------
On 4/1/2003 11:31:05 PM heavy767 wrote:
DD,
I wish it was that simple. Who will loan you the money to buy a bankrupt airline? Are you prepared to bet your B fund to buy it? BK does not gurantee that Carty and Co get the boot. If you look at our TA in it''s totality it is far better than the UAL deal. Remember the pilots at UAL DO NOT have to go thru the 1113c filing, they were exused yesterday because they negotiated. As for the senior guys selling us out, not quite right either. IF AA folds tommorow they walk with their retirement in full, it''s the junior guys that would get hosed. As one of the attorneys at the APA brief said " Chapter 11 and the inevitable 1133 motion is a hell into which you do not want to descend". All that said this is a tough pill to swallow but we live to fight another day.
----------------
Heavy767,On 4/1/2003 11:31:05 PM heavy767 wrote:
DD,
I wish it was that simple. Who will loan you the money to buy a bankrupt airline? Are you prepared to bet your B fund to buy it? BK does not gurantee that Carty and Co get the boot. If you look at our TA in it''s totality it is far better than the UAL deal. Remember the pilots at UAL DO NOT have to go thru the 1113c filing, they were exused yesterday because they negotiated. As for the senior guys selling us out, not quite right either. IF AA folds tommorow they walk with their retirement in full, it''s the junior guys that would get hosed. As one of the attorneys at the APA brief said " Chapter 11 and the inevitable 1133 motion is a hell into which you do not want to descend". All that said this is a tough pill to swallow but we live to fight another day.
----------------
I never said any of this was simple. What I am saying is that if you want to try to rape me, don''t expect me to just lay back and enjoy it. The rapist might win in the end but I will still have my dignity knowing that I did everything I could to fight him off.
Now as far as who will lend us the money, the same money lending whores that would lend it to Carty. They could care less who they lend it to as long as they feel that their investment is reasonably safe and profitable. And yes, I would gladly bet my B fund to secure the future of AA and to get rid of that Chief Thief in Charge, Don Carty.
On the UAL deal you say they didn''t have to go the 1113c route. Maybe they technically didn''t but just this morning I read over on C&R that their TA went pretty much line by line along with 1113. Someone is not being accurate. While I''m on the not being accurate point, I also didn''t say the senior guys sold anyone out, I said the APA did. They seem to be so afraid of the court room that they will just capitulate and give the opposition anything they want. There comes a point where you have to stand up and fight for what you believe even if you might lose.
Lastly, I agree that whatever comes down the pike will be a hard pill to swallow. And yes, we will live to fight another day. I just hope it won''t take 6 years to start that fight.
"Recover quickly? I hope so, ''cause I still own lots of AMR."
Well now we know your motive.
6 years has never been the norm for this industry. The last time they got six year contracts morale had deteriorated to the point where service was so unreliable that the government was looking to establish a passengers bill of rights. The banks want six years because the airlines want six years. These are government guaranteed loans right? The banks are certainly not a disinterested party and I''m sure that it isnt really all that difficult to find a lender that would sponsor a government guaranteed loan for three years but there isnt much incentive to now is there?
"They probably wanted longer terms - and AA probably went to bat for the employees to cut it to six years."
Now I''m laughing.
"Without those loans, AA will file for Chapter 11 and fall back on Plan B ($1.5 billion in DIP financing) and the court will abrogate your contract before the end of the baseball season."
Well then you better sell that stock now. The mechanics will be voting NO.
There may not be a severe shortage now but there are a lot of guys coming up on retirement. Not too many being pumped out to replace them either. The military dont have them. In fact the military has drawn loads of mechanics and pilots from the airline industry. They have been doing so since Sept 11.
There is not much that you will be able to say to change our minds. We have been lied to before and who in their right mind would believe people like you that hide behind an alias?
Well now we know your motive.
