APA/US MOU question

[Bringupthebird]

Where is DOJ approval referenced as a requirement for MOU implementation? Please quote from the actual document. Thx.

 

[Snapperhead]

It's in here:

https://public.alliedpilots.org/APA/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3Gifdra6YEI=&tabid=1022

 

[Bringupthebird]

Password access only to link. Can you paste the line from the actual MOU?

 

[ALGFLYR]

Where is DOJ approval referenced as a requirement for MOU implementation? Please quote from the actual document. Thx.

The DOJ is not directly referenced in the MOU. However, on page 1 paragraph 3, it says the MOU will begin implementation on the "Effective date" of the POR. The "effective date" cannot happen until the DOJ approves the merger.

While the BK judge has approved the POR, it cannot become "effective" until the DOJ actions are settled. And of course, if the DOJ requires any significant changes, such as divesting DCA slots, the BK judge will have to approve the changes in the POR resulting from said divestitures...

Another way to look at it with reference to the MOU is this:

On page 10 of the MOU, Paragraph 18 (c), it says the MOU will be null and void in its entirety to all parties if the merger is not consummated... That consummation requires the DOJ approval...

 

[Turtle21]

Where is DOJ approval referenced as a requirement for MOU implementation? Please quote from the actual document. Thx.

Prerequisites for effective date. Gotta have all met. Just like SLI.

 

[Bringupthebird]

The DOJ is not directly referenced in the MOU. However, on page 1 paragraph 3, it says the MOU will begin implementation on the "Effective date" of the POR. The "effective date" cannot happen until the DOJ approves the merger.

How did the MOU specifically define the POR date? Why should the pilots read into the MOU something that isn't there? If the black letter reading of the MOU states that the POR is the date the BK judge approves the merger (conditionally or otherwise) then that trigger has been met.

This could drag on forever with folks agreeing to redefine the intent of the MOU.

 

[Turtle21]

How did the MOU specifically define the POR date? Why should the pilots read into the MOU something that isn't there? If the black letter reading of the MOU states that the POR is the date the BK judge approves the merger (conditionally or otherwise) then that trigger has been met.

This could drag on forever with folks agreeing to redefine the intent of the MOU.

The MOU does not define the POR date ...

Quite the contrary.. The effective date of the POR defines the effective date of the MOU... The POR effective date is adopted contractually (and conditionally) into the MOU as the "effective date"... it is an agreement that becomes effective on the effective date of the POR... I don't the think the POR is in effect...Do you?

3. Beginning on the effective date of the POR (the ?Effective Date?),


If you think the POR effective date has come and gone then you should have already turned in your grievance for getting the pay rates and all the other bennies.

 

[ackattacker]

It's not a matter of interpreting the MOU. The MOU becomes effective when the POR becomes effective. You need to look in the actual POR, which you can find here:

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/8590_15463.pdf

1.111 Effective Date means a Business Day on or after the Confirmation Date specified by the Debtors on which the conditions to the effectiveness of the Plan specified in Section 9.2 hereof have been satisfied or otherwise effectively waived, which date shall occur contemporaneously with the Closing Date. The Debtors shall file a notice of the Effective Date with the Bankruptcy Court and with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

9.2 Conditions Precedent to Effective Date. The following are conditions precedent to the Effective Date of the Plan:
(a) The Confirmation Order shall be in full force and effect, and no stay thereof shall be in effect;
(b) All actions, documents, and agreements necessary to implement the Plan shall have been effected or executed;
(c) The Debtors shall have received any authorizations, consents, regulatory approvals, rulings, letters, no-action letters, opinions, or documents that are necessary to implement the Plan and are required by law, regulation, or order;
(d) Each of the New AAG Certificate of Incorporation, the New AAG Bylaws, the Certificate of Designations, the Amended Certificates of Incorporation, the Amended Bylaws, and the New AAG 2013 Incentive Award Plan shall be in full force and effect;
(e) All conditions precedent to consummation of the Merger, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shall have been satisfied or waived in accordance with the Merger Agreement, and the Merger Closing shall occur contemporaneously with the Effective Date;
(f) All of the matters set forth in Section 4.10 of the Merger Agreement and Section 4.1(o) of the American Disclosure Letter, including, without limitation, the Chairman Letter Agreement, shall have been approved by the Bankruptcy Court and shall be in effect;
(g) All of the Debtors’ defined benefit plans shall have been frozen, and the lump sum and installment forms of optional benefit payments for the Debtors’ pilots shall have been eliminated;
(h) The Bankruptcy Court shall have entered an order finding that the aggregate amount of estimated Allowed Single-Dip General Unsecured Claims plus the amount of Disputed Single-Dip General Unsecured Claims utilized for determining the Disputed Claims Reserve to be established pursuant to Section 7.3 hereof shall not exceed $3.2 billion;
(i) The Effective Date shall be no earlier than the sixth (6th) Business Day after entry of the Confirmation Order;
(j) The Debtors shall have filed with the Bankruptcy Court a notice setting forth the proposed Effective Date at least six (6) Business Days in advance of such proposed Effective Date; and
(k) The global certificate(s) representing the New Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock shall have been delivered to The Depository Trust Company pursuant to Section 5.3 hereof.

