S.1113(e) And Pension Hearing

[USA320Pilot]

In a statement to the bankruptcy court, US Airways' Creditors Committee's said in regard to the Company's request for 1113(e) relief, "The Debtors' much publicized need for immediate and sizeable cost savings from its employees is, unfortunately, very real. The survival of these Debtors, and the preservation of approximately 34,000 jobs, depends upon these Debtors' ability to successfully reorganize as a healthy, viable airline. Although this Committee wishes that it could be accomplished otherwise, it is painfully obvious that in the absence of a negotiated agreement with the Debtors' labor forces, the Debtors' only alternative to achieve its critical cash needs is to seek the relief sought in the Pension Motion and the 1113 Motion.

The unfortunate reality of these cases is that these Debtors must quickly make necessary efforts to stymie their cash losses in order to survive. Unless the Debtors "right the ship" quickly, all stakeholders will likely suffer. It is especially painful for the employees of this airline to again be forced to make sacrifices after having recently made sacrifices in the Debtors' prior bankruptcy proceedings. That painful reality is not lost on this Committee."

__________

Judge Mitchell told the courtroom "The real question is when -- you know, a motion like this, which is sort of like a motion for temporary injunction, but with some very serious consequences since it does more than simply maintain the status quo, it gores somebody's ox.

If as a practical matter, even if it technically compiles with the rules -- the rules are the rules, but one size doesn't always fit all. If there is a need to, for example, defer cross examination or allow cross examination to remain open while they conduct some discovery, I am certainly to give these people who have a great deal at stake an adequate opportunity to prepare and present their case.

I'm not going to be rushed to judgment on it. I just want to make that clear from the outset. I'm not bound by anybody's deadline. I want to do what's right. I want to do what is fair. I want to see this airline survive. And if granting this motion is the way to do it, I will do it, but only after I have given the other side a fair opportunity to prepare and present their case."

__________

Union attorneys argued the court should take equitable considerations into consideration, but the 1113(e) statute only refers to whether the relief is essential and it is my understanding no argument was provided on the important issue of the economic need for relief. Therefore, informed sources believe the court will rule in support of the Creditors Committee and the Debtor (the Company) in favor of the S.1113(e) motion and pension changes.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

You seem to forget he said:

"I want to do what i fair"

"I want to do what is right"

"I want to see the airline survive"

You seem to forget in an 1113e motion, the judge can modify it as he sees fit, so what you will probably see is him split the baby.

And I can post motions from ALPA, IAM, CWA and AFA that disputes what the CC said, of course they want the pay cuts so they can get as much money possible out of this dead horse.

And I will be in court tomorrow.

 

[ua767fo]

I'm not going to be rushed to judgment on it. I just want to make that clear from the outset. I'm not bound by anybody's deadline. I want to do what's right. I want to do what is fair. I want to see this airline survive. ]And if granting this motion is the way to do it, I will do it, but only after I have given the other side a fair opportunity to prepare and present their case."

__________

Therefore, informed sources believe the court will rule in support of the Creditors Committee and the Debtor (the Company) in favor of the S.1113(e) motion and pension changes.

[post="189832"][/post]​

It is actually refreshing to see a member of the federal bench publicly in open court speak to the value of judicial integrity and the value of the properly exercizing the system. The judge is to be applauded, regardless of how he rules. To those of us who watched the EAL debacle, this is refreshing.

I too believe that the court will support the motion, but it will be temporary, a one time shot, and it will be do or die after that. I think the judge has had enough of this bickering between creditors/management/employees.

DENVER, OO

 

[Peeky]

Is the hearing open to the public?

 

[jack mama]

Its all talk...it is easy to say all of that stuff on a non-decsion making day...

his action's will speak louder...it is almost elementary. On a day is not make the decsion he is saying, i want to be fair, i will take my time, etc...come tues it will, i was fair, i listen, but this is the way it is...

 

[USA320Pilot]

After discussing this issue with ALPA MEC Officers and Legal I believe Judge Mitchell will grant the interim relief. The Debtor (the Company) and the Creditor's Committee support such action and have provided strong written and oral argument to support their case.

Judge Mitchell is allowing the parties to present thier case, but not one defendant was able to argue against the need for relief.

Furthermore, the relief must be granted by October 15 or US Airways will likely violate the terms of the ATSB interim financing that expire on Friday, October 15. Then, if desired, the ATSB could call in the guaranteed loans forcing a liquidation of the business enterprise. Will the court permit that? I doubt it.

