Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > American
AA TA - Industry Rate Comparables (DOS+36) >

AA TA - Industry Rate Comparables (DOS+36)

Notices

AA TA - Industry Rate Comparables (DOS+36)

Old 07-04-2012, 09:38 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 611
Default

Originally Posted by cactiboss View Post
You guys are missing the point of this contract, it's a temporary necessity to keep your claim alive and it gives 13.5% of the company. This deal is not designed to do anything else than to get amr ready for the merger.
Designed by AMR to do a deal? Do you think AMR is just posturing in the media to get better terms on a US Airways deal?

For the American pilots and the industry as a whole, I hope you are right.
JonnyKnoxville is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:45 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shiznit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Default

Originally Posted by JonnyKnoxville View Post
Designed by AMR to do a deal? Do you think AMR is just posturing in the media to get better terms on a US Airways deal?

For the American pilots and the industry as a whole, I hope you are right.
The CLA with DUI Dougie is for a 6 year deal also though, right?

That is the dangerous part, IMHO. Long term deals are bad ju-ju.
shiznit is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:55 AM
  #23  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by cactiboss View Post
You guys are missing the point of this contract, it's a temporary necessity to keep your claim alive and it gives 13.5% of the company. This deal is not designed to do anything else than to get amr ready for the merger.
These are assumptions.

First of all, the ratification of this TA arguably makes it MORE likely that AMR will remain in control and exit chapter 11 with their POR intact by giving them labor stability and thus calming the UCC. On the other hand, the best interests of the pilots is for a merger while still IN chapter 11 with Parker's POR. It's also the best bet to get a better deal down the road for all.

The 13.5% settlement claim can (and will) be watered down by multiple methods until it is paid, which will be after exiting bankruptcy. One of those methods will be current AMR management "skimming" it for bonuses or additional stock. The assumption is that rejecting the final offer will automatically remove the pilots from the UCC and this is not certain. Likewise, it's also not certain that exiting chapter 11 without a consensual deal will nullify the 13.5% settlement claim. The likely fact is, that any merger with U will be spearheaded by the non-union members of the UCC and/or the debtor and 3rd party with the unions having as little influence then as they have had so far.

So far, labor's participation on the UCC has not meant squat in moving the other necessary UCC members toward the merge. Thus, placing these two issues as of more importance then sinking the bottom half of the AA seniority list for eternity is misguided IMO.

Still voting NO.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:57 AM
  #24  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by shiznit View Post
The CLA with DUI Dougie is for a 6 year deal also though, right?

That is the dangerous part, IMHO. Long term deals are bad ju-ju.
If the merge occurs under AMR control after exiting chapter 11, the U deal will look great to the U guys as opposed to being brought in under this TA.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:01 AM
  #25  
SDQ Base Chief
 
Flyby1206's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,549
Default

I thought this was a good read, and answered a lot of questions I had about the process:

“Unknown Unknowns”

Based on the large number of SoundOff messages the APA leadership has received in recent days, it’s evident that our members have a variety of questions about the tentative agreement, the impact of“yes” vote on a potential American Airlines-US Airways merger, what happens in the event of a “no” vote, and other issues associated with the TA.

One common thread that has emerged from members’ messages: there is some resistance to the use of terms such as “could,” “might,” “likely” and other qualifiers by APA’s subject-matter experts. Many of you have expressed skepticism about this sort of noncommittal verbiage and have asked why the attorneys and other advisers representing our interests have been qualifying their statements in this manner. The fact is, we really don’t know what may happen in the event of a “no” vote. The legal process we are subject to in Chapter 11 restructuring doesn’t lend itself to predictability, and no pilot union has ever opted for potential contract abrogation versus ratifying a deal on the table. As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously stated, “There are known knowns… There are known unknowns… But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know, we don’t know.”

The situation we find ourselves in contains a large number of unknowns, including those of the “unknown unknowns” variety. If our members vote to ratify the TA, we’ll never know for certain how the judge would have ruled in our case. (That noted, attorneys for APA, APFA and TWU employed similar legal theories in the bankruptcy hearing, so the rulings would likely be consistent for all three.) Conversely, if our members vote against ratification and the judge proceeds to rule in management’s favor, we won’t be able to predict how management will choose to proceed.