 

[Bringupthebird]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...an-to-a-Merger-MOU-explainer-January-2013.pdf

USAPA defined the Effective date on Page 6 as, "Upon Bankruptcy Court approval of a Plan of Reorganization to merge US Airways and American Airlines, the merger will begin to be finalized. The date of approval of the Plan of Reorganization will be known as the Effective Date of the merger. On the Effective Date: New compensation, working conditions, and other guidelines outlined by the MTA will go into effect for USAirways pilots."

So I guess I need to file a grievance against what stands in place of a union for distributing false and misleading information prior to the vote on approval of the MOU.

 

[Turtle21]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...an-to-a-Merger-MOU-explainer-January-2013.pdf

USAPA defined the Effective date on Page 6 as, "Upon Bankruptcy Court approval of a Plan of Reorganization to merge US Airways and American Airlines, the merger will begin to be finalized. The date of approval of the Plan of Reorganization will be known as the Effective Date of the merger. On the Effective Date: New compensation, working conditions, and other guidelines outlined by the MTA will go into effect for USAirways pilots."

So I guess I need to file a grievance against what stands in place of a union for distributing false and misleading information prior to the vote on approval of the MOU.

The POR is not really approved. It was a political stunt. What is so hard for you to understand? Gee. Go give more money to Marty, already.

 

[ackattacker]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...an-to-a-Merger-MOU-explainer-January-2013.pdf

USAPA defined the Effective date on Page 6 as, "Upon Bankruptcy Court approval of a Plan of Reorganization to merge US Airways and American Airlines, the merger will begin to be finalized. The date of approval of the Plan of Reorganization will be known as the Effective Date of the merger. On the Effective Date: New compensation, working conditions, and other guidelines outlined by the MTA will go into effect for USAirways pilots."

So I guess I need to file a grievance against what stands in place of a union for distributing false and misleading information prior to the vote on approval of the MOU.

Obviously the glossy flier they put out had some problems. The pay rates they initially published where incorrect also. In their defense, at the time that flier was produced, I believe the POR had not been published so there was no actual definition of "Effective Date" for them to go on. And, if everything had gone according to plan, the difference between date of approval and Effective Date would have been minimal. As it stands with the DOJ lawsuit, they are obviously two very different things.

 

[Carl S.]

Come on, give USAPA a break, they only put out misinformation for the Easties to continue on their LOA93 dreams...

 

[Turtle21]

Come on, give USAPA a break, they only put out misinformation for the Easties to continue on their LOA93 dreams...

Is that an angler's hat in your avitar pic?

 

[Bringupthebird]

The POR is not really approved. It was a political stunt. What is so hard for you to understand? Gee. Go give more money to Marty, already.

I suppose for the gullible East, this is at the lower end of the scale. Just like their pay.
and integrity
and trustworthiness
and work rules
and respect among their industry "peers"
and ability to create value for members
and credibility
and negotiating ability
and safety record
and ...

 

[Turtle21]

I suppose for the gullible East, this is at the lower end of the scale. Just like their pay.
and integrity
and trustworthiness
and work rules
and respect among their industry "peers"
and ability to create value for members
and credibility
and negotiating ability
and safety record
and ...

As long as you are still hating on us I think we are doing just fine.

 

[Metrojet]

How did the MOU specifically define the POR date? Why should the pilots read into the MOU something that isn't there? If the black letter reading of the MOU states that the POR is the date the BK judge approves the merger (conditionally or otherwise) then that trigger has been met.

