SLI negotiations have broke down
11-14-2008, 07:37 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by NoSoupForYou
That's a nice way of skipping over the fact that LOA 51 was the one in which the Moak MEC agreed, in writing, to the hard freeze of our pensions AND to NOT oppose the complete and total termination of our pensions.
1. Was there any way the pension could have survived if it wasn't frozen?
2. Has there ever been a successful fight against a management in bankruptcy that wanted to terminate a pension?
The negotiators answered both those questions at the roadshow for LOA 51.
If you think they did such a bad job, what did you advocate doing and who did you advocate it too?
11-14-2008, 08:01 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL 7ER F/O
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by slowplay
Two questions:
1. Was there any way the pension could have survived if it wasn't frozen?
2. Has there ever been a successful fight against a management in bankruptcy that wanted to terminate a pension?
The negotiators answered both those questions at the roadshow for LOA 51.
If you think they did such a bad job, what did you advocate doing and who did you advocate it too?
1. Was there any way the pension could have survived if it wasn't frozen?
2. Has there ever been a successful fight against a management in bankruptcy that wanted to terminate a pension?
The negotiators answered both those questions at the roadshow for LOA 51.
If you think they did such a bad job, what did you advocate doing and who did you advocate it too?
My point- as I emphasized quite clearly- was that Reroute dismissed the full depth of concessions under Moak's LOA 51 as "...some other contractual changes..." while making a detailed point of other concessions under Malone's LOA 46. I felt it was important to remind our readers what the "other contractual changes" actually were. I stated quite clearly "I don't envy the Malone or Moak MECs for the battles they had to fight, but I think you were emphasizing the concessions taken under the Malone MEC and glossing over those taken under the Moak MEC." That was the point I felt needed to be made.
As to your questions- great topics for another discussion.
Soup
11-14-2008, 09:04 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by NoSoupForYou
Slow-
My point- as I emphasized quite clearly- was that Reroute dismissed the full depth of concessions under Moak's LOA 51 as "...some other contractual changes..." while making a detailed point of other concessions under Malone's LOA 46. I felt it was important to remind our readers what the "other contractual changes" actually were.
Soup
My point- as I emphasized quite clearly- was that Reroute dismissed the full depth of concessions under Moak's LOA 51 as "...some other contractual changes..." while making a detailed point of other concessions under Malone's LOA 46. I felt it was important to remind our readers what the "other contractual changes" actually were.
Soup
As for the pension, IMO, it was toast, with or without LOA 51. It was hard frozen for what, 2 month? The company never needed our permision to terminate the plan and it should be noted that absent LOA 51, the company never needed to issue us a $650 note, they never needed to change our DC matrix to a flat 9% and they never needed to issue us a $2.1B claim.
In these last rounds of bankruptcies, can you think of any airline labor group that went through the process without negotiating contractual concessions, and if they didn't, any in which the judge didn't ultimately reject the contract and in cases where the judge did reject the contract were any labor groups allowed to exercise self help?
11-15-2008, 05:59 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Taildragger1
As a former Western Pilot I have to chime in here.
We did great in the merger. So did Pan Am.
We did great in the merger. So did Pan Am.
My career expectations? 2 paychecks a week!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
