now that the pilots contract WAS NOT abrogated
- Thread starter dfw gen
- Start date
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
Is that really helpful?
You need to trade the TWU for AMFA and stop blaming those in Tulsa that were falsely fear mongered.
With a different Union and different leadership, we may have well been helping fund the Votge NO truck and Vote NO half page ad in the Tulsa World instead of fighting you guys.
I am not your ENEMY!
come on where is high speed steel, rapto boy, ac tynker, overspeed. tell us again how voting yes is a good thing? yep the company will probably get their way but at least the pilots showed some balls.the didnt slink into a hole and hide like a puss. 74% yes unbeleivable you deserve everything you voted for? did you see the new medical updates in jetnet? yep theres your 15% raise right off the top! asm cap out the door! hell i'd trade tulsa for a paid lunch right now!
DO THE RIGHT THING AND SIGN AN AMFA CARD!!!!!!!!
DO THE RIGHT THING AND SIGN AN AMFA CARD!!!!!!!!
comatose
Senior
Why would you expect any of the people at the hall of the international visit this board anymore?
They pulled just enough wool over the moron yes voters. No need for them anymore.
riceweevil
Advanced
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 26
Sam Cirri needs to resign immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
strikeforce
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 253
That should happened after the rejection of LBO1. But, you are talking about the TWU....the guys at the top are appointed....that means a job for life at the top...cars paid for, trips paid for....by you! Nothing bad against Sam....but, it really makes the amt's in TUL look like a bunch of idiots when 4K licensed amt's vote in a FLEET SERVICE CLERK as president! Shame on you!
and then vote yes to find out they were hoodwinked!!!!
Captain Reality
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 35
You no voters need stop being stupid. Those 48 yes voters saved your rear ends.
I agree its not helpful and you and the 26% are not our enemy. The rest, well, I still see a need to distance ourselves from them. Maybe if it gets to 50% upon hearing this and Tulsa gave up the Roll Call I could reconsider. But as of now I consider Tulsa as a unit to be toxic to the profession.
FYI, Before I went away I'd asked the International to delay our vote till after the Pilots and the Stores vote till after ours. I said that if the pilots accept then more than likely so would we, along with Stores,if they reject then more than likely we would reject as well but walk into court side by side. This would have been unprecidented during the last decade of Airline BKs and would have put more pressure on the Judge to put in yet another delay and pressure the company to move off their absurd ask. There was no reply to this request.
From what?
The guy at the Teamsters meeting said if he was in this he would vote yes so they are to blame too.
I have now read through the 106 page decision and it is obviously more of a reprieve than anything else. The judge went out of his way to say that the concessions which were common to all unions in pay, pension and benefits were reasonable. He also supported some major hits to the pilot scope clause, which was probably the most important part of the proposal. He also went out of his way to invite AA to refile with less onerous terms on codesharing and furloughs. And what he said about those terms was that AA was entitled to relief, just not all the relief it demanded. What is, of course, being missed is that he was evaluating the term sheet, not the LBFO which was recommended by the pilot leadership. That proposal was much less drastic on both codesharing and furloughs. All the Company has to do is line up its term sheet with its LBFO. The judge gave them the road map.
If you look at the judge’s opinion it is very clear that he would have allowed the maintenance outsourcing proposed in the term sheet which, in fact, was less onerous than what normally happens in bankruptcy. As for the idea that the pilots standing in the industry is somehow superior to other employees, you better talk to one of them. With the new UAL agreement, AA pilots will be at least 20 percent in pay behind all major carriers except USAirways, and those pilots are, of course, still operating under a bankruptcy contract. In any case, the judge took no issue with the pay, benefits, and pension in the proposal even though it left the pilots near the industry bottom. He took issue with two items, and the basis of his concern is that they went beyond the Company’s stated needs.
The Two Issues raised by Judge for refusing the abrogation of the APA Contract
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that American’s proposed changes to furlough and codesharing have not been justified by either reference to the Business Plan or the practices of American’s competitors. Given the significance of these two provisions collectively to American’s proposal, the Court finds that American has not shown that the proposal is necessary as required by Section 1113. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, American’s Motion to reject the collective bargaining agreements of the APA is denied. This denial is without prejudice to remedying the two defects identified in this Opinion and submitting a new application under Section 1113. Debtors’ counsel shall settle an order on three days’ notice.
