Summary of Judge Lane's Ruling

[whatajoke]

the one time I agree with Owens.
This company does want to give you anything, if they did they would have giving you the 2010 even thought it was turned down.
it would have kept us closer to the top, But all of you company union idiots believe otherwise.

 

[Bob Owens]

It depends. The contract doesn't automatically disappear since the two sides can keep negotiating as long as both desire. Of course, the company or union can utilize self-help - from the company perspective that would be similiar to abrogation in bankruptcy since it can impose it's desired changes. On the other hand, the union could strike which relieves the company from the NMB "status quo" provisions.

Jim

And what stops both sides from continuing to negotiate after abrogation?

Upon expiration of the cooling off period the company can resort to self help and do even more than what they can do upon abrogation in bankruptcy. The difference is that if they do, even if they dont, the union can legally resort to self help. bankruptcy essentailly legally frees the company to self help but legally prevents Airline workers, and airline workers alone, from quid pro quo. Its an anomoly in the law that the pilots should challenge. So maybe they break the law, maybe they dont. maybe they do just enough to send the message but not enough for the courts to act on. Do they really want to explain how it is that Airline workers are subjected to a condition that not only no other workers but no other creditors are subjected to? Right now they have this big, pretty effective bogeyman and it did its job and lowered airline wages across the industry in real terms by at least 30%, do they want to be so greedy and really have this looked at real closely?

Like I said whats at stake here is the pilots profession. UAL, Delta and AA will never see a pilot strike as long as those three control nearly 70% of the industry. They will end up in PEBs, like the AA Pilots did way back in 1997. The question is do the AA Pilots become the scabs of the industry by agreeing to concessions that the PEB will use next time UAL and Delta pilots go for their contract, or do they go and face abrogation and do what they need to do to get to a PEB where the UAL and Delta contracts will be the starting point for a settlement?



Lets face it, UAL and Delta both got good deals. Wage trends for the industry are going up as shortages of both pilots and mechanics threaten the long term prospects for the industry. Do you think the company really wants to go to war with their pilots? Its not like they can replace them or outsource them on short notice.

 

[eolesen]

Sure but if they abrogate, then go back to Section 6 and land in a PEB the PEB would consider it and it would most certainly be setled in less than 6 years. I think the longest so far was 10 months.

Maybe, but you have to be released first, Bob. And that means convincing the NMB that you deserve an impasse.

Let's not forget the NMB kept the unions on ice for several years. Almost everyone on these forums blamed management for their insisting on a cost neutral contract, but I've been of the opinion that the mediator did so because the unions' demands outpaced what AMR could afford.

The NMB is under even less obligation to consider parity between AA and UA or DL. What AA says they can afford is now a matter of public record, and supported by the ruling from the court.

Assuming that the PEB is declared, again, the ruling is going to be used as a basis for arguing for a zero cost contract.

So, keep dreaming that parity is going to happen, but right now, your employer still can't afford it. I'm not even sure that DL and UA can afford what they agreed to, but time will tell.

 

[Overspeed]

BS. First of all you dont give away efficiencies and productivity improvements first then say lets negotiate what they are worth. Thats what Don did, and we got nothing for it. In negotaitions they brought up the $500 million they saved with the pulse line and other improvements and Burdette said "You get nothing"

They never saved $500M on a recurring basis. Check your facts.

It is your twisted logic that puts the cart before the horse (pay me first before the efficiencies) that helped put us in BK.

Hey have you heard Bob, the TA passed. Doesn't matter what you think now.

 

[TWU informer]

They never saved $500M on a recurring basis. Check your facts.

It is your twisted logic that puts the cart before the horse (pay me first before the efficiencies) that helped put us in BK.

Hey have you heard Bob, the TA passed. Doesn't matter what you think now.

Truth is they never $500 Million period.
It was all a big lie, to publish articles in MRO Magazines.

They did not call Carmine - Conman Romano for no reason.

 

[Bob Owens]

Maybe, but you have to be released first, Bob. And that means convincing the NMB that you deserve an impasse.

Let's not forget the NMB kept the unions on ice for several years. Almost everyone on these forums blamed management for their insisting on a cost neutral contract, but I've been of the opinion that the mediator did so because the unions' demands outpaced what AMR could afford.

The NMB is under even less obligation to consider parity between AA and UA or DL. What AA says they can afford is now a matter of public record, and supported by the ruling from the court.

