Ted Reed says AA can avoid a strike by TWU

[eolesen]

According to what I've read, the failure bonuses given "key" personnel will not happen unless they have received a viable job offer from outside the filing company, at which time the BK judge will decide if the "key" person hoping to receive the failure bonus is actually needed for the company's recovery. The judge has the power to tell the "key" person to take the other job and not to let the door hit him/her in the ass on the way out. This is as it should be - far too much executive garbage has enriched itself in this manner.

I'll believe your "don't let the door hit you in the arse" version when I actually see it happen, Goose... The court's primary responsibility is to make sure the company restructures.

You say "None of the changes would prevent even the most control obsessed management team from filing for bankruptcy." OK - then why hasn't it been business as usual?

Uh, because bankruptcy is still considered a matter of last resort?... I'm sure there were some who used it to do what they couldn't do at the table, but the negative effects of that afterward are pretty damaging. Ask anyone who goes thru a foreclosure what interest rate they're able to get on their next house, and what the down payment is... Bankruptcy isn't any different.

Sure, they got cheap labor, but UA is paying a hefty premium for interest vs. what AA and CO are currently paying. TW got to slash a lot of debt and wages in their two bankruptcies, but they wound up paying at least 15-20% more for aircraft rents afterward.

Why, then, the "under the wire" filing for both DL and NW? It was rather evident there was colusion between the two, but the courts couldn't do anything about it - I believe now they can.

BTSOM. Why do some people file their taxes in January, and others file an extension when they're due a refund?.... Some people procrastinate. Maybe the lawyers wanted to stay within their comfort zone and use the rule book that had lots of case law on their side already, and not be trial-blazers.

It's rather evident by the actions of the companies in question there's much more to the new law than you're willing to talk about. Considering the present downturn and the lack of limits re: Chapter 11 filing frequency (companies could file weekly the way the law is written assuming a filing could be cleared in that one week timespan) and the lack of a "need" test to file, it is obvious what would happen to a company filing for strategic purposes as was such a common occurance in the past.

The only thing evident by the new law not being tested is that the majors haven't reached the point of insolvency yet....

Take a look at http://www.airlines.org/economics/specialtopics/USAirlineBankruptcies.htm

Overall, the rate of airline bankruptcies isn't trending much differently before and after the reform act.

Over time, it's averaged about 4 per year, a lot of them being startups who failed, and a few being legacy carriers who failed.

There have been 16 Chapter 11 filings by airlines since 2005.

There were only 12 between 9/11/01 and 9/15/2005, seven in 2000 as the tech bubble burst, and 12 during 1995 and 1999, and 23 between 1991 and 1994 during that recession....

Given the current recession, we're overdue for some filings. But, as I said, it's still considered a measure of last resort.

 

[The Goose]

We shall see, Mr E - we shall see ...

For some, the heads of Arpey, minions, the BOD and $.25 in coin wouldn't be enough to negate seven years of the lies.

 

[eolesen]

I agree -- even if there were a total change-over on the board and the Sixth Floor, that still wouldn't be enough for some people to consider the slate having been cleaned.

And therein lies the problem with labor relations at AMR....

 

[Birdman]

Question. If the TWU went on strike, could the compAAny legally fire anyone they chose and outsource?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Question. If the TWU went on strike, could the compAAny legally fire anyone they chose and outsource?

When the cooling off period ends, the company as well as the union is entitled to self help. I don't know if the company can technically "fire" a striking worker but that worker can be replaced or the job outsourced as part of the company's self help. So it's possible that difference between whether one is fired or just doesn't have a job doesn't really matter.

Jim

 

[The Goose]

Question. If the TWU went on strike, could the compAAny legally fire anyone they chose and outsource?

Think Ronnie Rayguns (the Drugstore Truck-Drivin' man) and the ATC union, PATCO, of the 1980s.

It is against federal law to fire any striking worker, but that worker can legally be permanently replaced. The simple fact this has never been addressed at any time when the Democrats had a majority in Congress should tell you whose side a Democratic politician is really on.

As Boeing Boy said, it really doesn't make a helluva lot of difference as that person is unemployed regardless.

