Play by Play in courtroom AA wants to settle out of court WTF

[BoeingBoy]

And when Lorenzo abrogated the deal the pilots struck.

You do love your apples and oranges mixed together, Bob....

When Lorenzo rejected the contracts (abrogation wasn't a word in the bankruptcy law back then), the pilots struck because they had no contract. The law was different then - none of todays negotiating, timelines, and still having a binding contract at the end of the process (whether negotiated or imposed). Like any other contract he didn't like, Lorenzo just eliminated the contract so the choice was to work without a contract under terms Lorenzo imposed and could change on a whim or strike since there was no longer a contract. So strike they did. However, as Lorenzo replaced them they decided better to come crawling back than be left out in the cold so reached a negotiated settlement with Lorenzo.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Section 1113 wasnt in effect when Lorenzo had the court abrogate at CO. It came about because of that.

 

[TWU informer]

Below is the APA Update for 5/16.
I can hardly wait for the TWU to show us how they can handle this situation before the Judge.


posted on May 16, 2012 15:38

APA presented its case in court this week, with our witnesses testifying in opposition to the management motion to reject our collective bargaining agreements.

There were a couple of recurring themes that emerged during the cross-examination of our team. Management is clearly very angry about our agreement with US Airways and they made every effort to criticize the deal. We think the agreement is a strong statement to the court of our willingness to cooperate with a party that bargains in good faith. From our perspective, AA put a take-it-or-leave-it proposal in front of us and crossed their arms, other than making a handful of very superficial moves. We made it clear to the court that we can bargain with those who bargain in good faith, and we cannot successfully bargain with a team that is not truly negotiating.

Another major management focus during cross-examination was scope. Management tried to make the argument that flying aircraft in the 51- to 90-seat range isn’t really our flying, since we haven’t performed that flying in decades. Which raises the question ― if it isn’t our flying, why are they asking us for it? AA management is clearly upset that we reached an agreement with US Airways that allows modernization of the regional jets under the new airline, on a ratio basis, in exchange for the company putting 82- to 110-seat jets at the mainline. AA has never embraced such a similar concept and refuses to take seriously any discussion that requires them to put small jets at the mainline.

Our team spent a substantial amount of time on the stand defending the valuations of our proposals and painting a picture for the court of a very disingenuous valuation effort from management. We argued that management claims the $370 million target is non-negotiable and they have manufactured valuation disputes so that the only way to get to “the target” is to accept all of their proposals. Andrew Yearly from Lazard provided testimony that strongly criticized the appropriateness of the $370 million target number, which he framed as having nothing to do with the market and everything to do with plugging a hole in a weak business plan.

It became very clear this week just how much pressure our deal with US Airways is putting on AMR management. Every bankruptcy is different and ours is unique due to the US Airways development. AA is now communicating directly with pilots in a concerted effort to undermine the APA leadership and criticize the US Airways agreement. We expect these efforts to intensify.

Our case finished today and we will be followed by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants and the Transport Workers Union. We anticipate management will present their rebuttal case sometime next week. We also anticipate entering into court-directed mediated talks at some time in the near future. We will provide updates as these dates become firm.

Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the pilots who took the time to travel to Manhattan to be with us in the courthouse for these important proceedings.

Your APA Negotiating Committee

 

[olderguyAMT]

We are at the btm of industry pay scale for AMT, and hey, US Air AMT make .63 more per hr right now!
And,mgmt has an agenda to push for MRO pay. Union busting and divide and conquer strategy; no doubt, I suspect coming from the co. lawyers who wrote that crappy proposal. Have you read the LOM on the "Me Too Provision"? They don't exactly make it easy to understand without studying it for an hour. Or maybe its just me, notwithstanding my declining reading comprehension and increasing frustration.

*Mgmt has placed zero value on many of the concessions for it unions, and will refuse to budge from its stance? This inflexability is a huge reason for lack of progress in all negotiations. It's just just stubborn stonewalling from the Co. Could Judge Lane or the other Judge acting as a mediatior, force the co. into real bargaining instead of stonewalling? Will we find out when reading the transcript of the rebuttals? Notice that lawyers for all 3 major union groups make similar arguments in court! What will be the company's harvey miller objections?