In an effort to shed some light on issues associated with the TA, the following questions and answers represent the beginning of a new series of Q&As specifically pertaining to the TA and potential contract abrogation that we’ll be publishing in the coming days in response to messages we’re receiving from members at large. We encourage you to continue sending the APA leadership your questions and views via SoundOff. By doing so, you’ll enable us to continue providing new Q&As that address your information needs. We will post TA Q&As in the “Rumor Control” section of alliedpilots.org and also in the “Tentative Agreement” section, both accessible via the members’ home page.

Q(1): If we vote no on the TA, I’ve heard that after the judge abrogates our contract, he will tell management that the “Last, best final offer” will supersede the original 1113 term sheet for future contract negotiations.

A: The judge doesn’t actually abrogate our current contract. Instead, if he were to rule in favor of management’s motion, he would be granting AMR management the legal authority to reject our collective bargaining agreement.Management would then decide what terms to implement, and they would probably implement their April 19 1113(c) term sheet. The terms of the “last, best final offer,” (LBFO) which represent a significant improvement over the term sheet, will not be taken into consideration by the court. Management’s LBFO is technically a section 408 “settlement offer” and separate from the 1113 process. The judge will not direct management as far as what specific changes to make to our current wages and working conditions once the contract is abrogated. That would be at management’s discretion.

Q(2): If we just vote no on the TA and take our chances with an abrogated contract, we should be able to get a shorter-term deal than the six-year deal duration in the TA, right?

A: In a post-abrogation scenario, management doesn’t create a new contract, they simply impose terms unilaterally. The “duration” of those terms would be until management decides to agree to a new contract with APA. Management would be free to impose pay, work rules and benefits that serve their needs. Once they have imposed below-market labor rates, it is unlikely that management would make significant improvements in pay and work rules that would increase their costs. They will have established a de-facto contract that solves their “cost” problem without having to bother with the collective bargaining process. In that environment, given the current state of the Railway Labor Act, it could be years before we could reach an agreement with management on another TA.

Q(3): Doesn’t management need a contract in place in order to get exit financing?

A: There is no statutory or administrative requirement in the bankruptcy process that states that management must have a contract in place in order to exit bankruptcy. AMR’s cash position has actually improved since their Nov. 29 filing and currently stands at more than $5 billion.As such, there is no need to obtain exit financing as most other carriers had to due to their poor cash position.

Q(4): If we vote yes on the TA, doesn’t that just empower the current management team and lessen the chances for a merger with US Airways?

A: Our advisers and experts have told us that the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee is focused on a resolution to the labor cost issue above all other issues, including merger offers. Until the issue of labor contracts has been settled, consideration given to an offer by US Airways or any other potential suitor is on the back-burner. While it may seem like reverse logic, our advisers believe that the shortest path to a merger with US Airways will be through a ratified agreement with AMR management. This will allow the focus to be shifted from the labor cost issue to the revenue and network issue, which the stand-alone plan fails to address.

Q(5): Isn’t it correct that we’ll be able to strike if our contract is abrogated or at least once we exit bankruptcy? Then we can force management to agree to an industry-leading contract on our terms.

A: In a 2007 decision by the court in Northwest’s bankruptcy, the Second Circuit made it clear that an order from the bankruptcy court authorizing a contract rejection does not in itself give the union the right to launch a strike in response to the carrier imposing new work rules and pay cuts. Upon exit from bankruptcy, with no contract in place, we will again fall under the auspices of the National Mediation Board and Railway Labor Act and begin a new round of negotiations.

Q(6): Isn’t this just a 2003 “bum’s rush” all over again? Why aren’t we following our normal requirements for a ratification vote?

A: Whatever your view of the events of 2003, the key difference is that a federal bankruptcy judge is determining our timetable in the current ratification process. Our members will be voting on the tentative agreement against the backdrop of a broader legal proceeding, which is AMR’s Chapter 11 restructuring. Federal judges have wide discretion and their direction takes precedence over our internal governance policies.

