Question on abrogation.

[eolesen]

If the members had our own lawyer,we would get a different story !

I'm not so sure about that.

Think about it -- you've got a pretty diverse group of people here on the forum who happen to be in agreement with the TWU's lawyer. That includes lawyers, laypeople, union members who went thru the S1113 process. These are all people who have no reason to be in agreement with each other, and nothing to gain from either outcome.

What makes you think that having a different lawyer is going to result in a different answer or outcome?

 

[2ndGENAMT]

I'm not so sure about that.

Think about it -- you've got a pretty diverse group of people here on the forum who happen to be in agreement with the TWU's lawyer. That includes lawyers, laypeople, union members who went thru the S1113 process. These are all people who have no reason to be in agreement with each other, and nothing to gain from either outcome.

What makes you think that having a different lawyer is going to result in a different answer or outcome?

There is no Answer or Outcome yet!! The process is ongoing unless we vote YES...

 

[2ndGENAMT]

So what about this from the TWU website? Is it BS?


Recent Posts




Important Questions and Answers Regarding AA's Last Best Offer

May 02, 2012​

Different questions have been raised in the two days since the Company’s Last and Best Offer was finalized. This offer is being put to vote based on the commitment we made at the outset of the Bankruptcy process that the membership would have the opportunity to vote on the LBO. In order to make sure that this vote is based on accurate information about the contents of the proposal and the laws which govern the bankruptcy process, we are putting out answers to commonly asked questions.
[background=rgb(255, 255, 153)]1. If our contract is rejected by the Bankruptcy Court, what will be imposed, the Company’s “ask” before the proceedings began on the Company’s motion to reject, or the Last Best Offer (LBO) made after those proceedings began? [/background]
The law on rejection of collective bargaining agreements has evolved over the years in ways that are not favorable to unions or working people. In 2007, in the Northwest bankruptcy, the Court rejected the contract covering the flight attendants after they rejected the Company’s LBO. At that time, the Bankruptcy Court stated that the Company could only impose its LBO, not the Company’s prior Ask. That ruling, which I commented on in writing at the time, has since been superseded (as has my comment on it), and is no longer the binding law on the issue in the Bankruptcy Courts of the Southern District of New York. The superseding case is the Frontier Airlines case, which was ruled on in 2009. There, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the district we are in, and the court which reviews all the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court handling AA’s filing) ruled that proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on an 1113 motion are not admissible to establish the level of concessions necessary for reorganization. What the Court specifically held was that “under the regime established by Section 1113, proposals and supporting disclosures made by a party after the rejection hearing has begun may not form the basis for concluding whether the 1113 standard has been satisfied, except, perhaps, where the parties expressly agree they may be considered.” In other words, absent an agreement to the contrary, the LBO, if it was made after the rejection proceedings began, is not even admissible into the hearings to decide whether to abrogate the contract, much less to define precisely what terms and conditions of employment the company may initially impose.
The Company’s “ask” was made before the rejection proceedings began. The LBO was made after those proceedings began. The Company was obviously aware of the Frontier precedent and stated at all times that the terms of the LBO were without prejudice
to its position before the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, there was no agreement to allow the Court to consider the LBO. We, of course, will pursue all legal arguments should we face contract rejection, but the controlling precedent in New York is that the LBO is not even admissible into the 1113 proceedings and that the Company is not bound by the LBO and can impose its prehearing “ask” if the contract is rejected.

This is for spreading FEAR and never mentions an Appeal process which is what my link is from..Jim Little doesn't want to spend your money on litigation.. Pilots/FA's will not have the "ASK" imposed, they will fight..

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Can ANYONE on here show me that there is NO Appeals process???

 

[Bob Owens]

This is for spreading FEAR and never mentions an Appeal process which is what my link is from..Jim Little doesn't want to spend your money on litigation.. Pilots/FA's will not have the "ASK" imposed, they will fight..

To me Sharon's response says that if the company puts an ask that does not meet the the criteria for rejection, then comes off that ask with a less severe offer the judge is only supposed to consider the ask that was submitted in the original filing as far as whether or not to grant the debtors motion. In other words the court does not want debtors to do exactly what AA has done, put in demands that are over reaching and bargain from there like regular negotiations. If they do ask for too much, more than whats needed then the court is more likely to reject the companys motion. 1113 was put in place to protect workers, the intent is that debtors would only ask for what is necissary for their reorganization and not things like a punitive sick use policy, the elimination of PV days and scores of things that the company threw in there that they did noot even bother to put an economic value, Crew chief demotions rules, etc, things that it could not prove are necissary in order for them to compete.