6 years has never been the norm for this industry. The last time they got six year contracts morale had deteriorated to the point where service was so unreliable that the government was looking to establish a passengers bill of rights. The banks want six years because the airlines want six years. These are government guaranteed loans right? The banks are certainly not a disinterested party and I''m sure that it isnt really all that difficult to find a lender that would sponsor a government guaranteed loan for three years but there isnt much incentive to now is there?
"They probably wanted longer terms - and AA probably went to bat for the employees to cut it to six years."
Now I''m laughing.
"Without those loans, AA will file for Chapter 11 and fall back on Plan B ($1.5 billion in DIP financing) and the court will abrogate your contract before the end of the baseball season."
Well then you better sell that stock now. The mechanics will be voting NO.
There may not be a severe shortage now but there are a lot of guys coming up on retirement. Not too many being pumped out to replace them either. The military dont have them. In fact the military has drawn loads of mechanics and pilots from the airline industry. They have been doing so since Sept 11.
There is not much that you will be able to say to change our minds. We have been lied to before and who in their right mind would believe people like you that hide behind an alias?
- Thread Starter
- #54
Reality is we are losing millions. AA did have a time line to basically live or file. You are pissed that FS didn''t take a big enough hit then you are pissed that the company held it over the head of TWU.
How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.
Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.
How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.
Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 9:32:50 AM FA Mikey wrote:
----------------
Well, bob May I suggest you seek employment at USAIR. This is not the time, place or economy to make your stand. I really dont see how losing millions of dollars a day, needing concessions, negotiating in good faith to starve of BK, only to have it rejected by the employees. That a judge look unfavorably on AA''s request for abrogation of your CBA and the right then to layoff and farm out much of your work.On 4/2/2003 9:32:50 AM FA Mikey wrote:
----------------
Turn this down and the judge wont see AA as the uncompromising it will see its mechanics and offer the company the relief it seeks.
----------------
Negotiating in good faith? Oh really? Is threatening that "if you dont have an agreement by noon today we are filing BK and asking for this" (the Vermont Plan) good faith bargaining? Is threatening to close all the bases and lay off half the workers in the entire system good faith bargaining. Is telling the Union that you cant ask for anything and you must come up with $310 million then raising it to $315 million good faith bargaining?
I dont think so.
Is demanding massive concessions for an extended period of time really necisary for the survivability of the company when everyone admits that these are unusual times? Are we going to have people crashing our airplanes into buildings, having tails fall off,a recession and be in Iraq for six more years? I hope not. If so then we should vote No anyway because why sell yourself cheap at the end?
No, Mr. Owens, they are NOT government guaranteed loans. AA didn''t want the Stabilization Board interferring with the Company so AA didn''t ask for a guaranteed loan.
These are conventional, "take it or leave it" loans.
I''ll wait to sell - up another $1.00 today so far.
Maybe you should have bought some on Monday morning for about $1.30 - $1.40. If you''d bought enough, you could have retired this afternoon on the gains.
Seriously - if you''re so worried about AA becoming wildly profitable in the next couple of years (what with that 6 year indentured servitude sentence), then vote yes and buy some AMR so you can share in the spoils.
These are conventional, "take it or leave it" loans.
I''ll wait to sell - up another $1.00 today so far.
Maybe you should have bought some on Monday morning for about $1.30 - $1.40. If you''d bought enough, you could have retired this afternoon on the gains.
Seriously - if you''re so worried about AA becoming wildly profitable in the next couple of years (what with that 6 year indentured servitude sentence), then vote yes and buy some AMR so you can share in the spoils.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:30:17 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Reality is we are losing millions. AA did have a time line to basically live or file. You are pissed that FS didn''t take a big enough hit then you are pissed that the company held it over the head of TWU.
How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.
Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:30:17 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Reality is we are losing millions. AA did have a time line to basically live or file. You are pissed that FS didn''t take a big enough hit then you are pissed that the company held it over the head of TWU.
How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.
Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.
----------------
Who was this addressed to?
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:49:42 PM FWAAA wrote:
No, Mr. Owens, they are NOT government guaranteed loans. AA didn''t want the Stabilization Board interferring with the Company so AA didn''t ask for a guaranteed loan.
