Originally Posted by
VenetianFryCook
Now what? Judge rejects the contract. AA imposes the original term sheet, without the pay, scope, and BK claim improvements from the TA. Beyond that is anybody's guess. I really doubt AA will come back to the table.
Not saying this was the wrong vote ... if I were an AA-er, not sure how I would have voted. However, this is definitely the path with more questions than answers ...
I ain't an AA guy. However, why is it always the assumption that the judge will impose the company's original term sheet? 1113c requires that both parties negotiate in good faith and that if the company's "last/best offer" is refused, the judge can take action on the original 1113c motion. If the judge imposes the term sheet, that is retaliatory since the entity in protection has already indicated that it is satisfied with the financial aspects of the TA.
IMO, a judge would be hard pressed to not impose the TA as the court ordered work agreement. While there is no direct precedent on the issue, there are many other examples that can be used to draw an analogy on how the judge should proceed within the guidlines of the US code.
That is my opinion which is worth 2 cents. But, the one good thing that could come from a court imposed work order is that the day the company exits BK, the pilots enter section six negotiations because they have no negotiated CBA under the definitions of the RLA.
Frats,
Lee