Hawaiian BK court news

[mdanno808]

I'm over in the UK right now, and haven't found anything on Hangar talk or the FCIS about the showdown in court. Any new news? I read the article in the star bulletin, and it suggested that things didn't go all that well. Hope at least some progress was made. If you (Dan Roman, Jim, Dave) have heard anything please let me know.

 

[Hansoma]

Saturday, April 16, 2005




Ahead of a key court
decision, pilots’ union
talks of a strike
A judge must decide whether it is
necessary to force a labor contract
on Hawaiian Air pilots
By Dave Segal
[email protected]

A federal bankruptcy judge said he was "thunderstruck" when Hawaiian Airlines pilots previously rejected a tentative labor agreement with the company and urged the two sides yesterday to reach a deal before he forces one upon them.

"Getting an agreement in this case is like a shotgun marriage as opposed to a regular marriage," Bankruptcy Judge Robert Faris said yesterday during the wrap-up of a four-day hearing. "If you want a shotgun marriage, I'll give it to you. But it's usually not good for either side."

Faris said he had a lot to think about and read before determining whether to grant the company's motion to impose contract terms on its pilots. He said there was a human dimension to his decision and he wanted "to get it right."

"I'll get done as rapidly as I can and then I will decide," he said.

Faris said the company's contract proposal had met the test of being fair and equitable but that the toughest question was whether it was necessary.

"Necessary (under the Bankruptcy Code) doesn't mean absolutely essential," he said, but "I think necessary also means something more than desirable."

Air Line Pilots Association attorney Richard Seltzer said union members would consider striking if a contract was imposed on them.

Bruce Bennett, attorney for Hawaiian Airlines trustee Joshua Gotbaum, said the company would take action against strikers.

Seltzer also reiterated that the company is economically viable and said pilots would be eligible for contract rejection damages equal to the 100 percent recovery that the airline's unsecured creditors will receive. Bennett disputed that claim.

Faris expressed his displeasure that a year's worth of negotiations failed to produce a ratified contract. The pilots last month voted down a tentative agreement, 144-122, that had been recommended by their union representatives.

"When I first heard of the tentative agreement, I was struck at how far toward ALPA's proposal the company had come," Faris said. "When ALPA rejected it, not only was I struck, I was thunderstruck."

Both sides indicated a willingness after yesterday's hearing to resume talking.

"This process is obviously painful for everybody, but I think it also will help Hawaiian Airlines get out of bankruptcy with new labor contracts one way or another," Gotbaum said.

Kirk McBride, master executive council chairman for the Hawaiian ALPA unit, said the strike threat is more than a bluff.

"That question will be answered by the pilots and, depending on the circumstances at the time, it's certainly something that's a possibility," he said.

Jim Giddings, the Hawaiian ALPA unit's negotiating committee chairman, agreed the company and union need to get back to the negotiating table.

"That's really what we should be doing now," he said. "The company is really misusing the bankruptcy process here to force an agreement on the pilots."

Faris said the union was right when it said it would be unprecedented to grant financial relief to an airline like Hawaiian that was coming off of two straight years of profits and is projecting another profitable year.

"But there's a first time for everything," Faris said.

Faris said he was concerned about the effect on revenues that the company would incur from increased competition. He also noted that the airline needed to remain competitive and that there was "overwhelming pressure" in the airline industry to do away with defined-benefit retirement plans. Changing the retirement plan is a key point of disagreement between the company and pilots.

The three-year contract being proposed by Hawaiian in its court motion calls for 2 percent annual wage increases but immediately converts the defined-benefit plan for pilots under age 55 to a defined-contribution plan with annual company contributions of 17 percent of a pilot's wages. The traditional pension plan would remain for pilots 55 and over. The proposal also gives the company more flexibility in work rules than in the tentative agreement.

In a defined-benefit plan, a company contributes all the money and absorbs the risk that could be incurred from declining investments. In a defined-contribution plan, such as a 401(k), the employee chooses the types of investments and is responsible for the resulting risk and return.

The contract rejected by the pilots allowed for 1 percent annual wage increases for the first two years followed by wage arbitration the third year tied to wage levels at other airlines. It also offered a fallback plan on the pension issue if a new retirement plan wasn't negotiated between now and Jan. 1, 2012. The fallback agreement allowed the pension plan to remain in place for seven years. After that time, pilots who are now 50 and older would be allowed to stay in the plan while those under that age would be converted to a defined-contribution plan in which the company would contribute 15 percent of the local union's annual total wage cost.