Code sharing
The Court concludes that a significant increase in codesharing would greatly benefit American. It is equally clear that the current collective bargaining agreement is far more restrictive on codesharing than recent industry norms for a carrier with a smaller network. Given American’s need to compete with its now-smaller network, American has established a need for significant change to its codesharing abilities. American has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence, however, that essentially unlimited codesharing is necessary to achieve a successful reorganization. American has reasonably explained why it is inappropriate to measure its need for codesharing by comparing itself to current larger network competitors. But American’s unlimited request for codesharing is greater even than the comparative group that American urges is an appropriate benchmark: the group of network airlines, before mergers, that used extensive codesharing in the past to compete with American’s larger network. American’s codesharing request also is in excess of the Company’s stated goals and contemplated arrangements expressed in the Business Plan, which American has presented as defining what is necessary to achieve a successful reorganization.
The current and projected financial condition of the debtor’s business will provide the primary evidence as to whether the trustee's proposed modifications are “necessary ‘ for reorganization, but the facts and circumstances of each case may also influence the outcome. Probative evidence necessarily will involve projections about the future business prospects and financial performance of the debtor's business. Where the trustee’s business plan dictates the size of labor cost reductions required, “its assumptions and methodology are key”” and are frequently challenged.
Collier ¶ 1113.05[3][c]; see Mesaba, 341 B.R. at 731. The Company claims that it must maintain flexibility to respond to new opportunities that might arise over the next six years. But while the Court understands the need for some flexibility in the future, that flexibility cannot be unlimited or it would render the necessity requirement a nullity. It is the Company that presented and relied upon its Business Plan as the cornerstone of necessity, and it must accept both the benefits and drawbacks of that decision.51
See In re Express Freight Lines, Inc., 119 B.R. 1006, 1013––1018 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1990) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 application on necessity grounds because the Court concluded that other companies operated under contract terms similar to those the debtor sought to modify); In re Cook United, Inc., 50 B.R. 561, 563 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1985) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 motion on the basis that the present operating plan still projected positive cash flow without the rejection of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore, modifications were deemed unnecessary); see also Carey Transp., 50 B.R. at 209 (“There can be no pat formula. Any analysis must be undertaken on a case by case basis with due consideration given to the nature of the business and industry patterns.”&rdquo😉, aff’d, Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transp., Inc., 816 F.2d 82 (1987) (emphasis in original).
Furlough
As of February 1, 2012 there were 10,738 pilots on American’s seniority list. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4). Of those, 7,664 were active pilots that were flying for the Company. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4). The remainder were on inactive status, including leave or furlough. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4).
American argues that as part of its reorganization, it will initially need to furlough employees. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 155). The current pilot collective bargaining agreement contains two restrictions relating to furlough that American proposes to eliminate, arguing that they limit flexibility and increase cost. First, the agreement permits a pilot to voluntarily take a furlough designated for a more junior pilot who otherwise would have been furloughed based on seniority. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). American notes that if the pilot volunteering to take the furlough was already on leave or preparing to retire, American would not obtain the economic value of the furlough, because it must pay to furlough someone who was already inactive or planned to leave and is still required to furlough the junior pilot. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). Second, the agreement effectively prevents American from furloughing pilots above a certain place on the seniority list. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). The Company argues that this would prevent it from responding to unforeseen catastrophic events. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 155).
But the Court disagrees with American’s view on the furlough provision. The APA complains that American seeks to eliminate all contractual restrictions against furlough. See APA Proposed Findings ¶ 14. The APA correctly notes that while the Business Plan only contemplates the furlough of 400 pilots, American has proposed to eliminate all the restrictions on its ability to furlough. The APA also accurately observes that the existing furlough protection clause allows the Company to furlough up to 2,000 pilots, five times what the Company’s Business Plan requires. (Roghair Decl. ¶ 85). While American claims to seek more broad furlough authority to address unforeseen emergencies, there appears to be no need to do so as the existing agreement includes a force majeure exception which was used by the Company to furlough 2,900 pilots following September 11th. The evidence proffered by American is unclear even as to the amount of savings gained by American’s proposal on furlough, with the evidence suggesting that the savings may be as little as $300,000 a year. (See APA Ex. 412; Roghair Decl. ¶ 85). Thus, American has failed to justify its request for unrestricted furlough by reference to the savings identified in its Business Plan. Finally, American has not justified its request for proposed changes in furlough by identifying comparable provisions in the airline industry.