Assuming that the PEB is declared, again, the ruling is going to be used as a basis for arguing for a zero cost contract.

So, keep dreaming that parity is going to happen, but right now, your employer still can't afford it. I'm not even sure that DL and UA can afford what they agreed to, but time will tell.

"Deserve an impasse", what do you mean by that?

Its not a hall pass, its a condition;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impasse

The mediator has no idea what AA can or cant afford. As far the AIRCON guy, well thats a whole other story.

As for the ICE, (nobody was on ice for several years) well lets look at the pilots. Lets say three years ago they did get released and ended up in a PEB. The PEB does look at the rest of the industry, so they had good cause not to push too hard to get released and wait till the other guys passed them, same for the FAs, Fleet Service and most of the other groups. If the mechanics would have ended up in a PEB the company probably would have recieved the ability to outsource more than they could before, if they really wanted to, again, an other story.

The ruling would have no bearing on the PEB. Lok at the Amtrack ruling, in that case the money losing company had to pay backpay. The Republican appointed board said that it was imperative to do so, apparently they realized that if the didnt then next time they would no be so patient, they followed up with saying that AMTRACK still eneded up with an interest free loan courtesy of the workers. Way back in 1938 the PEB said that workers should not be "indirectly taxed to keep the roads runing' and that shocks 'must be taken up by the ownership and not the wage structure".

AA said thats all they can afford according to their business plan where they would make over $3billion a year, the PEB doesnt even consider that, they are trying to head off a war and AA's ambitions dont trump industry standards in a PEB.

So lets say the Pilots get abrogated, and they go before the NMB which is supposed to be neutral, as implied by the word Mediation in their title. So the NMB has two parties that have been through several arenas in over six years of negotiations. The one partiy has recieved authoriztion to impose terms from the bankruptcy court, an arena that makes no pretenses as far as neutrality and takes the naive position that just because a debtor says something that its true. They still have not come to an agremeent, if this does not deserve to fall under the definition of "impasse" what does? If the NMB is to retain any credibility whatsoever it has no choice but to declare an impasse, and if they have no credibility then its unrealistic to expect workers to respect their authority.

 

[Bob Owens]

They never saved $500M on a recurring basis. Check your facts.

It is your twisted logic that puts the cart before the horse (pay me first before the efficiencies) that helped put us in BK.

Hey have you heard Bob, the TA passed. Doesn't matter what you think now.

Go suck on a straw thats tied in a knot will you? At least we can get a laugh out of it.

 

[Bob Owens]

Truth is they never $500 Million period.
It was all a big lie, to publish articles in MRO Magazines.

They did not call Carmine - Conman Romano for no reason.

They need $200 million from us to stay in business. They are bankrupt. "We have a $600 million cost disadvantage, no make that $800 million, no we need $1.2 billion". Its all lies but isnt it good to use their lies against them?

 

[Bob Owens]

It is your twisted logic that puts the cart before the horse (pay me first before the efficiencies) that helped put us in BK.

So you say you give them them the productivity improvements first then negotiate for what you think they are worth? What are you going tio do take them back?

 

[2ndGENAMT]

They never saved $500M on a recurring basis. Check your facts.

It is your twisted logic that puts the cart before the horse (pay me first before the efficiencies) that helped put us in BK.

Hey have you heard Bob, the TA passed. Doesn't matter what you think now.

This is what the employees did to management in 2003 and what we just did with the TA.. They get all the money and are unaccountable when they fail to manage the company!!

 

[BoeingBoy]

And what stops both sides from continuing to negotiate after abrogation?

Nothing other than a willingness by BOTH sides to do so. But either side can just say "No". AA, if they abrogate the APA's contract, has every reason to say "No" - they need to know what costs will be for pilots going forward for 5-6 years to put the POR together. The possibility that those costs could change in months is reason enough to refuse to just pick negotiations up where they left off.

If you'll remember, I said early in the bankruptcy that negotiations pending abrogation allow the union to have some say in where the cuts come from. AA was more generous than I thought it would be - pay and benefit proposals better than the original term sheet plus a pretty large chunk of the new stock (possibly worth in the billions). I don't know if APA thought that the deal with Parker gave it an ace in the hole or what, but I suspect that there'll be some recriminations over that LFO vote.

Jim

 

[eolesen]

"Deserve an impasse", what do you mean by that?

