Originally Posted by
mloub
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.
No, they had not snapped back. The snapback was to happen on 01/01/2007. In 2006, the judge ruled for the company in dismissing the ALPA contract and also granted an injunction to prevent our snapback wages from going into effect.
So as it stood, after Comair entered bankruptcy, the pilot's wages were due to revert to their pre-concession levels.
True. When we entered BK Delta elected to divert our aircraft to other regionals and then used that as evidence that we were too expensive. Similar to a father testifying at his own child abuse trial: "Your honor, my kid is terrible. He always behaves badly. Look at all the bruises he has from me having to punish him!"
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.
Again incorrect. We never got the snapback. The company used the 1113c process to impose substantial pay cuts and workrule changes. The judge refused our snapback in one ruling and rejected our concessionary contract in a different ruling. He allowed the company to impose cuts that were much more severe than our 2005 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.
And he did not consider our 2005 concessions as BK concessions because they were "pre-petition". I could quote several other pages where he goes into the "fairness and equity" of all employees taking cuts during BK.
M.
My replies are in red.
But thank you for taking time to read the ruling.