Originally Posted by
Mesabah
Study the Mesaba bankruptcy and its 1113(c) process. We had our contract thrown out and an injunction filed against us for striking. The company was asking for a 39% pay cut as well as scope relief to allow its other carrier to operate greater than 19 seat aircraft at Big Sky. The judge abrogated our contract, however, he left the scope contract in place; Since he did not have the authority to throw that section out.
You've got some things mixed up here. The judge never issued an injunction against a strike at Mesaba. That precedent didn't happen until later against the NWA flight attendants. The judge in the Mesaba case balked at making a ruling on that issue.
As far as the scope, you're misinterpreting the ruling. As you know, the Mesaba contract had a separate Holding Company Letter, which bound MAIR Holdings to the scope language in the Mesaba contract. MAIR never went into bankruptcy. Only its wholly owned subsidiary, Mesaba Aviation, went into bankruptcy. Therefore, the judge ruled that the Mesaba contract could be abrogated, but the Holding Company Letter, and therefore your scope, could not be, because that agreement was with MAIR, and MAIR was not in bankruptcy. The ruling had absolutely nothing to do with whether scope is off the table for concessions in bankruptcy. To the contrary, it seems pretty clear under current law that everything in a contract is subject to abrogation in an 1113(c) situation. Assuming that scope is safe is a very dangerous assumption.