Its not a hall pass, its a condition;

Glad you've discovered Wikipedia, Bob. It's still discretionary on the part of the NMB as to when an impasse is declared. To get one, you have to have had real negotiations, with both sides dealing in good faith.

The mediator has no idea what AA can or cant afford.

Yet now there's public record stating what AA can afford. It's detailed in the ruling for abrogation, and backed up by the statements from the UCC.

As for the ICE, (nobody was on ice for several years) well lets look at the pilots.

APA was on ice from No mediated sessions November 2010 thru the filing.
Mediated sessions: Feb 2008 Thru October 2010 (13 weeks of negotiations in 2010). They'd been meeting every other week until 2010, at which point it slowed to every three weeks and then monthly.

APFA was on ice since May 2010 -- there were three days of talks in January 2011, but nothing between May and January, and nothing from January until the bankruptcy filing. They'd been meeting every other week between 2008 and May 2010.

Technically correct that they weren't iced for several years. 18 months for APFA, and 13 months for APA, although arguably when it went to monthly in mid-2010, the message was sent that meeting with AMR and the APA and APFA wasn't worth the mediators' time.

The ruling would have no bearing on the PEB. Lok at the Amtrack ruling, in that case the money losing company had to pay backpay.

Easy to do when it's a quasi-government operation, eh?

As a side note, if you're going to use Amtrak as a case study, learn the correct spelling.... they're TWU represented, right?

 

[Super FLUF]

I don't know if APA thought that the deal with Parker gave it an ace in the hole or what, but I suspect that there'll be some recriminations over that LFO vote.

The LBFO was not turned down over the whole Parker fiasco. Actually, one of the main reasons for rejection was because members thought that the deal with Parker would NOT happen. This deal was being pushed by our advisers, who would never go beyond saying that we had "a chance" or that the deal "may" happen. In effect, they were asking us to vote in a 6-10 year deal for the chance of something that most likely wouldn't happen.

The other top reasons were lack of contract language, duration, the company "re-evaluating" dollar value assigned to our concessions, new C-scale for A-319, cuts that were punitive rather than helping the bottom line, and the belief that we would see little to nothing from the 13.5% claim.

We are now sailing in unknown territory. No other group of airline pilots has had their contract abrogated. There are a slate of unknowns yet to go. Will the judge abrogate in the next hearing? Will APA be able to stave off abrogation through a string of court filings and motions? If so, how long? If the judge does abrogate, what will be implemented? If the company does impose draconian cuts, what will happen to the operation? Does the company want or need a deal with APA? Will negotiations resume shortly and a new deal offered? If so, what will that deal look like? If no deals are offered and the company abrogates, what will happen when Section 6 resumes?

Questions questions. And nobody has the answers. Only speculation.

You are correct in your statement that "recriminations" will happen. The threats are already reigning down. The company just announced yesterday that they will suspend ALL pension payments post-abrogation. But....they said that the money would be kept in escrow should a new deal be forthcoming.

The tea leaves are pretty easy to read on that one. They want a deal, they will offer a deal, and you guys had better take it or we will go medieval on your asses. You made a big mistake on voting the LBFO down so you had better not make the same mistake twice.

This has now become an incredibly high stakes game of chicken. We will see who blinks first.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The LBFO was not turned down over the whole Parker fiasco. Actually, one of the main reasons for rejection was because members thought that the deal with Parker would NOT happen.

That defies logic, in effect walking the high wire without a safety net. It's easier to vote "No" when there's a better offer in your hip pocket.

The other top reasons were ... and the belief that we would see little to nothing from the 13.5% claim.

Another thought that somewhat defies logic, although the details would make a difference. Stock in a company exiting bankruptcy almost always trades higher, at least for a while, since most people and analysts assume that the bankruptcy allowed the company to get it's fiscal house in order. The only way the equity stake would have been worth nothing would be if AMR ended up liquidating instead of coming out of bankruptcy. Even US, after two bankruptcies, has been worth at least 1/6th of the price the outside investors paid per share and for the first year or so was worth as much as double what they paid.

We are now sailing in unknown territory. No other group of airline pilots has had their contract abrogated.

While technically correct - bankruptcy law at the time didn't differentiate between labor contracts and any other contract - the CO pilots had their contract torn up and terms imposed under Lorenzo in the early 80's.

Jim

 

[Hopeful]

It's easier to vote "No" when there's a better offer in your hip pocket.

hey!!!!!!!!! that's what we were told in 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!