* See court docket #2726 for TWU

 

[Winglet]

It really doesn't matter. If the Airways deal doesn't go through, AA is finished. Horton, Brundage et al, have zero support from front line employees. They have no sustainable business plan and virtually all the honest analysts confirm that. I think Capt Bates said it best in the Star Tribune . . . . The reason these guys are stonewalling is money in their personal pockets when the company exits BK. I wonder if they know how close they are to "Easternizing" a once proud company.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Frank Szabo]

We are at the btm of industry pay scale for AMT, and hey, US Air AMT make .63 more per hr right now!
And,mgmt has an agenda to push for MRO pay. Union busting and divide and conquer strategy; no doubt, I suspect coming from the co. lawyers who wrote that crappy proposal. Have you read the LOM on the "Me Too Provision"? They don't exactly make it easy to understand without studying it for an hour. Or maybe its just me, notwithstanding my declining reading comprehension and increasing frustration.

*Mgmt has placed zero value on many of the concessions for it unions, and will refuse to budge from its stance? This inflexability is a huge reason for lack of progress in all negotiations. It's just just stubborn stonewalling from the Co. Could Judge Lane or the other Judge acting as a mediatior, force the co. into real bargaining instead of stonewalling? Will we find out when reading the transcript of the rebuttals? Notice that lawyers for all 3 major union groups make similar arguments in court! What will be the company's harvey miller objections?

* See court docket #2726 for TWU

I can't speak for the pilots' and F/As' unions as I really don't follow their internal "events" closely at all but the mechanics' union (our darling twu, a de facto wholly owned subsidiary of the AMR Corporation), was "busted" many years ago.

There is a silver lining here, however. Videtich may have to give up his Buick company car and try to fit into a Fiat 500 - someone please take some pictures if that comes about.
[sharedmedia=core:attachments:9458]

 

[CMH_GSE]

It really doesn't matter. If the Airways deal doesn't go through, AA is finished. Horton, Brundage et al, have zero support from front line employees. They have no sustainable business plan and virtually all the honest analysts confirm that. I think Capt Bates said it best in the Star Tribune . . . . The reason these guys are stonewalling is money in their personal pockets when the company exits BK. I wonder if they know how close they are to "Easternizing" a once proud company.

It's as simple as that.

Right on the money, that is what this all about now.
Follow the money, it leads to the answer every time.
Problem is, US merger isn't the only game in town folks and the creditors are on record as saying they will look at ALL alternatives, in other words whatever gets them the most money, that might not be merger.

 

[olderguyAMT]

It really doesn't matter. If the Airways deal doesn't go through, AA is finished. Horton, Brundage et al, have zero support from front line employees. They have no sustainable business plan and virtually all the honest analysts confirm that. I think Capt Bates said it best in the Star Tribune . . . . The reason these guys are stonewalling is money in their personal pockets when the company exits BK. I wonder if they know how close they are to "Easternizing" a once proud company.

It's as simple as that.

Agreed. The co. current stand alone business plan is flawed. This was the argument made on the 11th in BK court by TWU lawyers.
see docket #2726. from 514 website, click on this link in LH menu.....Court Documents and Claims Register

Also AA admitted that a merger was likely prior to exit from BK. see the recent news releases.

 

[TWU informer]

American Airlines Management continues to ignore the fact that if the employees of AA do not embrace this business plan, it will fail miserably. You can see by the quotes below that AA Management takes a bean counter approach to every decision and ignores the human element of the employee being a partner in the plan. That is where Parker has trumped AA.

Thursday evening, American spokesman Bruce Hicks offered these responses:
In defense of American's network as proposed in the business plan:

"We are confident in American's business plan, which is designed to significantly improve our domestic and international network through the ability to better match aircraft size to market demand, more flexibility to use regional aircraft and domestic codeshare agreements feeding our key hubs, and increased international flying.
"Our stronger network and reduced costs will allow for more investments in our products, providing a greatly enhanced experience for our customers."​

In defense of the business plan itself:

"American's business plan is built to ensure lasting profitability by achieving a $3 billion annual improvement in performance by 2017. Through the plan, American will again be a successful, competitive airline, providing quality jobs for tens of thousands of our employees and a high-quality product for our customers.
"With revenue improvements and cost savings called for in the business plan, American will be able to take advantage of growth opportunities matching demand in our strongest performing hubs, focused on international markets."​

 

[Bob Owens]

American Airlines Management continues to ignore the fact that if the employees of AA do not embrace this business plan, it will fail miserably. You can see by the quotes below that AA Management takes a bean counter approach to every decision and ignores the human element of the employee being a partnet. That is where Parker has trumped AA.