This could drag on forever with folks agreeing to redefine the intent of the MOU.

Sort of like agreeing to an arbitrator , and then trying to redefine the intent of Alpa merger policy, when clearly the results were not the intent of the policy ( unless you are referring to the UAL / CAL SLI which clearly stated that the provision of not including longevity in the US/AW was not a fair and equitable way of combining a list)

Or I see - you intial post was just a backward way of you throwing another insult to USAPA, as soon as someone tried to get you an answer to your question


Good luck on the proposed future SLI - or lets see how many new hires want to take PHX as a base bid

Metrojet

 

[Tweaker]

Jesus would you clowns stop QUOTING this pro grade clown?

Ignore list only works if you stop feeding the trolls!

 

[Carl S.]

Metro..still think the AWA/AAA list is unfair...that's so 2007...

 

[Metrojet]

Metro..still think the AWA/AAA list is unfair...that's so 2007...

Carl -

You do know there is a time limit on unclaimed lottery tickets in most state laws

Metrojet

 

[Guppiedriver]

( unless you are referring to the UAL / CAL SLI which clearly stated that the provision of not including longevity in the US/AW was not a fair and equitable way of combining a list)


Metrojet

The arbitrators in the UAL/CAL SLI said nothing of the sort. However, they did say this:

The biggest mistake a pilot group can make in thinking about the SLI process or in analyzing an award is to focus on one factor among the many used in building the ISL and use that as the sole determinant in judging the ?fairness? of the outcome of the integration. In the history of SLI cases, we have observed that pilot groups often did just that and stuck to extreme positions and thus effectively had little or no real input in the ISL Board?s work in building a list. When they do that, items that are important to them get lost along with the extreme positions they take on more fundamental issues. We have seen that most recently in America West/US Airways and Delta/Northwest, where the US Airways and Northwest Merger Committees each proposed Date-of-Hire integrations when there simply was no basis in the facts or in Merger Policy for that position. In those cases, the respective arbitration boards each issued awards that were patterned on the America West and Delta Committees? proposals and contained virtually nothing proposed by the other pilot group

 

[labbats]

We have seen that most recently in America West/US Airways and Delta/Northwest, where the US Airways and Northwest Merger Committees each proposed Date-of-Hire integrations when there simply was no basis in the facts or in Merger Policy for that position. In those cases, the respective arbitration boards each issued awards that were patterned on the America West and Delta Committees proposals and contained virtually nothing proposed by the other pilot group

Words to remember for certain.

 

[Turtle21]

We have seen that most recently in America West/US Airways and Delta/Northwest, where the US Airways and Northwest Merger Committees each proposed Date-of-Hire integrations when there simply was no basis in the facts or in Merger Policy for that position. In those cases, the respective arbitration boards each issued awards that were patterned on the America West and Delta Committees proposals and contained virtually nothing proposed by the other pilot group

Words to remember for certain.

"contained virtually nothing proposed by the other pilot group".

What a load of crap. The side that argued against DOH contained nothing proposed by the group that did, and vice versus. The accusation is a red herring to justify what ever they want.

And ALPA sucks!

 

[Guppiedriver]

"contained virtually nothing proposed by the other pilot group".

What a load of crap. The side that argued against DOH contained nothing proposed by the group that did, and vice versus. The accusation is a red herring to justify what ever they want.

And ALPA sucks!

This is exactly why the west class needs its own seat at the SLI table. You knuckleheads will never learn from your mistakes and it is always someone else's fault.

 

[Turtle21]

this is exactly why the west class needs its own seat at the sli table. You knuckleheads will never learn from your mistakes and it is always someone else's fault.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Bringupthebird]

This is exactly why the west class needs its own seat at the SLI table. You knuckleheads will never learn from your mistakes and it is always someone else's fault.

Especially when they extort money from fellow pilots to finance their mistake.

They sad thing is Turtle doesn't even know why he's laughing. Without his briefing from McKee, he's reduced to emoticons.

 

[Turtle21]

Especially when they extort money from fellow pilots to finance their mistake.

They sad thing is Turtle doesn't even know why he's laughing. Without his briefing from McKee, he's reduced to emoticons.

I am grateful to you for making your hatred of union folks personal. It makes it easy for me to know who to vote for. Please elaborate often. :laugh: