mechanics may be free to strike by Sept 17th

[Bob Owens]

Chip;
In your reply to Josie on the 7th, you cited that the legal breif said the the mechanics could not strike. Who wrote the breif and who do they represent? Come on if you are trying to deceive you can do better than that. The RLA is very specific in that the status quo prevails until both parties are released to self help. If the company uses bankruptcy as a short cut then the status quo is broken, both parties are released.

 

[Bob Owens]

Jet Mechanic
Thank for the info.

 

[us10]

Bob; It sounds as if you would love to see US go from chapter 11 to 7, what airline did you say you worked for?

 

[chipmunn]

Bob Owens:

Bob Owens asked: In your reply to Josie on the 7th, you cited that the legal breif said the the mechanics could not strike. Who wrote the breif and who do they represent?

Chip answers: Bob, the legal brief filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern Virginia District, which per the IAM Website, has a reputation for moving cases quickly and being anti-labor, was prepared by John Butler and John Lyons, the US lead attorneys from Skadden & Arps, with support from lawyers O’Melveny & Myers LLP and McGuirewoods LLP, all bankruptcy heavy hitters.

Chip asks: By the way, who are the IAM’s bankruptcy attorney’s and what is their track record?

Bob Owens said: Come on if you are trying to deceive you can do better than that.

Chip responds: Bob, I never deceive people. If you knew me, you would know I believe integrity is everything.

Bob Owens said: The RLA is very specific in that the status quo prevails until both parties are released to self help. If the company uses bankruptcy as a short cut then the status quo is broken, both parties are released.

Chip answers: Bob, this is where there is a misunderstanding. You are correct about the RLA, but the argument is the RLA does not apply because the parties would litigate S.1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The legal brief, which I am reading as I type, is a 37-page document that is very impressive.

Bob, on page 18 of the Legal Brief a sub-paragraph is titled The RLA Would Not Allow US Airways' Employees to Strike. The brief provides two pages of arguments to prevent a strike during bankruptcy, citing three cases and the Supreme Court ruling in the Shore Line Case.

Bob, did you read the Legal Brief information before you posted your inaccurate comments?

The brief concludes, applying these principles to the present circumstances, it would be completely inconsistent wit the RLA to permit either CWA or IAM to strike following rejection.

Again, if there is a S.1113 hearing the company will seek to cancel the contract(s), impose deeper cuts in pay and benefits, seek a court order to prevent a strike, and ask the union/its members to pay multi-million in damages.

Bob as an AA employee your motivation is clear. It appears you are trying to use the message boards to influence the US IAM-M decision, in hopes US would liquidate because you’re scared of US & UA emerging from bankruptcy and how this could affect your company and your position.

Chip

 

[Lakeguy67]

Status quo only applies in traditional section 6 negotiations, which these are not. Therefore the RLA does not apply and when in conflict with BK laws, BK takes presidence. Now Bob that is union 101, does the TWU not teach you that?

Just take the time and post facts, not your opinions

Plus if you have no contract, you have no right to strike, you can withold your services and the company can and will terminate you. You are an employee at will once your contract is abrogated.

Bob, where did you get your law degree at? Was it as a labor lawyer or bankruptcy?

 

[Bob Owens]

US10;
I beleive thats already been addressed.
You still choose to remain anonymous. I would think that if you are so certain that you are right that you would own up to what you say. You chose to go the personal route, the least you can do is reveal yourself. Or is playing fair too much to ask?
I said I do not work for USAIR. I do not see any advantage for any mechanic in seeing USAIR go Chapter 7, unless of course they agree to 6 years of concessions. If thats the case then yes, the sooner they go chapter 7 the better. I will welcome USAIR mechanics to AA where they will be back at top pay in 5 years with a healthy, well paying company that is currently trying to weed out waste and increase efficiency instead of raping its employees.

 

[Bob Owens]

Chip;
You are using the legal breif prepared by lawyers acting in the interests of the management of USAIR as evidence in an obvoius attempt to get the reader to assume that these are decisions, instead of just the company's arguement.The breifs are nothing more than the company's arguement. Why do you cite the company's arguement as correct? There are two sides you know.
Its obvious from the exerpts that you've posted that this breif was prepared for the consumption of the workers. It's obvoius purpose is to scare the employees into accepting the concessions.

Chip responds: Bob, I never deceive people. If you knew me, you would know I believe integrity is everything.

Writing under an alias is a sure sign of integrity!

Yes Chip I read the AMFa and the Shorelines cases. Both cases were irrelevant to what USAIR is asking the court to do. The court can abrogate the agreement but it cant say that a prior contract did not exist.When the judge frees management to impose new terms which the law allows him to do if they meet the conditions (another arguement)then the mechanics are free to strike. In the AMFA case there was no prior agreement, this means that the carrier could change conditions because Employment at will prevailed until an initial agreement was reached.


The brief concludes, applying these principles to the present circumstances, it would be completely inconsistent with the RLA to permit either CWA or IAM to strike following rejection.

