S.1113(e) And Pension Hearing
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
I read his statement and to say the least I was amused!!!! He must have not of been aware of the tooling U received when the Airbus was purchased or the spare parts most of which are currently located in HMV.
Hopefully the judge will see through the lies and give an honest ruling.......
Hopefully the judge will see through the lies and give an honest ruling.......
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
700, You know this is sooo "who cares" its not funny.... You may know how to clean a plane, but a lawyer youre not. None of this matters. Iam as well as all of us have to face reality. I know you dont like it, but you will see, this judge isnt interested in that kinda of crap. Whats the past is the past. The judge will rule based on facts of todays numbers.... Not yesterdays. Prepare your self for the reality my friend, denial is futile.
Well come to court tomorrow, the IAM Attornies are very prepared, you were not there, you are not a member of the IAM so your opinion does not count anyhow.
When you know more the one of the top bankruptcy attornies in the US, then tell me.
But I will believe Sharon Levine over you anyday.
Remember we all know you were caught pretending to be something you weren't.
When you know more the one of the top bankruptcy attornies in the US, then tell me.
But I will believe Sharon Levine over you anyday.
Remember we all know you were caught pretending to be something you weren't.
robbedagain
Veteran
700UW said:
can you keep us up to date during the court or no? if not will you post the factual info whenever you get the chance? i turst your info compared to u320pilot.
jack mama
Senior
700 - keep us up to date on the court hearings tomorrow...
I want to know how he gets accused of perjury for stating his opinion
I want to know how he gets accused of perjury for stating his opinion
if you want the facts, go to transformingusairways.com
Facts? LOL, very funny. Kinda like getting the "facts" from Pravda.
Facts? LOL, very funny. Kinda like getting the "facts" from Pravda.
Rico said:
Which means that the 23% cut will be more detrimental on the lower paid worker. :down:
OldGuyinPA
Veteran
The VP's will has less play money...still can pay for the basics.
The average worker will have less money for food, less money for their mortgage, less money for utilities, less money for medical, less money for their kids, schools etc......you get the picture.
The ship is sinking fast. Sorry to be so darn negative.
Respectfully....
The average worker will have less money for food, less money for their mortgage, less money for utilities, less money for medical, less money for their kids, schools etc......you get the picture.
The ship is sinking fast. Sorry to be so darn negative.
Respectfully....
- Thread Starter
- #30
During last Thursday's S.1113(e) hearing all of the attorneys, except ALPA's counsel Richard Seltzer, argued that the court should take equitable considerations into consideration.
However, the S.1113(e) statute only refers to whether the relief is essential, which is clearly the case especially with oil now above $53 per barrel in NYMEX trading.
I believe union attorneys did raise some good points about management's somewhat low pay cuts, but on the vastly more important issue of the economic need for relief counsel miserably failed. The more questions the attorneys asked chief financial officer Dave Davis, the stronger management's case became before Judge Mitchell.
For example, when one attorney suggested to Davis the company could reject an aircraft due in the first quarter of 2005, which could provide cash flow relief, Davis made the attonrey look foolish. Davis said the first problem with this idea is that it results in even greater furloughs and secondly it does not help the Company's cash position in the short run.
Why? Because the revenue decrease from the loss of an aircraft is immediate, while the resulting cost reductions take time for staffing and facilities to be adjusted. Furthermore, the layoffs could increase costs in the short term because of severance pay and unemployment considerations.
Testimony is expected to be completed tomorrow and in my opinion, unless an attorney can establish that the carrier does not need the requested S.1113(e) interim relief to survive, I believe the judge will rule in favor of the company, as he did on virtaully every issue in the first bankruptcy proceeding.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
However, the S.1113(e) statute only refers to whether the relief is essential, which is clearly the case especially with oil now above $53 per barrel in NYMEX trading.
I believe union attorneys did raise some good points about management's somewhat low pay cuts, but on the vastly more important issue of the economic need for relief counsel miserably failed. The more questions the attorneys asked chief financial officer Dave Davis, the stronger management's case became before Judge Mitchell.
For example, when one attorney suggested to Davis the company could reject an aircraft due in the first quarter of 2005, which could provide cash flow relief, Davis made the attonrey look foolish. Davis said the first problem with this idea is that it results in even greater furloughs and secondly it does not help the Company's cash position in the short run.
Why? Because the revenue decrease from the loss of an aircraft is immediate, while the resulting cost reductions take time for staffing and facilities to be adjusted. Furthermore, the layoffs could increase costs in the short term because of severance pay and unemployment considerations.
Testimony is expected to be completed tomorrow and in my opinion, unless an attorney can establish that the carrier does not need the requested S.1113(e) interim relief to survive, I believe the judge will rule in favor of the company, as he did on virtaully every issue in the first bankruptcy proceeding.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Similar threads