Without being able to justify this change by reference to the industry or its Business Plan, the Court concludes that the furlough proposal is inconsistent with the necessity requirement of Section 1113.See In re Fiber Glass Indus., 49 B.R. 202, 206––208 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1985) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 application on a “necessity” basis because debtors failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proposal was necessary for reorganization); In re Sun Glo Co., Inc..144 B.R. 58, 62 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1992) (denying debtors’ motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement under Section 1113 on grounds that debtors failed to “demonstrate[] that [the proposed] measures are “necessary’’ to its reorganization” and have not shown “how these particular changes will increase the likelihood of successful reorganizing.
If you look at the judge’s opinion it is very clear that he would have allowed the maintenance outsourcing proposed in the term sheet which, in fact, was less onerous than what normally happens in bankruptcy. As for the idea that the pilots standing in the industry is somehow superior to other employees, you better talk to one of them. With the new UAL agreement, AA pilots will be at least 20 percent in pay behind all major carriers except USAirways, and those pilots are, of course, still operating under a bankruptcy contract. In any case, the judge took no issue with the pay, benefits, and pension in the proposal even though it left the pilots near the industry bottom. He took issue with two items, and the basis of his concern is that they went beyond the Company’s stated needs.
The Two Issues raised by Judge for refusing the abrogation of the APA Contract
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that American’s proposed changes to furlough and codesharing have not been justified by either reference to the Business Plan or the practices of American’s competitors. Given the significance of these two provisions collectively to American’s proposal, the Court finds that American has not shown that the proposal is necessary as required by Section 1113. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, American’s Motion to reject the collective bargaining agreements of the APA is denied. This denial is without prejudice to remedying the two defects identified in this Opinion and submitting a new application under Section 1113. Debtors’ counsel shall settle an order on three days’ notice.
Code sharing
The Court concludes that a significant increase in codesharing would greatly benefit American. It is equally clear that the current collective bargaining agreement is far more restrictive on codesharing than recent industry norms for a carrier with a smaller network. Given American’s need to compete with its now-smaller network, American has established a need for significant change to its codesharing abilities. American has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence, however, that essentially unlimited codesharing is necessary to achieve a successful reorganization. American has reasonably explained why it is inappropriate to measure its need for codesharing by comparing itself to current larger network competitors. But American’s unlimited request for codesharing is greater even than the comparative group that American urges is an appropriate benchmark: the group of network airlines, before mergers, that used extensive codesharing in the past to compete with American’s larger network. American’s codesharing request also is in excess of the Company’s stated goals and contemplated arrangements expressed in the Business Plan, which American has presented as defining what is necessary to achieve a successful reorganization.
The current and projected financial condition of the debtor’s business will provide the primary evidence as to whether the trustee's proposed modifications are “necessary ‘ for reorganization, but the facts and circumstances of each case may also influence the outcome. Probative evidence necessarily will involve projections about the future business prospects and financial performance of the debtor's business. Where the trustee’s business plan dictates the size of labor cost reductions required, “its assumptions and methodology are key”” and are frequently challenged.
Collier ¶ 1113.05[3][c]; see Mesaba, 341 B.R. at 731. The Company claims that it must maintain flexibility to respond to new opportunities that might arise over the next six years. But while the Court understands the need for some flexibility in the future, that flexibility cannot be unlimited or it would render the necessity requirement a nullity. It is the Company that presented and relied upon its Business Plan as the cornerstone of necessity, and it must accept both the benefits and drawbacks of that decision.51
See In re Express Freight Lines, Inc., 119 B.R. 1006, 1013––1018 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1990) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 application on necessity grounds because the Court concluded that other companies operated under contract terms similar to those the debtor sought to modify); In re Cook United, Inc., 50 B.R. 561, 563 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1985) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 motion on the basis that the present operating plan still projected positive cash flow without the rejection of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore, modifications were deemed unnecessary); see also Carey Transp., 50 B.R. at 209 (“There can be no pat formula. Any analysis must be undertaken on a case by case basis with due consideration given to the nature of the business and industry patterns.”&rdquo😉, aff’d, Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transp., Inc., 816 F.2d 82 (1987) (emphasis in original).
