Originally Posted by
Mesabah
Yes and No, the case would not help us for the RLA in section 6, however, it has to do with the limited powers of a bankruptcy judge. A lot of pilots are under the belief that the bankruptcy process has the ability to strip the contract of all its worth, however, this couldn't be further from the truth.
In short, none of the concessions that have been taken by pilots over the last 10 years should have happened. There has been a coordinated effort to reduce the value of the profession on both sides of the table. My question is why is this happening?
As I am sure you know the Company always places a valuation on a scope sale. As it relates to CH11 they can force a scope sale by giving that valuation legs. If say they are stating, give us 80 seat in a 86 seat jet, with a end result of 76, they state that it saves the Company X by moving debt off the balance sheet, cheaper labor (not just pilots) and a few other cost initiatives. "Giving in this area allows the company the ability to show the creditors X savings from those pilots, and as a result they do not have to take it from somewhere else in the contract.
Many here argue that Scope has never been traded for a monetary gain, but the simple fact is that for every dollar that the company "believes" it is saving by outsourcing they can justify less of a cut somewhere else.
It is a very easy way to get around the case law that you present. With CH11 the company can play innocent sheep with the judge and behind closed doors with the union tell them that unless we get X scope concession we will ask the judge to throw the contract out. Everything you would accuse the company of would be hearsay, as you would have no "proof" and as a result the leverage is not in the Associations favor. Ugly but very plausible when you have the law on your side.
I do think that any pilot group that has to go down this road may not take the same actions this industry did after 9-11.