In a twisted way this is to protect the creditor (workers)from being squeezed by the debtor.

You have to remember that AA has nothing to lose if the court rejects their motion to abrogate our contrtact, they really dont need relief, we are already at the bottom and would continue to negotiate from the bottom, but if they can scare and BS us into accepting this ridiculously bad ask they just hit a Grand slam, if the court grants their motion thats ok too. So for them there is no risk and a chance of a huge payoff.

When the TWU announced that we were going to vote they gave the company the green light to go for the fence, if we buy it they win big time, if we end up in court the worst that happens for the company is the court rejects their motion and we are right back where we were in November, at the bottom of the industry. For the company its a smart move, they have nothing to lose, for the Union and the members its a huge blunder to put it to a vote and spread all the misinformation they have.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Bob, so do you believe that the court will deny the motion?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, so do you believe that the court will deny the motion?

If the lawyers do a good job they wont leave the judge any choice. What I saw on the 23rd was disheartening, I realize that our situation with 7 different groups in 7 different situations (standing in the industry) makes our case more complex but I would have liked to have heard something. Of all the work groups M&R has the best case for denying the motion, we are at the bottom of the industry in pay and benefits. We should be the last group to consider tapping out. The companys demands are excesssive PVs and having a Crew Chief review panel, which will cost more than the current crew chioef selection process, 60% sick pay, etc etc, Really?? These are things that AA needs? AA needs to make $3 billion a year in profits? Their answer to us was they need to make enough in profits to attract capital. Really?? All 500 airplanes have been financed, none of their competotors earn that much.

For us the company arguement is extremely weak, the only things they have is the Pension, which we have not resisted, the retiree medical, which they can cancel as per the original agreement, what they are trying to do is find a way to get us to opt out so they can keep the match, and the scope that restricts their ability to outsource. Other than those items we are below industry standard on pretty much every other article. There is no equity like UAL, there is no parity on sick time, vacation time, Holidays etc. It should be a slam dunk for the lawyers to prove that AAs demands are unacceptable and the company's goals go way beyond the intent of C-11 ($3 bilion in profits).

 

[Overspeed]

If the lawyers do a good job they wont leave the judge any choice. What I saw on the 23rd was disheartening, I realize that our situation with 7 different groups in 7 different situations (standing in the industry) makes our case more complex but I would have liked to have heard something. Of all the work groups M&R has the best case for denying the motion, we are at the bottom of the industry in pay and benefits. We should be the last group to consider tapping out. The companys demands are excesssive PVs and having a Crew Chief review panel, which will cost more than the current crew chioef selection process, 60% sick pay, etc etc, Really?? These are things that AA needs? AA needs to make $3 billion a year in profits? Their answer to us was they need to make enough in profits to attract capital. Really?? All 500 airplanes have been financed, none of their competotors earn that much.

For us the company arguement is extremely weak, the only things they have is the Pension, which we have not resisted, the retiree medical, which they can cancel as per the original agreement, what they are trying to do is find a way to get us to opt out so they can keep the match, and the scope that restricts their ability to outsource. Other than those items we are below industry standard on pretty much every other article. There is no equity like UAL, there is no parity on sick time, vacation time, Holidays etc. It should be a slam dunk for the lawyers to prove that AAs demands are unacceptable and the company's goals go way beyond the intent of C-11 ($3 bilion in profits).

And in court is where your arguments will really be exposed. The "ask" is the Company plan and the LBO is a combination of items the Union wanted (not all of them) and the Company (not all of them). The "ask" may seem punitive to you and me however it is the quick and dirty way of achieving their goal of cutting ~$210M in costs.

The court will not view the 3/22 term sheet as punitive because it is another way to cut costs. AA's attorneys are saying it is the (in their opinion) sure fire way to cut out 20% of costs in M&R and the Wall Street types on the creditors committee agree with that method.

As far as the business plan, the $3B annually is your number based on your flawed math. Have our economists come up with the same number? No. I have not seen that number anywhere except here. So when we get to court will Judge Lane, after hearing all the arguments lean over and say, "Bob you good with that number? No? Okay, based on Bob, because I don't believe all the MBAs in this court the motion to abrogate is denied. AMR no outsourcing and $42/hour."

 

[eolesen]

It should be a slam dunk for the lawyers to prove that AAs demands are unacceptable and the company's goals go way beyond the intent of C-11 ($3 bilion in profits).

If it's such a slam dunk, why hasn't it been done before? What AA is asking for doesn't materially go beyond what others have requested before.