Following the S.1113(e) imposition, which will likely permit outsourcing of heavy maintenance and other outsourcing if there is a work slow down, the parties will move onto the S.1113© proceeding (if there is no negotiated settlement) where imposition is likely to occur again with the court not permitting "self help" because as the Creditor's Committee said there is a need for the, "preservation of approximately 34,000 jobs, (that) depends upon these Debtors' ability to successfully reorganize as a healthy, viable airline."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[AP Tech]

I read the written statement from the V.P. Of Maint in regards to the outsourcing. It is an absolute joke. I like the fact that a certain poster seems to be enjoying the events that are unfolding in regards to the employee's of U.

"In my opinion"...well I better not go there or I will be banished to the corn fields!!!!

 

[fatburger]

Anyone know what UAIRQ's numbers were for the 3rd quarter? Just curious.

-fatburger-

 

[michael707767]

) where imposition is likely to occur again with the court not permitting "self help" because as the Creditor's Committee said there is a need for the, "preservation of approximately 34,000 jobs, (that) depends upon these Debtors' ability to successfully reorganize as a healthy, viable airline."

[post="189839"][/post]​

I thought the only consideration in CH 11 was the creditors. Seems that is not the case. Hmm, more BS from 320pilot??

 

[ClueByFour]

Union attorneys argued the court should take equitable considerations into consideration, but the 1113(e) statute only refers to whether the relief is essential and it is my understanding no argument was provided on the important issue of the economic need for relief.

Your understanding is incorrect. A perusal of the AFA brief, in particular, might be in order.

 

[Rico]

Like I said, what is so hard for the company to make a case that the cuts are not just necessary, but equitable...? 23% for everyone is a flat rate, meaning the lower payed will be giving less than the higher payed workers.

IF the AFA and IAM have already agreed (through negotiation of arbitration) to concessions of this caliber or greater for their own work group and union membership at MDA (and mainline express for CWA), then good luck saying you cannot handle such at the mainline level...

My point is that "What is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander" in the eyes of an outsider trying to determine "fairness".

Especially with the pilots and the two TWU locals having reached an agreement (or ratification), that places additional additional pressure upon the remaining unions, it erodes away their "equitable argument" and casts them into a image of "selfish holdouts".

Peace B)

 

[delldude]

Following the S.1113(e) imposition, which will likely permit outsourcing of heavy maintenance and other outsourcing,NYAA HAA HAA if there is a work slow down, the parties will move onto the S.1113© proceeding NYA HAA HAA(if there is no negotiated settlement) where imposition is likely to occur again with the court not permitting "self help"NYA HAA HAA HAA because as the Creditor's Committee said there is a need for the, "preservation of approximately 34,000 jobs

 

[funguy2]

Furthermore, the relief must be granted by October 15 or US Airways will likely violate the terms of the ATSB interim financing that expire on Friday, October 15. Then, if desired, the ATSB could call in the guaranteed loans forcing a liquidation of the business enterprise. Will the court permit that? I doubt it.

[post="189839"][/post]​

As usual, this is incorrect. Since no relief has yet been granted, any relief declared in the next several days is unlikely push US Airways above or below the ATSB requirements.

The ATSB requirements is a certain amount of unrestricted cash on hand at each benchmark date. Assuming you folks have all been receiving your paychecks at the previously agreed to rates, the company has saved $0 of what it says is required in the 1113(e) filing (unless they are withholding some amount of pay from your paycheck).

A favorable ruling by the judge on the 1113(e) motion may convince the ATSB to issue further covenant exceptions, however, it will not put automatically US Airways in compliance with the ATSB, as it cannot materially affect cash balances in 3 DAYS.

 

[Borescope]

The Debtor (the Company) and the Creditor's Committee support such action and have provided strong written and oral argument to support their case.

[post="189839"][/post]​

Of course they have, It's dog eat dog and they're going to eat you up. They (creditors and Bronner) want to lose the least and in order to do that they have to take it out of the employees hides. :down:

 

[Rico]

Oh yeah, I forgot, as soon as a given party (or those they represent) start illegally drawing outside the lines with their "work action" crayons...

No lawyer on the planet will be able to prevent your work group from getting judicially roughed over like a dog's favorite chew toy. (Ask APA)

Although we might be able to debate IF the judge will grant a 1113e motion, there IS NO debate (from anyone with a clue) as to the pressure judges are more than willing to exert upon any union with a memebership that has gone rouge.

In fact, that would ruin any sympathy you had with the ONE person that is determining your fate right now.

Not smart. :huh: