Summary of Judge Lane's Ruling

[Chuck Schalk]

Chuck is that all you have? Complaining about the Int'l paychecks. They did give good advice granted the legal staff did not foresee that Judge Lane would refuse to abrogate with some kind of guidance. In past airline cases a judge has never given a road map on how to screw a labor group over. Judge Lane validated the Company's arguments that they had the highest labor costs in the industry and we would have gotten hammered in court. The APFA is telling their members if they vote to reject they will most certainly have their agreement abrogated.

The inevitable has only been delayed and if you read Judge Lane's decision on the furloughs for the APA he stated that AA's demand for no caps on RIF's was excessive since the existing APA language allows for up to 2,000 pilot RIFs. The term sheet for the pilots was set at 400 so now AA can go as high 2,000. Is that a win?

You always tell the story in the most negative way. The judge ruled that the pilots were the highest in the industry not the M&R group. the important part of the message is that the judge did not abrogate the contract and that we would have had a chance with our arguements of being the bottom of the industry. But we will never know because of you and our experts. many of said all along the company was over reaching and going to far. i would have liked to have known what the judge thought about it. since he does reference those exact words as well in his decision.
spin it any way you want.....We were played wrong

 

[MCI transplant]

Chuck is that all you have? Complaining about the Int'l paychecks. They did give good advice granted the legal staff did not foresee that Judge Lane would refuse to abrogate with some kind of guidance. In past airline cases a judge has never given a road map on how to screw a labor group over. Judge Lane validated the Company's arguments that they had the highest labor costs in the industry and we would have gotten hammered in court. The APFA is telling their members if they vote to reject they will most certainly have their agreement abrogated.

The inevitable has only been delayed and if you read Judge Lane's decision on the furloughs for the APA he stated that AA's demand for no caps on RIF's was excessive since the existing APA language allows for up to 2,000 pilot RIFs. The term sheet for the pilots was set at 400 so now AA can go as high 2,000. Is that a win?

You're missing the point again overspeed! Hopeful is 100% correct! If the T/A was voted down, more jobs in Tulsa may have been saved!------- Of course that wouldn't make any differance to you! As long as those dues keep coming in, your good with it!!!! -------I can hear it now! "Don't worry boys! We'll get them next time!" -----And next time, you all will be ten years older!!!! ------In the mean time, get your wife a second job!!!

 

[Super FLUF]

the pilots were successful and they were on top of the industry as far as contracts go.

How so? We are paid less hourly than most other airlines, and our work rules are the same or less than most other carriers as well.

Horton didn't want "parity", he wants a 30% cost advantage over other competitors. The judge claims that our compensation was much higher, but didn't spell out how he came to that conclusion. The company has long spouted that the pilots of AA are paid over $400k/yr., lumping in idiotic things like simulator time and hotel stays into our "total compensation". Are we supposed to stay in a cardboard box on a layover? Are we allowed to skip mandatory FAA simulator checks? If so, I would gladly do it.

Use enough slick math, creative accounting, and a total used car salesman of a lawyer and I could prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that the kid peddling lemonade at the end of the block is pulling down $250k/yr.

I doubt the mechanics at AA are making anywhere near what the company is claiming either.

 

[eolesen]

You always tell the story in the most negative way. The judge ruled that the pilots were the highest in the industry not the M&R group.

Chuck, he also said that the 20% cuts across all workgroups were reasonable. I don't think he'd say reasonable in one or two rulings, and not all three...

 

[MCI transplant]

Chuck, he also said that the 20% cuts across all workgroups were reasonable. I don't think he'd say reasonable in one or two rulings, and not all three...

Now we'll never know, now will we?

 

[eolesen]

I'll also never know if driving into a tree will be relatively safe due to the airbags, but I do know I'm not in a hurry to test that out.

 

[Hopeful]

I'll also never know if driving into a tree will be relatively safe due to the airbags, but I do know I'm not in a hurry to test that out.

Maybe you're not, many there were almost 50% of who would take the risk.
I was willing to let the judge decide, well aware of the consequences either way..

