Originally Posted by
gettinbumped
Actually, I didn't miss the point. I was well aware that the contract would have expired on Ch11 exit. But really, as demonstrated by AMR particularly, that means nothing. The contract would have expired, and we would have been bound by the RLA to continue with it until a new one was negotiated. What decade do you think that would have been in? Right now UAX would be flying E190's around for us in numbers we can probably only dream of. Worth the risk of calling that bluff? Dunno. But let's look at ALPA's vs UAL management's track record in court. When was the last suit we actually WON?
bumped,
Wrong, the 1113c "dream sheet" from the company became nothing once the required negotiations went into play. Wedoff could not have ruled on anything other than the "last/best offer" from the company in the required negotiations. Not the original term sheet. In other words, you would have gotten the same contract with a "amendable date" of BK exit. Doesn't mean you'd have a contract today. But, you would have been in section 6 since that date. And, that much closer to release.
This is not interpretation but precedent. The "contract" would have been no worse than the one you have, and would be open for renegotiation once the company exited.
Now, if you want to talk about the merits of "fair and equitable," then in my opinion, Wedoff could have never ruled in the company's favor in an 1113c ruling based on the percentage of concessions being sought from the pilots relative to the other groups. That is of course based upon competant legal counsel.......we had Cohen Weiss and Sh*thead.....same folks TWA had.
Their legal scorecard since the 70's isn't too impressive. For some reason ALPA Nat'l endorses them. They are a labor law firm and never should have been the lead in the BK process.
Frats,
Lee