Originally Posted by
Reroute
I don't think he lives or works in the US.
The RLA is in real need of reform as are our bankruptcy codes, particularly the 1113c.
The RLA has been used in recent years not so much as a method of resolving major disputes, but rather a tool to prolong negotiations for years after a contract amendable date.
The 1113c process in bankruptcy, which was originally intended to prevent arbitrary airline contract rejection by management, has morphed into a tool to reject contracts and then through the RLA prevent strikes after a contract is rejected.
Prior to the 1113c process, management could reject a contract and workers could strike. Today, the 1113c allows management to reject a contract with a minimum of effort and then the RLA kicks in to prevent a strike. In essence, airline employees are stripped of their RLA protections through the 1113c process while management maintains their RLA protections to prevent strikes.
RR,
While I agree in principle with your points on both the RLA and 1113c, can you please post the precedent with regard to 1113c and airline BK's you make your point on. Or even, any 1113c ruling with regards to any industry.
1113c motions have been made, but there have been no rulings on said motions dealing with airlines of any size that I'm aware of. And, you need to remember that 1113e rulings are of temporary nature and open to a far more liberal interpretation by the judge and not germane. In recent past, 1113c motions have been negated by the unions thinking that all the required negotiations under 1113c motions would be voided if they didn't agree. Nothing could be further from the truth. A company's last, best offer should the two parties come to impasse, would not be the original motion and term sheet, but rather their (company's) last negotiated offer to the union. You can read that as.....section 6 begins on day 1 of release of BK. Which strategy is better? Personally, I'll take the same outcome with a no vote and no contract so that the day the company exits BK, I enter into a status of no contract valid under the RLA requiring section six to a period of "x" years under a concessionary contract with the obvious RLA advantage to the company of "amendable" on that day. (RLA should have a definite and finite timeline for the contract negotiating process IMO.)
I could go on and on, but I'll await the precedent..........................
Not trying to be argumentative but rather to suggest more education on section 1113 of the US Code. Your premise on the subject is over simplified and incorrect. The wounds inflicted, other than the BK causing the process, were self inflicted and not warranted by any legal precedent or accepted interpretation of the code.
Now, in the case of UAL, if you're saying that we never would have gotten exit financing without the self inflicted castration for some 7 years of concessions (longer if counting the obvious RLA process), I'm more than willing to entertain that discussion. However, that "strategic" decision has to be evaluated apart from 1113c, IMO.
Frats,
Lee