Until you negotiate a new contract. The judge doesn't impose terms, he would reject your contract meaning you have no contract at all. Management would then be free to impose any terms they desire. In general, that is their last official table position.

 

This is not true. The judge has to approve the terms they desire. A judge looks at the rest of the industry. He is not going to impose an industry worst contract just because the company demands it. The company has to show what other companies pay and prove that the American pilots are getting too much. They aren't. I expect them to lose some work rules, scope, and have their retirement modified. They will come out much better than they would have if they passed that TA. Delta pilots live in fear of the unknown. Alfaromeo's post proves this.

 

The way it has been explained by the unions at AA and AE is that the judge will look to see if the contract gets in the way of the company successfully restructuring and moving forward, if the contracts are deemed detrimental he will abrogate and Management will be free to impose work rules, they have stated they will impose the 1113 term sheet!

"We must now await a ruling by Judge Lane on the pilot contract that will allow the company to implement the changes necessary to move forward with our restructuring." Denise Lynn, SVP - People (HR)

http://www.restructuringamr.com/the-...ns-updates.asp

 

We did.

He is going by the name "Wilson" now.

 

Well it's great to make your decisions in ignorance. Section 1113c is about contract REJECTION. Not changing, not amending, rejecting. A rejected contract means you have no contract. Other judges have in the past restricted the company to either a TA position or the last table position. That is not written into the law it is just what the judges have done. This judge has stated openly that he does not think he has the right to impose conditions after a contract rejection, he may or may not live up to those words. If the contract is rejected, then the courts have ruled that the labor group is covered under Section 2 of the RLA. That deals with a labor group that has a union but doesn't have a contract yet. For example, if the Delta flight attendants voted in a union, they would fall under Section 2 until they negotiated their first contract. Under Section 2, there is no timeline nor any right to strike. That is what happened to the NWA flight attendants until they crawled back to management to try to scrape together some claim from bankruptcy.

So the most likely scenario in this case seems to be a contract rejection on Wednesday. AMR management would likely pick either the TA or the LBFO term sheet and set those as the current working conditions. The judge may or may not order them to stick to those conditions until a new agreement is reached. Those conditions prevail even after bankruptcy is over. The courts have also ruled that under a contract rejection, the labor group is not due an unsecured claim from the court. It is possible that he creditor's committee could move to eliminate the pilots from the committee which would reduce their leverage in the consolidation game. This is what really happens in the real world. In your little forum world you get to spout off nonsense and then never have to live with the consequences of your bloviation.

I don't live in fear of the unknown, but you seem to relish living in ignorance. You make up rules that don't exist and then claim some courage by sticking to those rules. You live in a world that has consequences whether you believe that or not. Sitting behind a keyboard is quite the courageous thing to do. You threaten to quit about every 2 days and go to another airline, but yet here you are, still with the same ignorance and the same self bravado. Profiles in courage.

 

Unhuh.......ever hear of section 1113(b)? What does it say?

 

I believe you are incorrect and Alfa is correct.

The Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code is titled "Rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements" because this code ultimately is the provision through which a company (a "debtor") may seek to reject a Contract.

The judge will most likely reject the contract, that's what the motion calls for and the company will impose terms. Doubt they will be better than offered through negotiations. Airlines labor rarely escapes BK with an industry standard contract.

 

I thought this was an 1113(c) filing not (b).


11 U.S.C. Section 1113
Sec. 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements

Sec. 1113(c): Permanent Contract Rejection
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

 

Then it's the end of American Airlines

 

After talking to some American pilots, I am under the impression they are willing to put the whole company out of business if they are not paid in line with the Delta pilots. This group is really ****ed off. Even that's an understatement.