Furlough
As of February 1, 2012 there were 10,738 pilots on American’s seniority list. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4). Of those, 7,664 were active pilots that were flying for the Company. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4). The remainder were on inactive status, including leave or furlough. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 4).
American argues that as part of its reorganization, it will initially need to furlough employees. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 155). The current pilot collective bargaining agreement contains two restrictions relating to furlough that American proposes to eliminate, arguing that they limit flexibility and increase cost. First, the agreement permits a pilot to voluntarily take a furlough designated for a more junior pilot who otherwise would have been furloughed based on seniority. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). American notes that if the pilot volunteering to take the furlough was already on leave or preparing to retire, American would not obtain the economic value of the furlough, because it must pay to furlough someone who was already inactive or planned to leave and is still required to furlough the junior pilot. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). Second, the agreement effectively prevents American from furloughing pilots above a certain place on the seniority list. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 156). The Company argues that this would prevent it from responding to unforeseen catastrophic events. (Newgren Decl. ¶ 155).
But the Court disagrees with American’s view on the furlough provision. The APA complains that American seeks to eliminate all contractual restrictions against furlough. See APA Proposed Findings ¶ 14. The APA correctly notes that while the Business Plan only contemplates the furlough of 400 pilots, American has proposed to eliminate all the restrictions on its ability to furlough. The APA also accurately observes that the existing furlough protection clause allows the Company to furlough up to 2,000 pilots, five times what the Company’s Business Plan requires. (Roghair Decl. ¶ 85). While American claims to seek more broad furlough authority to address unforeseen emergencies, there appears to be no need to do so as the existing agreement includes a force majeure exception which was used by the Company to furlough 2,900 pilots following September 11th. The evidence proffered by American is unclear even as to the amount of savings gained by American’s proposal on furlough, with the evidence suggesting that the savings may be as little as $300,000 a year. (See APA Ex. 412; Roghair Decl. ¶ 85). Thus, American has failed to justify its request for unrestricted furlough by reference to the savings identified in its Business Plan. Finally, American has not justified its request for proposed changes in furlough by identifying comparable provisions in the airline industry.
Without being able to justify this change by reference to the industry or its Business Plan, the Court concludes that the furlough proposal is inconsistent with the necessity requirement of Section 1113.See In re Fiber Glass Indus., 49 B.R. 202, 206––208 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1985) (denying debtors’’ Section 1113 application on a “necessity” basis because debtors failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proposal was necessary for reorganization); In re Sun Glo Co., Inc..144 B.R. 58, 62 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1992) (denying debtors’ motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement under Section 1113 on grounds that debtors failed to “demonstrate[] that [the proposed] measures are “necessary’’ to its reorganization” and have not shown “how these particular changes will increase the likelihood of successful reorganizing.
AC Tynker
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2012
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 107
Thanks for the efforts on the post Realityck.
More spin, UAL M&R is currently 20% more than we are and they start negotiations in September for a new deal, UAL and Deltas Pilot rates will top out several years from now 20% higher than what AA is now, Big difference.The deal may have left the pilots at the bottom of the industry based upon recently ratified deals at other carriers but would it have established a new bottom like ours?
With Capacity tight in the MRO world the question is would AA have been able to take advantage of the higher outsourcing allowances in the Term sheet vs the 35% of :"Maintenance spend" plus whatever else they decide to add? UAl , Delta and SWA have been bringing work back in house over the last few years. SWA, despite merging with Air Tran continues to hire mechanics away from AA in Dallas as well.
AA Pilots currently, not counting raises agreed to in the future are currently in better standing among their peers than Aircraft Maintenance. Very few if any have read our contract and compared it to others.