Q(7): Just a few weeks ago 7,500 AA pilots expressed “no confidence” in AMR management. How can we turn around and do a deal with them now?

A: A “yes” vote doesn’t represent an endorsement of AMR management or their stand-alone plan. Instead, a “yes” vote secures better terms of employment versus what we would end up with in a contract abrogation scenario. Despite what some may claim, the two choices we currently face are 1) the TA or 2) the unknowns associated with contract abrogation. The only certainty about contract abrogation is that we would be facing considerable uncertainty with respect to our terms of employment.
Flyby1206 is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:19 AM
  #26  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: A320 F/O
Posts: 38
Default

eaglefly,

Can you enumerate what the top half of the seniority list gets out of Horton's TA? What's the selling point(s) over Parker's CLA?
aquagreen73s is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:36 AM
  #27  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by Flyby1206 View Post
I thought this was a good read, and answered a lot of questions I had about the process:
My advice would be to take what you read with some healthy sketicism. First of all, it must be noted that the APA is REQUIRED by the TA to reccommend membership ratification of the TA, thus they will attempt to "sell" this to the pilots. This "Q & A" is a perfect example of that, if you ask me. It is loaded up itself with truths, untruths and contridictions. For example;

- "we really don't know what may happen in a "no" vote".

Probably the most truthful statement in this little ditty.

- "no pilot union has ever opted for potential contract abrogation vs. ratifying a deal on the table".

Untrue. Hawaiian Airlines pilots did.

- "probably implement the April 19 1113(c) term sheet".

In contridiction to their statement "they really don't know what will happen in a "no" vote", but an indication of bias slanting of the situation to produce the result they are contractually required to do.

- "once they have imposed below-market rates, it is unlikely that management would make significant improvements in pay and work rules that would increase their costs".

Again, implying certainty when none is there in the hope of influencing the vote in the direction they are contractually required to do. The fact is, no airline would likely operate in a satisfactory manner with that type of insability.

- "it could be years before we reach an agreement with management on another TA".

Then no merger could be expected to be completed and most likely their POR would collapse prior to the end of exclusivity. Again though, if one really wanted to instill fear so as to herd pilots into voting a particular way (yes), then this is a great "sales" statement.

- "our advisors and experts have told us that the Unsecured Creditors Committee is focused on a resolution to the labor cost issues above all the others, including merger efforts".

That being the apparent case, then having no collective bargaing agreement in place and only a highly volitile work order in effect would make any further movement of any kind unlikely. This statement contridicts the assumption that AMR would just go on in perpituity making business decisions for "years" as in the above and somehow would convince the creditors, court and investors that that environment would be suitably stable for a strong and viable competitor.

I don't know how you read this "Q & A", but I see things that make little sense and contridict each other and the likely facts of the chapter 11 process. As a result and the fact the APA must now become defacto salesmen for this bag of goods, leads me to place little credibilty in this communique and in fact, the motivations and trustworthiness of many of the APA reps.

You're free to draw your own conclusions, of course.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:39 AM
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Default

Originally Posted by eaglefly View Post
These are assumptions.

First of all, the ratification of this TA arguably makes it MORE likely that AMR will remain in control and exit chapter 11 with their POR intact by giving them labor stability and thus calming the UCC. On the other hand, the best interests of the pilots is for a merger while still IN chapter 11 with Parker's POR. It's also the best bet to get a better deal down the road for all.

The 13.5% settlement claim can (and will) be watered down by multiple methods until it is paid, which will be after exiting bankruptcy. One of those methods will be current AMR management "skimming" it for bonuses or additional stock. The assumption is that rejecting the final offer will automatically remove the pilots from the UCC and this is not certain. Likewise, it's also not certain that exiting chapter 11 without a consensual deal will nullify the 13.5% settlement claim. The likely fact is, that any merger with U will be spearheaded by the non-union members of the UCC and/or the debtor and 3rd party with the unions having as little influence then as they have had so far.