Both contracts were constructed to keep the company's pilot labor costs flat at $54 million a year.


There you go..

 

[Jim]

Something tells me we will soon see either the previous TA up for a second vote or a new version with a few minor changes. The Judge's comments in the newspaper articles do not sound too promising. If he imposes a contract, based on his comments that there is a "human demension" (Star Bulletin article in previous post) and "at least one of the contract proposals is fair" (Advertiser article below), I think it might be the rejected TA. While I support the active pilots rejecting the TA, it is a hell of a lot better than the piece of crap the company porposed in it's filing. It also gives us a stronger starting point in the next section 6 negotiations. I think HAL ALPA has probably pushed this as far as possible with Judge Farris and it time for an exit strategy to be unveiled (old TA, new TA, strike - something concrete from the MEC to the membership). Just my thoughts - nothing from the union or any other pilots.

As it stand, being at the bottom of the list, I don't expect to be recalled for a long time.


Judge set to rule on pilots' deal, but urges more talks
[font=Trebuchet MS, Verdana][size=-2]By [email="[email protected]"]Dan Nakaso[/email]
Advertiser Staff Writer[/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=-1]A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge yesterday said he is prepared to decide whether Hawaiian Airlines pilots must accept new contract terms, but urged the company and pilots union to continue negotiating a settlement on their own.

Both sides met last night after the conclusion of a three-day hearing requested by Hawaiian. At stake is whether Hawaiian can resolve its sixth and final union contract and emerge from federal bankruptcy protection after two years under new ownership.

"Today was important because the judge sent a very clear message that the pilots and the union are better served if they go back to the table and negotiate an agreement, but that one way or another, Hawaiian will get a contract that will permit it to exit bankruptcy," said Josh Gotbaum, Hawaiian's bankruptcy trustee.

Capt. Kirk McBride, chairman of the Hawaiian Airlines pilots master executive council, said "it's fair to say the parties will enter into negotiations and I do think that we will be able to come to another tentative agreement. But I don't know if it will ratify or not. I'm sure it will be another close vote."

Hawaiian pilots, angry in particular over management bonuses, last month narrowly voted down a tentative agreement that would have changed pilot work rules, but given them 2 percent raises for each year of the proposed three-year contract. The tentative agreement also would have sidestepped the contentious issue of the pilots' retirement plan until 2012.

When the pilots voted against the tentative agreement, Hawaiian officials once again asked Judge Robert Faris to impose contract terms that would raise pilots' pay only 1 percent for each of three years and create a two-tier retirement plan. Faris said yesterday in court that he thought that at least one of the contract proposals was fair, but did not say which one.

[/size][/font]

 

[mdanno808]

I'm with you about voting down the TA. It's bogus for management to dole out bonuses one week, then claim to be unable to honor the current pilot contract. I also agree that the new TA will be a slightly sugar coated version of the old TA. We'll see whether the pilot's ratify. With the new staffing formula I have a feeling that we're hosed. Unless of course they order a ton of new aircraft (as O'Handley seems to think that there are between 10-20 too many pilots as it is).

One other thing. These **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** papers keep mentioning the 2% raise that the TA offers. What they fail to mention is the out of pocket cost for benefit's as well as the loss of our current disability, that 2% raise seems kind of manini.

Did Faris set a deadline for the new round of negotiations?

 

[Erndogg]

Jim Giddings, the Hawaiian ALPA unit's negotiating committee chairman, agreed the company and union need to get back to the negotiating table.

"That's really what we should be doing now," he said. "The company is really misusing the bankruptcy process here to force an agreement on the pilots."

Faris said the union was right when it said it would be unprecedented to grant financial relief to an airline like Hawaiian that was coming off of two straight years of profits and is projecting another profitable year.

"But there's a first time for everything," Faris said.

Stay tuned for the second round of the same TA!!!!

 

[HAL]

I wouldn't be surprised if the old TA comes back pretty much intact. The proposal from the company really sucks for us furloughees because it cuts our percentage for retirement funds from 15% down to 5%. There's no way that will fly with the pilot group (I hope).

Whatever happens, it should happen soon.

HAL

 

[mdanno808]

The million dollar question is will the pilots ratify this TA once it is negotiated?

 

[Erndogg]

It will probably be the same TA with some little changes here and there. i dont know?? The company has held FIRM to the 15 % DC plan up to now. (NO more for guys under 50).
Maybe after this latest round of hearings they will lighten up a bit??

 

[Erndogg]

Did Faris set a deadline for the new round of negotiations?

