which will it be? the ta or term sheet?

[aapitbull]

You haven't been keeping up with the case filings have you? The transcripts of the 1113 hearings are only available by going to the Clerk of the Court's office in person. They'll be available on the AA case docket site in July. Till then you'll just have to believe what you want. Just remember what I said earlier in one of these threads - Judges at the same level don't set precedent for each other, be it District Court Judges or Bankruptcy Judges. Precedent is only set for lower coourts by higher courts - Circuit Appeals Court Judges set precedent for District Court Judges in that Circuit, SCOTUS sets precedence for Circuit Appeals Courts and District Courts - but only when the facts of the case are the same or the upper Court ruling is broad.

Jim

Thats good to hear because i Believe it was the Second Circuit that made the ruling to which we are speaking overturning a ruling made by a lower court that had granted the AFA the right to strike so again it seems precedent is on our side.

I'm Just Saying

 

[BoeingBoy]

So you believe that Judge Lane already stated in open court that he will follow only the Frontier case precedent and will never consider imposing the LBO if we reject it now? In other words his ruling has already been made as overspeed has claimed Really? And you believe that without proof? Really?

If that is true, then wouldn't the TWU already have the quote from the transcript to make that clear to all of us? Instead of some manipualting liar making that claim without any proof?

Now I have to ask you also. What horse do you have in this race?

Just give me the date Judge Lane said this and I will get the transciprt myself. Because I dont believe a damn thing overspeed says.

I have no idea what was said in court and really don't care one way or the other. Having gone through two bankruptcies with US, being retired and unable to be dragged through another is fine with me. Go to NY and sit in a courtroom all day for a case that doesn't affect me one iota? You're dreaming if you think that.

Just pointing out that it's impossible to provide the link to what he said because of the lag in making transcripts available except than by physically going to the courthouse. As I said earlier, you can believe what you want, but calling people liars with no proof doesn't say much for your integrity either. Generally, I tend to believe what others say until they demonstrate that they are intentionally less than truthful - after all, we're all human and can make mistakes.

The TWU, according to some/many here the TWU can't be believed so why would their saying or not saying something prove anything?

And what I said is true - you only need to read the case docket site's header for the transcripts of each days hearing - pay attention to the part where it says available only in the Clerks office till a date in July (I forget the exact day).

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

so again it seems precedent is on our side.

I'm Just Saying

As I've said a couple of times - not necessarily. Only if two cases are virtually identical - otherwise one Judge is free to rule differently no matter what another rules, even if the "other Judge" is SCOTUS. The NWA case centered on whether a strike was possible after contract abrogation/imposition and the precedent is "No, striking isn't permitted." That's the only precedent set. All the words the Appeals Court used to explain that ruling aren't precedent - only the ruling. Though all those words may influence a particular Judge's ruling, they don't bind that Judge to any particular ruling unless it's another case concerning the legality of striking after contract abrogation/imposition.

In other words, the only precedent set by the Appeals Court in the NWA case is that union members can't strike after contract abrogation/imposition - nothing else. And that precedent is only a precedent for the 2nd Circuit, not other Circuits.

Jim

 

[Duke787]

Does anyone know if UAL mechs voted down their "agreement" and went to the judge?

 

[Duke787]

This might be a bit off topic, but why didn't our negotiators just offer up the uniforms (i can't believe we pay for polyester uniforms contract after contract), if I remember correctly from 2003, that would be worth about $150m, and AA wanted to do away with avionics and AA said that would save $150m (i don't remember where i heard that #) that would be $300m right there.

 

[Overspeed]

So you believe that Judge Lane already stated in open court that he will follow only the Frontier case precedent and will never consider imposing the LBO if we reject it now? In other words his ruling has already been made as overspeed has claimed Really? And you believe that without proof? Really?

If that is true, then wouldn't the TWU already have the quote from the transcript to make that clear to all of us? Instead of some manipualting liar making that claim without any proof?

Now I have to ask you also. What horse do you have in this race?

Just give me the date Judge Lane said this and I will get the transciprt myself. Because I dont believe a damn thing overspeed says.

What? You don't believe me? I'm hurt.

