[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 12:56:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:
UAL747Mech;
Well I think that your statement supports my arguement. In the Continental case the company unilaterally inserted its rules and slashed wages by 60%.
In the TWA case they "Came to an agreement". The judge did not "void" the contract.Dont you think the companys initial demand was worse? However I work with some TWA guys and they say that the concessions they agreed to were a mistake, in hindsight. I might add that when the TWA mechanics came to AA they received around $400 per week more than they were earning at TWA. Clearly if TWA had folded earlier they would have been better off.
Six years of concessions is unreasonable.The agreement that the mechanics rejected was not between just the Union and the Company. It was a screw job forced upon the mechanics (and everyone else but so far the mechanics are the only ones who said NO)by the ATSB and the company. If you read between the lines the purpose of the Act is to lower wages.
How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB? How much were the Steel workers forced to give up for their government help, what about Chrysler? I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe. There are other considerations as well. At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?
----------------
[/blockquote]
I've been reading your posts in which you interpret BK law, and have to respond.
First, you keep repeating the mantra that six years [actually 5.5] of concessions is unreasonable. This is obviously your opinion, but saying so don't make it so. I've spoken with a few corporate BK attorneys, including one who is involved with the UAL situation, and they disagree with your interpretation. I'll trust their interpretation of BK law over yours any day. You may not like the terms of the concessions, and you are free to disagree (although I might note, as many others have that YOUR future is not directly at stake here, but rather you can chime in from the sidelines without fearing the consequences), but saying I don't like this offer and saying it would be found to be 'unreasonable' by a BK judge are two totally different things.
And as for Chrysler, there were huge concessions made by the UAW, including an estimated 475 Million in wage cuts and other concessions in 1979 and a delay in pension increases and payouts in 1981.
Second, you say:
How did Continental, TWA and all those other airlines that limped along in bankruptcy get capital before there was an ATSB?
Ever hear of Debtor in Possession financing?
Last, you say:
I doubt that the government would stand by and allow UAL to liquidate. UAL affects loads of other industries and communities, the political backlash and economic impact would be severe...At least thats pretty much what Bush said last December. Whats changed?
Although I hope for UAL's sake that you are right, that sure doesn't appear to be the case. As for the political digs at the current administration, hey, I'm no fan of them either, but so far they are showing every sign of letting UAL go into Ch. 11 without significant concessions.
I'd add that the concessions are being demanded from other parties as well as labor. UAL is looking for even more concessions (over 8 Billion over the next 5.5 years) from assorted lenders and vendors.
Now, we could argue that the government SHOULD extend assistance to the airlines without demanding considerable cost concessions. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.
As to your refrain of how many contracts have actually been abrogated, you might realize that people come to agreements rather than have the contract abrogated because even a bad agreement is better than no agreement at all! Given that the law would allow a contract to be abrogated, it is in the parties interests to reach some agreement.
Anyway, to summarize my main point: your continued insistence that the 5.5 year contract length, either by itself or in conjunction with other factors, renders the current concession offer unreasonable in bankruptcy, is incorrect according to the attorneys I have talked to who work in the field. This means that, if IAM 141-M were to reject this offer in bankrupcty, a BK judge would be able to abrogate the contract.
But I'm sure you know far more about BK law than actual attorneys who specialize in corporate bankruptcies. If so, you really should consider changing fields, as those guys make a lot more than mechanics. Heck, they make a lot more than pilots, even the 25 year captains flying 747-400's!
-synchronicity
48 PM mastermechanic wrote: 