Thursday evening, American spokesman Bruce Hicks offered these responses:
In defense of American's network as proposed in the business plan:

"We are confident in American's business plan, which is designed to significantly improve our domestic and international network through the ability to better match aircraft size to market demand, more flexibility to use regional aircraft and domestic codeshare agreements feeding our key hubs, and increased international flying.
"Our stronger network and reduced costs will allow for more investments in our products, providing a greatly enhanced experience for our customers."​

In defense of the business plan itself:

"American's business plan is built to ensure lasting profitability by achieving a $3 billion annual improvement in performance by 2017. Through the plan, American will again be a successful, competitive airline, providing quality jobs for tens of thousands of our employees and a high-quality product for our customers.
"With revenue improvements and cost savings called for in the business plan, American will be able to take advantage of growth opportunities matching demand in our strongest performing hubs, focused on international markets."​

Funny how Mr Hicks didnt report how when they where cross examining the APFA witness and were discussing the companys business plan the company freaked out that I was in the room. They ran to their lawyers, who went to our lawyer and since this was the Flight Attendants time and I didnt want to mess with their case I left when I was asked to. I was the only person asked to leave by the company. When that testimony was done the Judge even joked about how "that one person can now come back in the room".

From what I did hear its clear enough why they didnt want me in there. I already have peiceed together even more arguements as to why we were right to reject what the company themselves described as a "ridiculouly bad offer". Heading back in today.

Just keep thinking about this, the company claimed they had a $600 million labor cost gap, now they are asking the unions for $990 million in concessions, not to avoid imminent liquidation (if that were the case they would have filed an 1113(e).) but so they can make $3 billion a year in profits. In other words they could keep every worker and easily give us all raises and still be profitable. This is a scam, this is corporate America pushing to see how far they can go before we push back. I think they went wAAy too far before they even filed BK.

 

[Bob Owens]

Right on the money, that is what this all about now.
Follow the money, it leads to the answer every time.
Problem is, US merger isn't the only game in town folks and the creditors are on record as saying they will look at ALL alternatives, in other words whatever gets them the most money, that might not be merger.

The problem is the court has made BK as accomodating as possible for debtors at the expense of workers, most of the information is still kept confidential which is BS. If you dont want your bvusiness made public then settle out of court.

Workers were given misleading information, imminent liquidation was and is not very likely, IMO same goes for the threatened Job Losses, I have relatives in Shanghai, they have more than enough of their own work and dont need AA's work. IMO AA still has to find places to do the work. They are simply trying to get us all on the cheap.

 

[1AA]

I have relatives in Shanghai, they have more than enough of their own work and dont need AA's work. IMO AA still has to find places to do the work. They are simply trying to get us all on the cheap.

So AA is being SHANGHAI'ed? LOL!!

 

[Overspeed]

Funny how Mr Hicks didnt report how when they where cross examining the APFA witness and were discussing the companys business plan the company freaked out that I was in the room. They ran to their lawyers, who went to our lawyer and since this was the Flight Attendants time and I didnt want to mess with their case I left when I was asked to. I was the only person asked to leave by the company. When that testimony was done the Judge even joked about how "that one person can now come back in the room".

From what I did hear its clear enough why they didnt want me in there. I already have peiceed together even more arguements as to why we were right to reject what the company themselves described as a "ridiculouly bad offer". Heading back in today.

Just keep thinking about this, the company claimed they had a $600 million labor cost gap, now they are asking the unions for $990 million in concessions, not to avoid imminent liquidation (if that were the case they would have filed an 1113(e).) but so they can make $3 billion a year in profits. In other words they could keep every worker and easily give us all raises and still be profitable. This is a scam, this is corporate America pushing to see how far they can go before we push back. I think they went wAAy too far before they even filed BK.

You got kicked out for being so smart? Now that's funny. It's quite the opposite Bob. There have been many discussions over the need to keep certain testimony that refers to competitive information be kept under seal. Because you have shown complete disdain for the need to keep certain information confidential (i.e. you can't keep your mouth shut and you post everything on the blogs or in other media) they just kicked you out. Once again, your brilliance has landed you on the outside looking in.

 

[jacfrost]

Question for Bob Owens: What kind of "confidential" information would any other airline want from this bankrupt POS? I am thinking they don't and won't run their business the way AA has run theirs, the only confidential info that would be leaked is how not to treat your employees..........

 

[Mr Red]

Oh I get it the airline business is rocket science,got to keep it secret !Keep up the good work Bob !