 

[Realityck]

Owens - Schalk - Peterson, and all remaining AMFA clones:


All of you are missing the point. The judge was evaluating the term sheet, not the Company’s LBFO to the pilots. All the Company has to do to achieve abrogation is to change its term sheet to match up with its LBFO on these two items. On everything else the term sheet is far worse than the LBFO, and they will be allowed to impose the term sheet. So tell me what have they gained except, possibly, a few weeks? The judge approved of the Company’s business plan and rejected every one of the pilot’s valuation claims. He acknowledged that they will now be near the bottom of the industry, a result which he said is typical in a bankruptcy and gave him no problem. He has allowed huge concessions in scope. This is why the APFA has correctly stated that the judge ruled against the pilots on every significant item.

You keep saying that the judge would have found problems with the tentative agreement and told the Company to improve it. The judge wasn’t looking at the tentative agreement, he was evaluating the term sheet. If he found problems with the term sheet provided to the TWU (which is speculation because he only took issue with pilot specific matters) this decision makes clear he would have temporarily denied the motion and allowed AA to correct the term sheet. Once this happens we would have been exposed to the balance of the term sheet which calls for more lay offs, less pay, less, pension, and more outsourcing. So tell me how more jobs would have been saved if we rejected the LBF.

 

[Hopeful]

I doubt the mechanics at AA are making anywhere near what the company is claiming either.

Funny thing....For a long time we were told that because we still had a defined pension,our TOTAL compensation was above mid to top of industry, again, in terms of TOTAL VALUE. That's what we were repeatedly told.


But now that pension is frozen, we are near or dead last in EVERYTHING!

 

[amt66]

I would love to hear the TWU response to this...Little? Videtich? Gless? Cirri? Hewitt?

Anyone from the TWU heirarchy care to address this?

Their response? I GOT MINE!

 

[Realityck]

APFA Special Hotline - August 15, 2012

Late this afternoon, the Bankruptcy Court issued a blistering indictment of the labor unions on American Airlines' property. The Court summarily rejected all but two arguments the pilots made in the Section 1113 hearing, including convergence - the argument that the company's ask would put the pilots below industry standard. Most of the pilots' arguments were identical to ours.

The Court's decision to reject the Company's motion, as it pertains to the APA, was based on two specific arguments that were unique to the Company's demand of the pilot work group. The Court decided that American did not need unlimited code sharing capabilities to reorganize its business. The second argument pertains to the Company's request for permission to make unlimited furloughs to the pilots. The APA contract, as it stands, limits the number of furloughs American can impose at 2,000. The Company's business plan stated that it needed 400 pilot furloughs in order to reorganize. The Court, therefore, decided that American did not need the ability to furlough an unlimited number of pilots. None of our arguments were equivalent to the two the Court sided with the pilots on.

APFA's legal counsel has stated that if the judge finds against AA's motion to abrogate (as he did in part with today's announcement), he will provide a clear roadmap to remedy any defects. Today's decision contains that roadmap. American says it intends to re-file its motion to abrogate the pilots current contract this Friday.
To reiterate, the remainder of the court's 100+ page decision validated each of American's arguments for its business plan and dismantled each of the unions' cases against it.

In fact, only two APFA arguments remain un-ruled upon by the Court: The first is our convergence argument, which included different evidence than the pilots'. The second is an information-sharing argument whereby we requested term sheets that pertained to non-unionized employees on the property and were not provided with them. The pilots requested other information from the Company that was not shared. The Court was unmoved by the pilots' similar information-sharing argument.

In short, today's ruling postpones the inevitable abrogation of the pilots' contract. Given the fact that most of our arguments have already been dismissed in this ruling, and that our LBFO addresses our arguments that are left outstanding, we do not expect the Court's 1113 ruling to go in our favor - should we vote to reject the LBFO.

It is more clear today than ever before that the best path for our membership is to accept the LBFO and continue to work towards achieving a merger with USAirways. We can now say with certainty that the Section 1113 process will leave flight attendants worse off than the LBFO. There is little doubt that the end result, should we reject, will be 2,000 furloughed flight attendants and many many more on reserve.

The Court's ruling, in it's entirety, is posted on our web site. Please take the time to examine it. Additionally, our professionals have excerpted certain pertinent facts and provided helpful explanations. Those will soon be available on the APFA website as well.

 

[IORFA]

I worded it wrong and meant to Imply that people would think APFA would win as well. I agree with APFA's assessment, the APA will lose in very short order and quite possibly within days from the resubmital on Friday. I disagree with you TWU informer, they already lost. A second grader can read the conclusion and see that they will lose just by making very MINOR tweaks of their proposal. The vast majority of the changes were deemed justified by the judge. Sad as that may be, and I disagree with him. He makes the decisions. Still voting yes. After being forced to dig our grave, why should we also throw the dirt on as well?

