Section 1113 Question

DCAflyer

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
821
0
Okay, two years ago all the unions came to an agreement with the company that, in exchange for Concessions Round 1, we would not be asked again for more givebacks. In walks Bonehead... okay, we were ordered to accept another round, not "asked".

Now, the company is asking a third time. My question is why would the original agreements not to ask for abrogation of the contracts under 1113 not be binding on the company now? It seems to me that absent specific language to the contrary (i.e., this agrement is only binding on US Airways for one year) tha the agreement would still hold. Have the respective unions attorneys looked into argument as even a possibility?
 
You in Bankrupcy, the rules have changed. The judge makes the decisions now. Anything prepetition is on the table and can be dumped :shock:
 
The Section 1113 letters were only good for the last bankruptcy, they became null and void when US emerged from Chapter 11 the first time.
 
700UW said:
The Section 1113 letters were only good for the last bankruptcy, they became null and void when US emerged from Chapter 11 the first time.
[post="184092"][/post]​

Actually, the 1113 protection was from the date of ratification up to December 31, 2002. This language was placed in ALL contracts. We never had protections for the entire time in BK.

This time, the co. only offered 1113 protections for 60 days from filing. That's it.

Not worth buying a 1113 with no lasting protections.

If we can negotiate fairly, then we will argue it with a judge...I believe its a good case to argue being we've done the concession dance 3 times in two years.
 
The judge isn't going to care honestly. His responsibility is to those that are owed money by UAIR. He's going to look at employees cuts and see if the cuts proposed will help UAIR recover. If it makes sense he'll implement. If it doesn't he won't and historically the companies get what they ask for.
 
ALPA's legal advisors said in "open session" that they are 100% certain Judge Mitchell will grant the company's request for S.1113(e) relief. If Mitchell does not grant the relief US Airways will violate the ATSB unrestricted cash requirements, which will be made known to Mitchell, and then the company would liquidate.

In most observer's eyes the court will rule in favor of the company and the only way to prevent a 23% pay cut is to obtain a deal, like the Dispatchers did and now they are only recieving a 10.3% pay cut.

Respectfully

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
the only way to prevent a 23% pay cut is to obtain a deal, like the Dispatchers did and now they are only recieving a 10.3% pay cut.

Respectfully

USA320Pilot
[post="184109"][/post]​


Damn, that wasnt even offered in the 1 time they met with us. I think if they'd had offered 10.3% to begin with for CWA, it would be a no brainer and would have passed big time. :shock:
 
As far as we are aware..the 10.3% has never been on the table...but then again we only have had to opportunity to meet once..to the memberships knowledge....with all the cash drain efforts employees have given over the years...the outsourcing stuff has to stop...the line need to be drawn somewhere....the loyalty, both company and employee runs both ways...a little job security produces a happier work force, currently there is no loyalty or trust on either side of the table...it's unfortunate.
 
I disagree to an extent. While he may not directly be able to consider the past as far as concessions go, it really is an indicator of just how inept this management is. Therefore, I think (only my thoughts) that he will be open to other suggestions from outside of management, like getting a trustee to run the company, if any group has the cojones to request one. I believe that the temporary cuts are probably a done deal, but I also think that taking control of the company from RSA may also occur quickly during this time. UAIR employees can only hope. If someone of great integrity and known managment skills is not IMMEDIATELY placed in charge, i believe that the ATSB WILL pull the funding on October 16th, no matter what the unions agree to at this point. All the creditors need is disgruntled, tired employees servicing and operating multimillion dollar equipment. Not that anyone would do anything intentionally, but folks are now having to work 2 or three jobs, then report to work at the airline is a major risk, and that is just what these idiots are asking for. Of course, the FAA stays silent through all of this. Don't want to make waves, you know!
 
10.3 pct paycut???? Heck if that would of been offered really don't see why that would not of passed. And if someone could also explain to me how the company can offer CWA workers 13.10 and hr and then say that it is now only 23pct paycut that we are looking for....something smells rotten in Denmark if you ask me....
 
That smell is coming from the exec offices at CCY. If the judge doesnt call in an exterminator and get rid of the infestation there, this company will never survive. These guys couldnt' successfully manage a Jack-in-the Box.
 
MCORORES said:
10.3 pct paycut???? Heck if that would of been offered really don't see why that would not of passed

I think you need to see the details before assuming it is a good thing.

If the agreement (hypothetically) means a 50pct reduction in force due to workrule changes, would you still vote for it?
 
WestCoastGuy said:
That smell is coming from the exec offices at CCY. If the judge doesnt call in an exterminator and get rid of the infestation there, this company will never survive. These guys couldnt' successfully manage a Jack-in-the Box.
[post="184130"][/post]​

Jack In The Boxes are only west of the Mississippi. So they would just assume theres no money in them at all! :p

Now I want a Chicken Fajita Pita.
 
Light Years said:
Jack In The Boxes are only west of the Mississippi. So they would just assume theres no money in them at all! :p

Now I want a Chicken Fajita Pita.
[post="184221"][/post]​
Actually Jack has invaded the Carolinas around CLT.