OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
UAL_Tech:
Friday’s testimony featured Seabury Group CEO John Luth who was a very strong company witness. Luth seemed to cement the company’s case under oath discussing US Airways’ financing, EETC issues, the recent GE agreement, and the ATSB requirements.
In fact, Luth told the court about one meeting he and Lakefield (and others) had with the head of GECAS, and that this individual reported directly to Jeff Imelt, GE CEO. The implication was simple: GE’s top officer and chief executive was monitoring US Airways’ formal reorganization and this is “big time†where the creditors are calling the shots. Do I like this? No, of course not, but the testimony supports everything ALPA’s advisors told the MEC during “open†and “closed†session.
Luth was the last company witness and then the company rested its case.
Then the IAM attorney’s began to present their case basically stating the company was overreaching, but the IAM’s legal team was tripped up during cross examination.
The IAM put IAM negotiator Joseph Adinolfi on the witness stand and he said the union offered to present the company’s proposal to the rank-and-file for membership ratification and then he said the company said to not send it out. However, during cross examination Adinolfi provided the rest of the story when he acknowledged the reason the company did not want it sent it out was the company said there was still negotiating room from the opener.
Under cross examination he was asked if the union had provided a counter proposal. He confirmed that no, they had not.
What is interesting is that the IAM has indicated the company was negotiating in bad faith, but all the IAM has done is state that the “concession stand is closed†and then incredibly on Friday was forced to admit that they have never, not once, provided the company with a counterproposal or offer. The courtroom was silent and you could hear a pin drop when after nearly one year of trying to negotiate with the IAM, the union has not given the company one, not one offer.
Why? The IAM has no intent on reaching an agreement and US Airways members will be sacrificed because the survival of the union is more important than the members. In fact, the company’s attorney asked him if the IAM planned on providing one. Adinolfi said yes, and when asked when it would be forthcoming he said next week, just a few days before the S.1113© hearings end.
Another words, the IAM told the court they will give the company their first proposal just before the hearings end. Does that seem a little strange or maybe bad faith on the union’s part?
With all that said, it appears the company is going to give the IAM a way out of this mess with one last chance to cut a deal before likely “impositionâ€. Adinolfi noted he was "shocked" by the company's comment in-court that management had developed an alternate plan that would cut fewer IAM jobs. Adinolfi said the union hadn't seen that alternative plan, but that he would like to meet with the management on Monday to discuss the new concept.
UAL_Tech, the IAM has backed them self into a corner because of their fear of AMFA. The IAM knows it would be political suicide to cut a deal that cuts its membership, thus they have let other negotiators know they prefer "imposition". In fact, even the Tribune-Review got it right when the noted the company attorney asked Adimolfy if the union was “reluctant to negotiate with US Airways†because the union had been decertified at United Airlines after negotiating an agreement that permitted outsourcing of heavy maintenance and work force reductions. "We are not concerned" about being kicked out at US Airways, Adimolfy said.
UAL_Tech, guess what…that is the whole problem, but the company has provided the IAM with a window of opportunity to save itself with their alternative proposal. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Friday’s testimony featured Seabury Group CEO John Luth who was a very strong company witness. Luth seemed to cement the company’s case under oath discussing US Airways’ financing, EETC issues, the recent GE agreement, and the ATSB requirements.
In fact, Luth told the court about one meeting he and Lakefield (and others) had with the head of GECAS, and that this individual reported directly to Jeff Imelt, GE CEO. The implication was simple: GE’s top officer and chief executive was monitoring US Airways’ formal reorganization and this is “big time†where the creditors are calling the shots. Do I like this? No, of course not, but the testimony supports everything ALPA’s advisors told the MEC during “open†and “closed†session.
Luth was the last company witness and then the company rested its case.
Then the IAM attorney’s began to present their case basically stating the company was overreaching, but the IAM’s legal team was tripped up during cross examination.
The IAM put IAM negotiator Joseph Adinolfi on the witness stand and he said the union offered to present the company’s proposal to the rank-and-file for membership ratification and then he said the company said to not send it out. However, during cross examination Adinolfi provided the rest of the story when he acknowledged the reason the company did not want it sent it out was the company said there was still negotiating room from the opener.
Under cross examination he was asked if the union had provided a counter proposal. He confirmed that no, they had not.
What is interesting is that the IAM has indicated the company was negotiating in bad faith, but all the IAM has done is state that the “concession stand is closed†and then incredibly on Friday was forced to admit that they have never, not once, provided the company with a counterproposal or offer. The courtroom was silent and you could hear a pin drop when after nearly one year of trying to negotiate with the IAM, the union has not given the company one, not one offer.
Why? The IAM has no intent on reaching an agreement and US Airways members will be sacrificed because the survival of the union is more important than the members. In fact, the company’s attorney asked him if the IAM planned on providing one. Adinolfi said yes, and when asked when it would be forthcoming he said next week, just a few days before the S.1113© hearings end.
Another words, the IAM told the court they will give the company their first proposal just before the hearings end. Does that seem a little strange or maybe bad faith on the union’s part?
With all that said, it appears the company is going to give the IAM a way out of this mess with one last chance to cut a deal before likely “impositionâ€. Adinolfi noted he was "shocked" by the company's comment in-court that management had developed an alternate plan that would cut fewer IAM jobs. Adinolfi said the union hadn't seen that alternative plan, but that he would like to meet with the management on Monday to discuss the new concept.
UAL_Tech, the IAM has backed them self into a corner because of their fear of AMFA. The IAM knows it would be political suicide to cut a deal that cuts its membership, thus they have let other negotiators know they prefer "imposition". In fact, even the Tribune-Review got it right when the noted the company attorney asked Adimolfy if the union was “reluctant to negotiate with US Airways†because the union had been decertified at United Airlines after negotiating an agreement that permitted outsourcing of heavy maintenance and work force reductions. "We are not concerned" about being kicked out at US Airways, Adimolfy said.
UAL_Tech, guess what…that is the whole problem, but the company has provided the IAM with a window of opportunity to save itself with their alternative proposal. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