So far, labor's participation on the UCC has not meant squat in moving the other necessary UCC members toward the merge. Thus, placing these two issues as of more importance then sinking the bottom half of the AA seniority list for eternity is misguided IMO.

Still voting NO.
I don't think you are looking at this logically. AMR's plan didn't work with your gutted contract, you think it will work better with less concessions i.e more expensive labor? After this deal labor will be much more expensive than Horton had planned on, making the usair offer even more attractive. Don't get me wrong the 6 year term is bull and I hope the apa get's enough leverage to change that provision.

P.S. we haven't seen Parkers official offer yet butI guarantee you it will blow away Horton's plan by a wide margin
cactiboss is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:43 AM
  #29  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by aquagreen73s View Post
eaglefly,

Can you enumerate what the top half of the seniority list gets out of Horton's TA? What's the selling point(s) over Parker's CLA?
Many of the very senior are just looking the milk out the next 5 years or so. Most of those above the 3000 seniority range will not be flying A319's for regional pay and working conditions, none will be furloughed and all will likely remain captains. Below that, most will likely either end up back to F/O, imprisoned at the Group I and II regional world or outright jobless as several hundred E-jets take over a large portion of the remaining domestic divison of AA as AA begins its big galcier melt under the global warming of One World.

The selling point for those at the top is avoidance of the unknown. The known they can handle as for them, it's not quite as painful. The majority of their pain has already been realized with the pension issue and that will change little whether this TA floats, the U TA bobs to the surface or there is or is not a merger.

The bottom half will be dog-paddling in shark infested waters for perhaps a decade.

Last edited by eaglefly; 07-04-2012 at 11:07 AM.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 11:04 AM
  #30  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by cactiboss View Post
I don't think you are looking at this logically. AMR's plan didn't work with your gutted contract, you think it will work better with less concessions i.e more expensive labor? After this deal labor will be much more expensive than Horton had planned on, making the usair offer even more attractive. Don't get me wrong the 6 year term is bull and I hope the apa get's enough leverage to change that provision.
I think you've been suckered in by the best and seem to be taking a lot of line (Quint would be yelling at me to pour water on the reel). AMR is NOT in bankruptcy NOW because of neccesity, but by CHOICE and for one reason only; to GUT labor (and not just to competitive lavels, but the lowest in the industry). All of us are aware our old "gutted" contract was no longer competitive, but what the TA offers is threat of death at any time in the future to the junior half. What YOU don't understand (and it's not your fault), is this TA is littered with so much ambiguous language, many provisons mean little, aside from the virtual blank check on outsourcing abilities via code-sharing and "commuter flying" (79-seat Etops capable airliners).

Originally Posted by cactiboss View Post
P.S. we haven't seen Parkers official offer yet butI guarantee you it will blow away Horton's plan by a wide margin
Parkers plan won't matter as he'll never get to present it. If the TA is ratified, AMR will maintain control throughout the process and exit stand-alone. THEN, if there is a U merger, it will be a deal between Horton and Parker for THEIR mutual benefit, not mine or yours. IF it's in their best interests, you'll be working under this TA too........well, those of you still employed.

Do you have a no-furlough clause ?

They can whack 10% of us the minute they exit and Horton and Parker make an announcement. Partial mergers/fragmentation ?

Well, let's not go there......too scary. How about if Horton passes up U (or some of it) and goes toward Jet Blue ?

What's that do for you and the USAPA follies in perpituity ?

No, I think the best bet for PILOTS (ALL affected pilots) is Parker getting his foot in the door while AA is still in chapter 11 and us under the U/APA CLA (unfortunately, I think it's already a done deal between them and it will be palatable to both once AA exits stand-alone). Us on the other hand..........well, if the TA is ratified, it will be bad for all.
eaglefly is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
alfaromeo
Major
87
06-21-2012 03:48 AM
Cubdrick
Major
299
05-06-2011 12:08 PM
Low & Slow
Major
18
10-09-2006 10:02 AM
UConnQB14
Hangar Talk
20
05-08-2006 08:54 PM
SkyHigh
Hiring News
0
03-19-2006 08:22 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices