Breaking.... Aa pilots reject ta 61 to 39

[aa73]

BRAVO AA Pilots for holding the line!!

Fight's On!

73
NO Voter

 

[Always deferred]

AA73,

Just out of curiosity, how does voting "no" help your cause right now? Aside from the emotional feeling that somehow you "stuck it to management" how does this improve your plight in the long run? Granted I'm not an AA pilot but it seems to me in essence you are now leaving the future of your career up to a BK judge and court. Essentially, you have given up all control of your own situation and most likely will not see another proposal equal to or better than this. So in essence, hasn't voting "no" helped management, because it would seem to me that anything coming down the road will be worse for the pilots.

Just asking not flaming.

 

[PCL_128]

BRAVO AA Pilots for holding the line!!

Fight's On!

73
NO Voter

Well done, guys.

 

[aa73]

Always,

See the other thread from C-150ETOPS if you already haven't.

73

 

[boomlrd]

No BK judge will ram anything less than that last TA down your throats, no BK judge in history has stripped a workforce of its CBA either, be rational. I believe the outcome gets better with a new offer from AA.

 

[DoinTime]

From the NWA bankruptcy.

The Court’s Ruling on Northwest’s Motion to Reject The Flight Attendants’ CBA

After the flight attendants voted down the tentative agreement on June 6, Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper issued a lengthy opinion on June 29, 2006, granting Northwest’s §1113 motion and authorizing Northwest to reject the flight attendants’ CBA if no new agreement was reached within 14 days after entry of the order implementing his decision. See, In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 346 B.R. 307 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006). The court readily concluded that Northwest satisfied its burden of proof under §1113 and that the concessions demanded of the flight attendants were both “necessary” to its reorganization and rejected by the flight attendants without “good cause.” The real issue for the court, however, was the terms that Northwest could impose on the flight attendants.

The flight attendants argued that §1113 only authorized Northwest to impose the terms of the March 1, 2006 tentative agreement, which the union refused to ratify. That agreement provided for approximately the same level of savings from the flight attendants as Northwest’s last §1113 proposal on Feb. 22, 2006, but it achieved those savings in ways that materially differed. Most significantly, PFAA remained adamant about limiting Northwest’s ability to outsource flight attendants or hire foreign flight attendants on foreign routes. So important were these items to PFAA that they sought to buy them back in exchange for increased wage reductions and cuts in vacation pay. Northwest argued it had the right to impose the terms of the Feb. 22, 2006 proposal because the PFAA rank-and-file had rejected the March 1 tentative agreement. The February 22 proposal permitted Northwest to outsource and hire foreign flight attendants at the levels it desired, while providing for smaller wage reductions.

Judge Gropper concluded that §1113’s requirement that Northwest make a good faith proposal, which the union rejected without good cause, renders the last rejected proposal “the key proposal for purposes of §1113.” For support, the court looked to the reasoning of In re Maxwell Newspapers Inc., 981 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1992), in which the Second Circuit conditioned the debtor’s rejection of collective bargaining agreements on its “continuation of offers recently negotiated by the parties.” The court concluded, as had the Second Circuit in Maxwell, that offers made by Northwest could not be withdrawn. The court acknowledged that its holding provides little incentive to flight attendants to continue negotiating because the terms of the last offer represent the very worst terms that will be imposed. Nevertheless, the court believed that this disincentive was not enough to permit Northwest to implement the terms of its last §1113 proposal rather than the terms of the last tentative agreement, which was not ratified, on the flight attendants.

On July 6, 2006, the day after Judge Gropper entered an order implementing his June 29 decision, the flight attendants voted to replace PFAA with AFA. Negotiations with the airline resumed, and on July 17, AFA and Northwest reached a new tentative agreement that was put to a vote. On July 31, the AFA announced that its membership had voted down the new tentative agreement. Northwest immediately announced that it was imposing the terms of the March 1 tentative agreement on the flight attendants, per Judge Gropper’s June 29 decision. The next day, the AFA threatened a strike. Northwest then moved the bankruptcy court for an order enjoining such a strike under the Railway Labor Act. On Aug. 17, Judge Gropper denied the motion, holding that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the AFA. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 346 B.R. 333, 344-45 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006). The union set an August 25 strike date.

On Aug. 25, however, District Judge Marrero issued a preliminary injunction blocking AFA members from striking. He subsequently issued a lengthy decision on Sept. 14, 2006 reversing the bankruptcy court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction and extending the injunction against AFA pending a final decision on the merits. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 349 B.R. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The union filed an appeal in the Second Circuit.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties resumed mediated talks, and the union filed claims in the bankruptcy for more than $1 billion in CBA rejection damages.

With no agreement in sight, the Second Circuit issued an opinion on March 29, 2007 affirming the district court’s strike injunction. The court of appeals held that AFA had not sufficiently pursued the RLA’s dispute resolution processes and that any strike now would violate the union’s duty under §2 (First) of the RLA to make every reasonable effort to reach a new agreement. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483*****F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007). Importantly, the appellate court held that Northwest did not breach the CBA when it rejected the agreement, but rather by following the §1113 process to its conclusion had “abrogated” the agreement, after which the CBA ceased to exist.

The union, disinclined to accept the Second Circuit’s decision, announced in early April that it would seek review in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile in the bankruptcy court, Northwest seized on the court of appeals “abrogation” analysis to argue that the AFA’s claim for more than $1 billion in rejection damages must be thrown out. At the same time, the AFA asked Judge Gropper to reconsider his June 29, 2006 decision authorizing Northwest to reject the flight attendants’ CBA. On April 13, 2007, the bankruptcy court issued a decision following the Second Circuit’s analysis and holding that a union has no claim for damages when a debtor rejects the CBA pursuant to a bankruptcy court‘s order under §1113. Judge Gropper also denied the union’s request for reconsideration.

On April 26, 2007, Northwest and AFA reached a new tentative agreement that granted the airline $195 million in annual savings while giving AFA members an allowed unsecured claim for $182 million. On May 30, the AFA membership approved the agreement and the next day Northwest exited chapter 11.

Conclusion

Judge Gropper’s June 29, 2006 decision is particularly important in large chapter 11 cases where §1113 negotiations tend to be long, complex and contentious. Previously it was unclear what right a debtor has to impose employment terms after exhausting the §1113 process. Did the debtor have the right unilaterally to impose any conditions? Or could the debtor impose the terms of its very first §1113 proposal? Judge Gropper’s decision makes clear that it is the terms of the last tentative agreement or if there is none, the debtor’s last proposal, that the debtor may impose. Now, debtors and unions involved in §1113 negotiations need to be cognizant of the impact that incremental negotiations, designed to achieve consensus and, ultimately, agreement, may have on a court imposed result if negotiations fail. Of course, lurking in the background of those negotiations will also be Judge Gropper’s April 13, 2007 decision, holding that there is no claim for rejection damages when a debtor rejects a CBA pursuant to court order under §1113.

 

[CavePilot]

AA73,

Just out of curiosity, how does voting "no" help your cause right now? Aside from the emotional feeling that somehow you "stuck it to management" how does this improve your plight in the long run? Granted I'm not an AA pilot but it seems to me in essence you are now leaving the future of your career up to a BK judge and court. Essentially, you have given up all control of your own situation and most likely will not see another proposal equal to or better than this. So in essence, hasn't voting "no" helped management, because it would seem to me that anything coming down the road will be worse for the pilots.

Just asking not flaming.

Your words weaken the line.

Keep them to yourself you future management d*ck.