What would you expect the company's lawyers to say? Would you expect them to admit that their requests are absurd?

Again, if there is a S.1113 hearing the company will seek to cancel the contract(s), impose deeper cuts in pay and benefits, seek a court order to prevent a strike, and ask the union/its members to pay multi-million in damages.

Again show me any case that would support any of these requests.

Bob as an AA employee your motivation is clear. It appears you are trying to use the message boards to influence the US IAM-M decision, in hopes US would liquidate because you’re scared of US & UA emerging from bankruptcy and how this could affect your company and your position

Yes I'm very concerned that US and UA will use bankruptcy to lower wages. Anyone who works in this industry and has half a brain has those same concerns. I'm aware that what happens at US will have an effect on me, just as what happens at any other carrier will. Thats why I went down to DC to protest Bushs PEB against NWA mechanics, thats why I wrote to the AFL-CIO about a show of support for Uniteds mechanics when Bush hit them with a PEB. OK I've come clean now how about you? Do you really care what happens to the mechanics? How much will you be making after the cuts?

 

[Bob Owens]

To Lakeguy67 or Boof67 or Rich Bushel or whatever your real name is;
Union 101- does that only apply to workers under the RLA. Funny I thought Union 101 was an injury to one is an injury to all.
Where did you get your Law degree?

Plus if you have no contract, you have no right to strike, you can withold your services and the company can and will terminate you. You are an employee at will once your contract is abrogated.
Where did you learn that? Management 101? Withholding your services is striking. I beleve the correct term is permanently replace.


To Chip & Lakeguy;
As a mechanic I have just as much right to share my opinions with my fellow mechanics at US as any Pilot or Stock Clerk. Try and stick to the issues.Just because you are losing ground on your arguements you should not turn personal unless you are willing to reveal yourselves.

 

[NYPD]

Please remember...[BR][BR]A no vote means you will have NO VOTE in the future. There will be no US Airways. Think about it. If you vote YES, you will be giving our company its best chance for survival.[BR][BR]We are in bankruptcy. We have no leverage. There will be no further negotiations. The company must have all labor groups on board for them to have a snowball's chance. Without our voluntary concessions, the TPG will probably back away. We will run out of cash quickly and be left with no other option but liquidation.[BR][BR]It's a no-brainer guys. I'm disappointed, mad, and sorry its not a better contract too, but it's the best we're going to get for now. There is just no doubt about it.

 

[Lakeguy67]

The truth comes out, you would rather see U go out of business and put 40,000 people out of work. And how are you going to welcome U's AMTs at AA if you are laying of 7,000 people, grounding 74 F100s and all of the ex TWA 767s.

 

[cavalier]

Bob Owens

It seems your rhetoric is wearing thin as you scream all the louder Mr. O. The fast moving freight train coming down on the U employees is not slowing down, and they have the sense to get off the tracks. Your facade is melting in the heat and you are being exposed for what you’re about.

 

[NYPD]

[P]Unfortunately, the entire airline industry is changing drastically for the worse. The majors will lose around $7B this year and another $3B next year. And make no mistake about it Mr. Owens, AA is closer to bankruptcy than you'd like to believe. Concessions are coming for all. Southwest is only doing well because they are already where we're all heading -- low wages, no frills.[/P]
[P]To quote Chip Munn:[/P]
[P][STRONG][FONT size=2]Bob as an AA employee your motivation is clear. It appears you are trying to use the message boards to influence the US IAM-M decision, in hopes US would liquidate because you’re scared of US & UA emerging from bankruptcy and how this could affect your company and your position.[/FONT][/STRONG][/P]
[P] [/P]

 

[ilg30/7]

Bob Owens:

You need to go elsewhere. Coming into the USAirways forum and basically telling our employees their company needs to liquidate and their jobs eliminated so that you and your company will not have downward pressure on your wages is the height of arrogance and gall.

I have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and to be perfectly honest, I don't really care about the standard of living for an American Airlines employee. And I guarantee you I have no interest in sacrificing myself or my family so you can maintain your standard of living.

Leave the USAirways decisions to USAirways employees. Vote your conscience.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/15/2002 12:23:12 AM NYPD wrote:


Unfortunately, the entire airline industry is changing drastically for the worse. The majors will lose around $7B this year and another $3B next year. And make no mistake about it Mr. Owens, AA is closer to bankruptcy than you'd like to believe. Concessions are coming for all. Southwest is only doing well because they are already where we're all heading -- low wages, no frills.[/P]


NYPD

You're correct except for WN wages - currently, WN fleet's
TOS is $24. U fleet TOS was 21.66; now it's 19 and change. WN spends more in total dollars per fleet employee than U did, or does. The difference is WN has a superior business plan and superior management. WN employees cannot execute their plan better than U (our DOT numbers match or exceed WN's), but BECAUSE it's a superior plan, one they execute just as well as we do our's, they are more PRODUCTIVE than we are.

