crAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 805 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
Agreed it's a little too little, too late.
Although with AA now willing to freeze pension instead of dumping them altogether - if AA does get tied into binding arbitration then I can't help but feel AA management really screwed up their opportunities to get some issues under control in BK and the lost opportunities will likely leave them with little hope of actually emerging as a strong competitor.
CALPLT756 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2499 times:
Interesting play by the Unions to save what they can of their contracts. Binding Arb. would place them much closer to their competitors than the term sheet presented by the company.
The lawyers will be the real winners in this round. If AA rejects binding arb., then it automatically sets in motion a 30-day cooling off period for self help according the terms of the RLA. I'm not sure the latitude the judge has in matter. There are MANY MANY more what if's than knowns.
LDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1175 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2245 times:
Quoting CALPLT756 (Reply 5): The lawyers will be the real winners in this round. If AA rejects binding arb., then it automatically sets in motion a 30-day cooling off period for self help according the terms of the RLA. I'm not sure the latitude the judge has in matter. There are MANY MANY more what if's than knowns.
No, it doesn't. The NMB would still have to declare an impasse, something it has been reluctant to do because up to this point the unions have not been bargaining in good faith. There is no impasse just because one of the parties refuses binding arbitration.
Even if the NMB were to declare an impasse at this point, AA could quickly file to have the union contracts abrogated. Once abrogated, according to case law, the contracts would no longer exist, the RLA would no longer be the presiding law, and self-help would no longer be an option.
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Knowing a little about labor relations, I assumes that AA's first proposal wasn't the last one. The fact that AA is now willing to freeze all pensions but the pilots's proved that.
By the same token, the unions have to know that AA won't agree to arbitration. The risk fo getting stuck with contracts that aren't competitve with the industry is too great.
If I were the head of the TWU or the APFA, the question to ask management is how much do you want to spend, in wages and benefits, on our members each year? And, would you be willing to do something to get a number of very senior employees to leave the workforce? Atter management answers those questions, come up with a proposal that fits those parameters.
As for the APA, besides those questions, I would ask what it would take to get the pension frozen? My guess is to get rid of the lump sum option is part of management's answer.
Here's the question that someone can answer. If the PBGC ultimately takes over the pilots' pension, can a pilot still take a lump sum? I don't know the answer, but I'm betting the answer is no.
If that is the case, then dropping the lump sum option is a no brainer. If the APA is willing to drop it, then the pension plan being frozen is more likely. If not, then the PBGC might wind up dropping it.