 

[Birdman]

I seem to recall at NW that AMFA refused to accept the company's terms as imposed by the newly installed company contract. So, at the end of the cooling off period, the compAAny could impose a contract giving one workgroup a raise while outsourcing the other(s) as dictated by an imposed contract?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Treatment of employee contracts is somewhat different in bankruptcy than in normal negotiations. The shorthand version - In bankruptcy, the company just has to convince the judge that what the company wants is necessary for the successful reorganization of the company. What the company asks for doesn't have to be as good as what was offered at the negotiating table if the judge can be convinced that the "ask" is necessary.

In normal negotiations, the company is free to impose it's last offer - it can't just make up a new offer and have a judge impose it. There could be a case make that if the company's last offer was measurably worse than previous offers it would be evidence of not negotiating in good faith.

Jim

 

[frontline]

I think we will avoid a strike, even if the NMB gives us a release. In my very unscientific poll of people I regularly talk to, it's about 2 to 1 against. Maybe we old guys just don't want to flip the apple cart within a few years of retirement and pension.

 

[Tex-Mech]

I think we will avoid a strike, even if the NMB gives us a release. In my very unscientific poll of people I regularly talk to, it's about 2 to 1 against. Maybe we old guys just don't want to flip the apple cart within a few years of retirement and pension.

So what you're saying that by a 2 to 1 margin, the people you talk to are happy with the companies offer. Or are you one of those types that expect the union to negotiate a better deal while you brag on a public forum that you're lining up people to scab. You can't have it both ways, either you're willing to fight, or you accept what they are offering. Maybe you old guys should be concerned with the future generation of mechanics, or is it all about you?

 

[Boomer]

Think Ronnie Rayguns (the Drugstore Truck-Drivin' man) and the ATC union, PATCO, of the 1980s.

It is against federal law to fire any striking worker, but that worker can legally be permanently replaced. The simple fact this has never been addressed at any time when the Democrats had a majority in Congress should tell you whose side a Democratic politician is really on.

As Boeing Boy said, it really doesn't make a helluva lot of difference as that person is unemployed regardless.

Actually, Ronald Regan was entirely correct in firing the PATCO ATC Union Members in that Federal Workers are, and have always been, legally prevented from engaging in self-help even though Unionized. Regan gave the union members time to return to work, in accordance with their contractual obligation and their legal duty, after which they were considered as employees that quit without notification.

As far as the Ronnie Rayguns comment, we all see that BMD, Ballistic Missile Defense, systems are fielded and considered part and parcel of National Defense.

At AA, after the release to the thirty day countdown, AA can impose a contract and the TWU can begin self-help. In the case of the TWU; IMHO, the CHAOS scheme provides the most bang for the buck.

IMHO, I believe we are headed for self-help because the TWU cannot take binding arbitration due to the fact that they never asked for enough during negotiations. AA has already stated that they would prefer Arbitration because they always lowballed the economics of the contract. The TWU has to get to a PEB, which AA will stall, meaning that we have to go through the thirty day cooling period and rejection of arbitration so that we can get to self-help and the imposition of a PEB.

The question remains as to what we will get from a PEB, and the potential of Congressional Intervention, when the current Administration is looking at huge losses in their Legislative Majority due to issues like Health Care: when will the NMB release the parties to the thirty day countdown and where is that date relative to the 2010 Election Cycle?

How many Congressional Incumbents are willing to throw themselves on the Union Pyre given the upheaval over approval ratings from health-care?

Given the number of Congressional Office holders announcing a refusal to run for re-election and the ability of the silent majority to hold the middle ground: I would say that the votes cannot be counted. Too many members of Congress have declared they will not run for re-election, but will still cast votes between now and the period of the swearing in of the prospective office holder. Too many office holders are from districts from which they cannot be dislodged.

On the AA side, they already have the Union agreeing to contractual language requiring each TWU member participate in the "working together" programs that many TWU Union Leaders recognize as working against the union. The company already has the ability to shortcut the RLA status-quo through the BK Courts in the case of the NWA FA's. The company already has the ability to reject secured creditors through the BK courts as was done by UAL. They already have the majority of overhaul under direct control at rates of pay for the entirety of their maintenance operation that is among the lowest for all 121 Air Carriers in the US. They already have the outlines of a virtual airline domestically and internationally with deals between JBLU and BA. How badly do they want to close the deal leading to massive PUP Payments?