 

[Bob Owens]

Every 10 years or so the Airline Industry has a major, unprecedented, crisis. Some carriers make it out and some don’t. One thing that is constant is that the industry continues to grow. Back in 1982 the industry posted its largest losses up to that point; in 1992 it did the same. 2002 finds us in the same situation, an industry that appears crippled. In 1982, and 1992 all we heard about was how desperate the airlines were. During both those cycles they went on to record profits immediately following those losses. During both those periods employees consented to concessionary contracts that remained in place long after the crises had abated.
In 1998 the Industry employed 621,000 people. By 2010 employment is expected to reach 860,000. These figures are from the ATA website. (ATA- The industry’s Lobbying Group)
This months Aviation Maintenance magazine (The Monthly Management Tool) has an editorial about future AMT shortages. The article highlights how despite the current setback the future presents severe challenges for the aviation industry to find and retain mechanics. It said There simply will not be enough new people in the pipeline to make hiring new technicians an easy job.
When EAL shut their doors I saw AA hire old men, some with severe medical conditions. Why? Because that’s all there was. A few years later I saw the same thing when Pan Am went out. For the Pan Am guys their biggest regret was all the years wasted working under concessionary contracts. As a result they have less seniority than their peers from EAL and will get less pension. The Pan Am guys helped the company to limp along for a few extra years, which in the end cost them more. A few did benefit however; the last CEO of Pan Am was awarded a few extra million dollars out of the liquidated assets for his 6 months of service. That money could have gone into Pan Ams under funded pension.
Do I think that USAIR might go out of business? Yes. There is always the possibility that the communities served by U will pressure the government to keep it going. However I don’t think that mechanics concessions will make the difference either way. According to AW&ST the reason why U went chapter 11 was not because of it labor contracts; it was because of its vendor contracts. The company/industry sees an opportunity to go after labor costs and they are using it. If the company was sincere then they would offer a relief provision that would reopen the contract should they return to profitability instead of just holding out for 6 years? 6 years is completely unreasonable. In the both of the past crisis’s (82 & 92) the industry went from record losses to record profits in three years or less. We keep hearing about how the ATSB and TPG will not change their numbers, well maybe they wont but probably they will. During the 1997 APA strike the APA was informed by the government that the President was NOT, I repeat NOT going to step in with a PEB. “You guys are going to have to walk away from your six figure jobsâ€. It seems the government believed that the APA would back off. As midnight approached the APA was informed that they would still be walking. Then at the last minute they were told that the President had issued a PEB. The APA pilots refused to believe it until they saw it. It took some time since the President was not in the White House. The message was received and the strike was called off minutes after it started. Just as the pilots were told that the governments position WOULD NOT CHANGE so are you guys. In the end the position that was written in stone was changed.
Why did the government change its position with the APA? Because having an airline like AA or UA go on strike can have a devastating effect on the economy.Even with a booming economy like in 97. The airline industry accounts for 3% of the GDP, around $273 Billion. I believe that between the two carriers they have 50% of the market. USAIR is not as big as AA so the effect may not be as bad but Bush wants PA, USAIR has a major hub there. He may step in. Should that happen he would likely maintain the status quo, but only if you vote NO. There are no precidents that I know of where a President interfered in a labor dispute and forced cuts. Any time a President stepped in the worst he did was maintain the status quo.
Those who are pushing for a YES vote are hiding behind aliases because they are promoting fear and when everything settles down they do not want to be called to task for their actions. They maintain that YES is the only option. However they cannot guarantee that a YES vote will save the company. Nor can they guarantee that that a NO vote will force the liquidation of the company. The company may liquidate with either vote, or it may survive with either vote. All the threats about this being non-negotiable and that being non-negotiable is bull, everything is negotiable. There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Does the Bush administration want another 40,000 people added to the unemployment rolls just weeks before the elections? Will that appear as a positive economic indicator? For every one airline employee the economy sees another $439000 added to the GDP. That’s a possible loss to the economy of $17.56 Billion should the company fold. With an average unemployment of $300/week the communities where the USAIR employees live would have to lay out $51,600,000 a month in benefits. The more you dig in the more complicated it gets. As time goes on more and more things come into play, especially in the political arena. The ATSB, TPG, USAIR, and the Unions all wish that you take what is for them the easy route and vote YES. But none of them have to live with the negative consequences for the next 6, or more, years. The IAM is staying strangely silent, giving you only the worst case scenarios and basically repeating the company’s propaganda. If you vote yes and two years from now the company is profitable they will say to you “Don’t blame the IAM, YOU voted for the contractâ€. The union has a responsibility to give you all the information not just the company’s side. That’s the only way that you can make an informed decision. One that recognizes all the risks, both long term and short. From what I’ve seen they have utterly failed to do this. Scotty Fords Letter was the worst example of Union leadership I’ve ever seen. Is that a “Fighting Machinistâ€? A NO vote will more than likely mean another vote, but with better terms. At the very least you should be able to get the years cut back. The fact is that once you vote YES you lose any chance to come out of this recession in decent shape. Yes it could end up worse for a period of time but as the Pan Am guys found out, concessions do not save companies and when the company did fold, they survived.