First the problem with basing your opinion on articles and law that is five years old is cherry picking and you need to use more current information. Since the Northwest case by Bankruptcy Judge Gropper, other cases have come down, most importantly a District Court decision which is the higher court which reviews Bankruptcy Court decisions. Again,in the Frontier Airlines case in 2009 the Court ruled that “Under the regime established by Section 1113 proposals and supporting proposals made by a party after the rejection hearing has begun may not form the basis for concluding whether the 1113 standard has been satisfied except, perhaps, where the parties expressly agree they may be considered.” The Company’s ask was made before the rejection hearing began; the proposals which became the LBO were made after the hearing began. There was no agreement to consider the LBO and, in fact, AA said its proposals were without prejudice to its position in the Bankrupcty Court. The LBO is not even admissible to decide what level of concessions the Company under 1113 if our contract is rejected. You can spin it whatever way you want, but a later case from a higher court is obviously the controlling authority. Several people who were present in court told me that Judge Lane specifically mentioned Frontier Airlines as the controlling case, but if you want to assume they are liars until proven otherwise, I will post the transcript when it becomes available. In the meantime, if the LBO is rejected and, as is almost inevitable, the contracts of all three unions are then rejected by the Court we will see which one of us is right. But, it doesn’t matter, because if the prehearing “ask” is imposed rather than the LBO, you will blame the TWU for that too.

 

[Overspeed]

Does anyone know if UAL mechs voted down their "agreement" and went to the judge?

Agreed But FAR From Happy About It -- AMFA Ratifies Tentative Agreement with UAL
Backs Against The Wall?
The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) tells ANN that its members working at United Airlines ratified the tentative contract agreement with the company through electronic balloting. Details will be forthcoming.

According to AMFA National Director O.V. Delle-Femine, "Our members accepted this agreement through democratic voting. Our choice was to consent to concessions from the company or risk even worse terms imposed by the bankruptcy judge, who has shown a proclivity to agree to company demands. The bankruptcy laws, the court system and federal agencies like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation are strongly biased in favor of the large airline corporations. Thanks to Congress, these laws show little concern for average workers."

AMFA's craft union represents aircraft maintenance technicians and related support personnel at Alaska Airlines, ATA, Horizon Airlines, Independence Airlines, Mesaba Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.

 

[Duke787]

Agreed But FAR From Happy About It -- AMFA Ratifies Tentative Agreement with UAL
Backs Against The Wall?
The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) tells ANN that its members working at United Airlines ratified the tentative contract agreement with the company through electronic balloting. Details will be forthcoming.

According to AMFA National Director O.V. Delle-Femine, "Our members accepted this agreement through democratic voting. Our choice was to consent to concessions from the company or risk even worse terms imposed by the bankruptcy judge, who has shown a proclivity to agree to company demands. The bankruptcy laws, the court system and federal agencies like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation are strongly biased in favor of the large airline corporations. Thanks to Congress, these laws show little concern for average workers."

AMFA's craft union represents aircraft maintenance technicians and related support personnel at Alaska Airlines, ATA, Horizon Airlines, Independence Airlines, Mesaba Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.

Good info, thank you

 

[Buck]

Yesterday I noticed that now the Pre funding has been changed in the LBO to all parts being returned the the membership.

Your contribution, the company match and all interest?

 

[eolesen]

I'll guess that if the contract is abrogated, any rights to the company's contributions and interest as promised in the Teri Teat letter and in the contract get thrown out. You could try to claw it back later, but I'd say that's a pretty big sweetener for the senior guys...

 

[Mr Red]

They are giving it back because The TWU did one thing right here.Iron clad language that says if company wants to terminate they return match too !!!Don't fool yourself,they weren't being generous.

 

[eolesen]

All the "iron clad" language on scope, etc. in the contract becomes past tense if the contract is abrogated, so what makes you think this remains "iron clad"?...

 

[Buck]

They are giving it back because The TWU did one thing right here.Iron clad language that says if company wants to terminate they return match too !!!Don't fool yourself,they weren't being generous.

I won't fool myself, but be assured the timing is meant for one reason only.

 

[Mr Red]

Its a done deal under sec 1114,judge signs off.