TERM SHEET DURATION........

[Birdman]

There will be no six year contract imposed.
The original post says DOS,
No one is signing anything in the case of an abrogated contract.
On the other hand the contract imposed can be longer than that or as long as it takes the parties to SIGN a new one.

And where does it say it in Section 1113 C and in the motion the company filed?
You are posting things that are just not true.

AMERICAN AIRLINES 1113© PROPOSAL TO
THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
RE: MECHANICS & RELATED
March 22, 2012
TERM SHEET

I DURATION
Modify Article 47 to provide duration of six (6) years from date of signing
• (DOS).

What is not true about the Duration on the March 22,2012 term sheet? Will you next claim that the judges decision date becomes the DOS?

 

[Mr Red]

AMERICAN AIRLINES 1113© PROPOSAL TO
THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
RE: MECHANICS & RELATED
March 22, 2012
TERM SHEET

I DURATION
Modify Article 47 to provide duration of six (6) years from date of signing
• (DOS).

What is not true about the Duration on the March 22,2012 term sheet? Will you next claim that the judges decision date becomes the DOS?

They could have put 2 yrs or 20 yrs doesn't mean anything unless we agree to it!!

 

[Buck]

They could have put 2 yrs or 20 yrs doesn't mean anything unless we agree to it!!

Or Jim Little signs off without further ratification.

 

[AA89]

He wouldn't do that Buck. I saw him at the rally outside the Bankruptcy court and he was reallllly angry.

Hiss Hiss

 

[700UW]

So you are saying the court doesnt have the right to impose terms?

Better go read section 1113 c and it has happened at NW, you will see if and when it happens, the court will impose the terms and that is what you will work under, unless you quit.

 

[Overspeed]

They could have put 2 yrs or 20 yrs doesn't mean anything unless we agree to it!!

That's the point, you don't have to agree. The modifications become status quo once the motion to abrogate is made by the judge. We lost a control when AA filed the motion, you just don't get it. We are not in section six negotiations and if it is rejected, no CBA exists. Hopefully we made a good argument in court to bring AA's values in doubt so the judge will push on AA. I believe that is why a judge has been called in to assist.

 

[Mr Red]

So you are saying the court doesnt have the right to impose terms?

Better go read section 1113 c and it has happened at NW, you will see if and when it happens, the court will impose the terms and that is what you will work under, unless you quit.

Thats why we are stil negotiating,because we voted NO.Maybe they need to liquidate.
This company is a disgrace.Basically frauds.600 a/c on order,5 bil in bank and growing and managment bonus year after year
UN f-in believable VOTE NO

 

[BoeingBoy]

Where is my mistake? Thats what I said, that you were confusing what happened to you under 1113e with what AA filed an 1113c when Hopeful was citing you saying that if our agreement gets abrogated that the company could impose a 6 year term on us.

US filed 1113e for all the unions, pending a ratification vote by the pilots on their concessionary agreement. US also file 1113c for the IAM, which the Judge approved but allowed a ratification vote on the agreement reached the night prior to the Judge's ruling. So that's where you're wrong - there was an 1113c motion and ruling for the IAM contract.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Jim,

I wouldnt call it an agreement, it was their final offer just tweaked slightly.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Technically, once ratified it became an agreement no matter how you got there - both side agreed on it.

Jim

 

[aapitbull]

Jim,

I wouldnt call it an agreement, it was their final offer just tweaked slightly.

So if the Judge was going to give the company exactly what they wanted with the 1113 filing, why then would they tweak it and put it to a vote at the final hour? Answer, because the Judge & company knows they cannot close the BK without a consenual agreement because once they do the contract reverts back to the NMB and they will have sole jurisdiction as to whether there is are is not a contract and based on the fact that we will be working for terms and conditions we did not agree to there is no guarantee what would happen they could start a 30 day cooling off period right then and there. One thing is for sure they would not be guaranteed a six year deal.

My local asked a well respected BK firm and this is how they saw it. Not how I saw it

 

[700UW]

Then how did NW exit chapter 11 with imposed terms on the AFA?

Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[TWU informer]

Then how did NW exit chapter 11 with imposed terms on the AFA?

Dont let the facts get in your way.

Because AFA was given a claim in the BK Court.

 

[Flying low]

He wouldn't do that Buck. I saw him at the rally outside the Bankruptcy court and he was reallllly angry.

Hiss Hiss

Thanks for the laugh, you made my day!!!

 

[FWAAA]

Then how did NW exit chapter 11 with imposed terms on the AFA?

Dont let the facts get in your way.

Two days before NW emerged from Ch 11 the FAs ratified another TA.

Because AFA was given a claim in the BK Court.

Yes, the NW FAs ratified their TA in exchange for an unsecured claim of $182 million which worked out to about $15,000 per FA:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/30/idUSN2937040920070530

The wage pact allows attendants for the fifth-largest U.S. airline to file a $182 million bankruptcy claim for some of the lost compensation, equal to about $15,000 per worker based on the expected payout ratio, Wisbacher said. A federal bankruptcy judge ruled last month that the attendants weren't entitled to claims unless they ratified a new collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a07FkG9f4GOY&refer=home