Kirk said on news talk sat. that the judge has 14 days (April 29??)to make a decision if the union and the company cannot come to an agreement and the members ratify it.
Stay tuned!!!

 

[General Lee]

Saturday, April 16, 2005




Ahead of a key court
decision, pilots’ union
talks of a strike
A judge must decide whether it is
necessary to force a labor contract
on Hawaiian Air pilots
By Dave Segal
[email protected]

A federal bankruptcy judge said he was "thunderstruck" when Hawaiian Airlines pilots previously rejected a tentative labor agreement with the company and urged the two sides yesterday to reach a deal before he forces one upon them.

"Getting an agreement in this case is like a shotgun marriage as opposed to a regular marriage," Bankruptcy Judge Robert Faris said yesterday during the wrap-up of a four-day hearing. "If you want a shotgun marriage, I'll give it to you. But it's usually not good for either side."

Faris said he had a lot to think about and read before determining whether to grant the company's motion to impose contract terms on its pilots. He said there was a human dimension to his decision and he wanted "to get it right."

"I'll get done as rapidly as I can and then I will decide," he said.

Faris said the company's contract proposal had met the test of being fair and equitable but that the toughest question was whether it was necessary.

"Necessary (under the Bankruptcy Code) doesn't mean absolutely essential," he said, but "I think necessary also means something more than desirable."

Air Line Pilots Association attorney Richard Seltzer said union members would consider striking if a contract was imposed on them.

Bruce Bennett, attorney for Hawaiian Airlines trustee Joshua Gotbaum, said the company would take action against strikers.

Seltzer also reiterated that the company is economically viable and said pilots would be eligible for contract rejection damages equal to the 100 percent recovery that the airline's unsecured creditors will receive. Bennett disputed that claim.

Faris expressed his displeasure that a year's worth of negotiations failed to produce a ratified contract. The pilots last month voted down a tentative agreement, 144-122, that had been recommended by their union representatives.

"When I first heard of the tentative agreement, I was struck at how far toward ALPA's proposal the company had come," Faris said. "When ALPA rejected it, not only was I struck, I was thunderstruck."

Both sides indicated a willingness after yesterday's hearing to resume talking.

"This process is obviously painful for everybody, but I think it also will help Hawaiian Airlines get out of bankruptcy with new labor contracts one way or another," Gotbaum said.

Kirk McBride, master executive council chairman for the Hawaiian ALPA unit, said the strike threat is more than a bluff.

"That question will be answered by the pilots and, depending on the circumstances at the time, it's certainly something that's a possibility," he said.

Jim Giddings, the Hawaiian ALPA unit's negotiating committee chairman, agreed the company and union need to get back to the negotiating table.

"That's really what we should be doing now," he said. "The company is really misusing the bankruptcy process here to force an agreement on the pilots."

Faris said the union was right when it said it would be unprecedented to grant financial relief to an airline like Hawaiian that was coming off of two straight years of profits and is projecting another profitable year.

"But there's a first time for everything," Faris said.

Faris said he was concerned about the effect on revenues that the company would incur from increased competition. He also noted that the airline needed to remain competitive and that there was "overwhelming pressure" in the airline industry to do away with defined-benefit retirement plans. Changing the retirement plan is a key point of disagreement between the company and pilots.

The three-year contract being proposed by Hawaiian in its court motion calls for 2 percent annual wage increases but immediately converts the defined-benefit plan for pilots under age 55 to a defined-contribution plan with annual company contributions of 17 percent of a pilot's wages. The traditional pension plan would remain for pilots 55 and over. The proposal also gives the company more flexibility in work rules than in the tentative agreement.

In a defined-benefit plan, a company contributes all the money and absorbs the risk that could be incurred from declining investments. In a defined-contribution plan, such as a 401(k), the employee chooses the types of investments and is responsible for the resulting risk and return.

The contract rejected by the pilots allowed for 1 percent annual wage increases for the first two years followed by wage arbitration the third year tied to wage levels at other airlines. It also offered a fallback plan on the pension issue if a new retirement plan wasn't negotiated between now and Jan. 1, 2012. The fallback agreement allowed the pension plan to remain in place for seven years. After that time, pilots who are now 50 and older would be allowed to stay in the plan while those under that age would be converted to a defined-contribution plan in which the company would contribute 15 percent of the local union's annual total wage cost.

Both contracts were constructed to keep the company's pilot labor costs flat at $54 million a year.


There you go..

Look who wrote the article..... I wondered where he went? Now I know why the article is slanted in management's favor....


Bye Bye--General Lee