These are conventional, "take it or leave it" loans.
I''ll wait to sell - up another $1.00 today so far.
Maybe you should have bought some on Monday morning for about $1.30 - $1.40. If you''d bought enough, you could have retired this afternoon on the gains.
Seriously - if you''re so worried about AA becoming wildly profitable in the next couple of years (what with that 6 year indentured servitude sentence), then vote yes and buy some AMR so you can share in the spoils.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:49:42 PM FWAAA wrote:
No, Mr. Owens, they are NOT government guaranteed loans. AA didn''t want the Stabilization Board interferring with the Company so AA didn''t ask for a guaranteed loan.
These are conventional, "take it or leave it" loans.
I''ll wait to sell - up another $1.00 today so far.
Maybe you should have bought some on Monday morning for about $1.30 - $1.40. If you''d bought enough, you could have retired this afternoon on the gains.
Seriously - if you''re so worried about AA becoming wildly profitable in the next couple of years (what with that 6 year indentured servitude sentence), then vote yes and buy some AMR so you can share in the spoils.
----------------
Well Mr FWAAA if they can be choosey then perhaps they are not in as bad a shape as they let on. If other loans are available and the company chose the path that requires a Six-year deal then they may need to rethink their strategy now won''t they? Is reoganization with this type of loan vs a Govt guaranteed loan a matter of choice or necessity? You just shot your arguement that they have to get six year agreements.
Bob Owens,
Please answer FA Mikey.
He said "I love the SWA comparison. Since Southwest farms out its overhaulwork. Do you feel that''s OK for AA? Can they keep full pay for the few line station mechanics they would keep and layoff the rest? Is that better for your work group and profession?"
It would bolster your credibility (or lack of).
Please answer FA Mikey.
He said "I love the SWA comparison. Since Southwest farms out its overhaulwork. Do you feel that''s OK for AA? Can they keep full pay for the few line station mechanics they would keep and layoff the rest? Is that better for your work group and profession?"
It would bolster your credibility (or lack of).
----------------
On 4/2/2003 11:28:23 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Well Mr FWAAA if they can be choosey then perhaps they are not in as bad a shape as they let on. If other loans are available and the company chose the path that requires a Six-year deal then they may need to rethink their strategy now won''t they? Is reoganization with this type of loan vs a Govt guaranteed loan a matter of choice or necessity? You just shot your arguement that they have to get six year agreements.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 11:28:23 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Well Mr FWAAA if they can be choosey then perhaps they are not in as bad a shape as they let on. If other loans are available and the company chose the path that requires a Six-year deal then they may need to rethink their strategy now won''t they? Is reoganization with this type of loan vs a Govt guaranteed loan a matter of choice or necessity? You just shot your arguement that they have to get six year agreements.
----------------
Since AA didn''t ask for a government guaranteed loan prior to the deadline (last year), there is no option of a government guaranteed loan now. It was a choice last year, but that choice doesn''t exist now. So AA did choose not to seek a guarantee, but currently, AA has no such choice. USAir got its guaranteed loan on Monday because they applied before the deadline. UAL might get its guaranteed loan because they applied before the deadline.
Government guaranteed loan ain''t available for AA.
Of course, some will malign Carty and the rest of management for pissing thru over $5 billion of cash (that they had to borrow) to pay employees when they should have asked for concessions earlier. He''s dammed if he does, and dammed if he doesn''t.
I take no pleasure in seeing 100k fine people have their wages cut (or work rules tightened or both). But it''s been over two years now since cash flow was positive, and AA is running out of cash (and time, since no one will loan AA any more cash until AA cuts its costs). AA tried to achieve positive cash flow before demanding concessions, and AA failed. Now AA is forced to piss off every employee in the hopes of surviving.
I hope AA survives.
Some will vote NO before even reviewing the actual numbers because they want to teach someone a lesson.
Others will vote YES reflexively - just like they would cross a picket line. Every man/woman for themselves.
Still others will carefully consider whether this deal allows them to fight another day.
