Boomer,
Just to clarify, pg 15.
"When Comair and ALPA negotiated the February 2005 pre-petition concession LOA Comair undertook to increase its fleet of aircraft as a condition of maintaining the cost concessions. Its inability to do so will result in the January 1 $8 million snapback."
The judge here is referring to the fact that the pilot's concessions were contingent on Comair increasing it's fleet, which comair was unable to do. As a result, the pilot's wages snapped back to what they were initially. So as it stood, after Comair entered bankruptcy, the pilot's wages were due to revert to their pre-concession levels. This is what the judge meant by the fact that pilots were the only employee group who had not contributed wage concessions to the reorganization. As of the time of the judge's ruling, the pilots' wages were set at the level they were before concessions.
If anything, this section of the ruling that you highlighted shows that bankruptcy judges closely examine which employee groups have made concessions and take that into account when imposing further concessions.
M.