 

[FWAAA]

As to the APFA, the real question is whether AA asked for things in the term sheet that are analogous to the two provisions that Judge Lane found to be too aggressive (in AA's words) toward the APA? For all we know, perhaps AA's evidence failed to convince the Judge as to the business necessity for some of AA's fundamental changes it is demanding of the flight attendants. And if AA failed on something it really needs/wants from the FAs, then that failure might not be as easy to fix as the two pilot provisions (which could simply be deleted).

I doubt the judge would rule that AA didn't bargain in good faith or other basic 1113 requirements, but maybe it over-reached on a flight attendant-specific demand.

 

[jason77]

As to the APFA, the real question is whether AA asked for things in the term sheet that are analogous to the two provisions that Judge Lane found to be too aggressive (in AA's words) toward the APA? For all we know, perhaps AA's evidence failed to convince the Judge as to the business necessity for some of AA's fundamental changes it is demanding of the flight attendants. And if AA failed on something it really needs/wants from the FAs, then that failure might not be as easy to fix as the two pilot provisions (which could simply be deleted).

I doubt the judge would rule that AA didn't bargain in good faith or other basic 1113 requirements, but maybe it over-reached on a flight attendant-specific demand.

The judge is alreading saying that the benefit changes the company wants are justified.Now you come to changing the work rules, all the company has to prove is that the other airlines are doing the samething.If you look at the work rules Delta has AA is asking for almost the samething.What else is there for the flight attendants.It might not seem fair but that is the reality we are dealing with.

 

[Veritas]

As to the APFA, the real question is whether AA asked for things in the term sheet that are analogous to the two provisions that Judge Lane found to be too aggressive (in AA's words) toward the APA?

Not according to the APFA:

Late this afternoon, the Bankruptcy Court issued a blistering indictment of the labor unions on American Airlines' property. The Court summarily rejected all but two arguments the pilots made in the Section 1113 hearing, including convergence - the argument that the company's ask would put the pilots below industry standard. Most of the pilots' arguments were identical to ours.

The Court's decision to reject the Company's motion, as it pertains to the APA, was based on two specific arguments that were unique to the Company's demand of the pilot work group. The Court decided that American did not need unlimited code sharing capabilities to reorganize its business. The second argument pertains to the Company's request for permission to make unlimited furloughs to the pilots. The APA contract, as it stands, limits the number of furloughs American can impose at 2,000. The Company's business plan stated that it needed 400 pilot furloughs in order to reorganize. The Court, therefore, decided that American did not need the ability to furlough an unlimited number of pilots. None of our arguments were equivalent to the two the Court sided with the pilots on.

APFA's legal counsel has stated that if the judge finds against AA's motion to abrogate (as he did in part with today's announcement), he will provide a clear roadmap to remedy any defects. Today's decision contains that roadmap. American says it intends to re-file its motion to abrogate the pilots current contract this Friday.

To reiterate, the remainder of the court's 100+ page decision validated each of American's arguments for its business plan and dismantled each of the unions' cases against it.

In fact, only two APFA arguments remain un-ruled upon by the Court: The first is our convergence argument, which included different evidence than the pilots'. The second is an information-sharing argument whereby we requested term sheets that pertained to non-unionized employees on the property and were not provided with them. The pilots requested other information from the Company that was not shared. The Court was unmoved by the pilots' similar information-sharing argument.

In short, today's ruling postpones the inevitable abrogation of the pilots' contract. Given the fact that most of our arguments have already been dismissed in this ruling, and that our LBFO addresses our arguments that are left outstanding, we do not expect the Court's 1113 ruling to go in our favor - should we vote to reject the LBFO.

It is more clear today than ever before that the best path for our membership is to accept the LBFO and continue to work towards achieving a merger with USAirways. We can now say with certainty that the Section 1113 process will leave flight attendants worse off than the LBFO. There is little doubt that the end result, should we reject, will be 2,000 furloughed flight attendants and many many more on reserve.

The Court's ruling, in it's entirety, is posted on our web site. Please take the time to examine it. Additionally, our professionals have excerpted certain pertinent facts and provided helpful explanations. Those will soon be available on the APFA website as well.


AmericanAirlines + US Airways
"Our Future Depends On It"

APFA Headquarters
Tel. 817.540.0108​