Union Leader Defends Tough Stance

[Rico]

I do not have the info, that is why I am asking, but...

I have been around enough to have seen this occur at a few non-union workplaces that phased out a fleet type. But what I want to know is if a 1113e could be that open ended to where an out of senority furlough could be base specific.

I do not agree with USA320 that the company would close a base just out of spite, but if PIT flying is drawn down suddenly, and the Company has obtained judicial permission to furlough out of senority... Then why is that so far fetched a question to ask...? There are people (lawyers) that have posted on here that do know these things (or send the info in a PM to avoid the hotheads).

IMO I am furloughed either way, I just want to get an idea of what is coming.

 

[UseYourHead]

PitBull,

They are cowards with severe conflicts of interest along with lawsuits. They will do nothing to hurt the lawsuit.

As always, they are looking to blame someone else for what is coming...the sad thing is that the pilots will get hosed because of these cowards.

It is really a sad deal indeed.

God Bless Freshwater and the PHL reps for their integrity, resiliance, persistance to ensure that this managment negotiates concensual agreements and in "good faith" and that just presenting "anything" will not fly.

All groups will reach this point, hopefully, ALPA's hard stance position will lessen the burden for other union leaders in these negotiations in THEIR attempts to secure better deals for their people.

[post="178500"][/post]​

 

[Dea Certe]

These pilots were charged by the membership they represent to hold the line. The pilots want a vote on their future working conditions. I don't think that's too much to ask. If it were AFA, I would demand a vote, even if it was a POS.

I honestly believe whether there's a vote or not, US Airways has BK on the front burner. Any vote is most likely a futile exercise at this point in time.

Don't blame the pilots. Whatever happens is preordained, as I see it.

Dea

 

[usfliboi]

You could stir, but thats all u would do in CLT. I think its safe to say no chance of be elected here down under in the south .

 

[lindy]

Can't wait...stir up some grief in a new base....

[post="178801"][/post]​

Nice to know you finally made it clear as to what your intent has been since day one. Your professed "caring" about your fellow flight attendants is overshadowed by wanting to "stir the pot" for your own narcissistic motives.

BTW, keep telling everyone you know who I am. As I said several times before, I pity the poor individual who has to endure your wrath because you think that individual is me.

Lindy

 

[USA320Pilot]

Rico:

Rico said: "I do not agree with USA320 that the company would close a base just out of spite."

USA320Pilot comments: I never said that. What I said is that US Airways could seek to furlough employees out of seniority.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[PITbull]

Nice to know you finally made it clear as to what your intent has been since day one. Your professed "caring" about your fellow flight attendants is overshadowed by wanting to "stir the pot" for your own narcissistic motives.

BTW, keep telling everyone you know who I am. As I said several times before, I pity the poor individual who has to endure your wrath because you think that individual is me.

Lindy

[post="178826"][/post]​

Actually Ms. Lindy,

I'm coming in your Dept as your manager.......so just wait....

 

[mwereplanes]

And there COULD be a "unique corporate transaction."

And we COULD file for C7.

And we COULD sell all the 320's.

And we COULD put MDA pilots in the cockpits of the 767's.

But 1852 pilots, represented by the 4 brave men we elected, have not allowed yet another wholesale giveback without bringing the needed attention to the MORONS running this company. It is amazing how the bedwetters forget who the MORONS are. The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well.

mr

 

[700UW]

I have not wanted to post this, but since you know who thinks the bankruptcy court is in the time frame pre-lorenzo and a judge will just do anything the company wants:

District 141 M. brought our bankruptcy attorney Sharon Levine of Lowenstein Sandler PC to explain.

Levine started her presentation with an overview of bankruptcy. The main goal of bankruptcy is to relieve a debtor of debts, thereby providing an opportunity for a fresh start. Bankruptcy also benefits creditors by providing a forum for an orderly liquidation of a debtor’s estate or a judicially scrutinized plan for full or partial repayment of creditor, and protecting unsecured creditors from preferential or fraudulent transfers of the debtor’s property and requiring adequate protection of secured creditor’s collateral.

There are two types of filling, Chapter 7, Liquidation and Chapter 11, Reorganization.

Levine continued, explaining the two types, but described Chapter 11 filings in depth. She explained the process and enlightened the attendees on all aspects of a chapter 11 filing. One thing that has stuck out in the US Airways members was a term called Fraudulent Conveyance.

Fraudulent Conveyance: A transfer of the debtor’s property is fraudulent if, made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. (Note that sometimes the debtor’s actual intent maybe inferred circumstantially by certain “badges of fraud.†Alternatively, a debtor receives less than the reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent because of it or had “unreasonably small capital†remaining after the transfer for its business operations or intends to incur debts that it will be unable to repay as they mature. Many of the US Airways members asked hard-hitting questions about this as US Airways sold off airplanes and parts for less then fair market value not too long ago.

Levine also went over all the procedures and steps in the bankruptcy codes. One item she covered in depth is the 1113 letter, which refers to the section of code that ensures that a company negotiates with the union before they seek abrogation of the labor agreement. When a company seeks protection, the agreement remains in effect. When a union negotiates an 1113 letter it secures an agreement with the company showing that the company will not seek further cuts from labor. To this date, no company that has had an 1113 letter negotiated has ever asked the court to abrogate it.

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

 

[ua767fo]

have not allowed yet another wholesale giveback without bringing the needed attention to the MORONS running this company. It is amazing how the bedwetters forget who the MORONS are. The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well.

mr

[post="178840"][/post]​

MR, your right. I would further classify the MORONS who ran the company, and ran with their golden parachutes as THEIVES. Yet, so many sympathize with their captors.

DENVER, CO

 

[fatburger]

The RC4 represent the majority and are hardly morons. They are brave and are fighting a courageous fight to save our profession. Unlike some other spineless group who are willing to sell their soul for their own little seniority number. Truth hurts!

-fatburger-

 

[USA320Pilot]

FAtburger:

The RC4 did not represnt the majority of the pilot's at Friday's MEC meeting.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[PITbull]

FAtburger:

The RC4 did not represnt the majority of the pilot's at Friday's MEC meeting.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="178859"][/post]​

USA320,

If you were going by the pilots in the room, you can't with certainty make that comment. There was close to 150. Unless you polled everyone in the room, you don't know what the majority's position is.

 

[700UW]

FAtburger:

The RC4 did not represnt the majority of the pilot's at Friday's MEC meeting.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="178859"][/post]​

Funny, your post is all fiction and here is the proof to show you!

Pilots show support for negotiator
By Steve Halvonik
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, September 11, 2004

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_250137.html

 

[UseYourHead]

PitBull,

The RC4 do not represent the majority in anyway...the majority of angry/irrational pilots yes...that is about 17% even in their base.

Their day is coming, the pilots will rise-up and take care of this issue. The sad fact is that they are about to learn a painful lesson, which will be the catlyst to get them active in taking back the union.

These cycles repeat over and over, the majority of sane pilots will have their day.

USA320,

If you were going by the pilots in the room, you can't with certainty make that comment. There was close to 150. Unless you polled everyone in the room, you don't know what the majority's position is.

[post="178862"][/post]​