Quoting commavia (Reply 33): Are you sure about that? Of course any employee can quit at any time, but if the court abrogates, are the unions free to legally impose self-help (i.e., strike, slow-down, sick-out, walk-out) as if this were a normal, non-1113 negotiation/impasse/strike?

No -- there is no legal self-help provision available to unions in an 1113 abrogation scenario. But it is widely believed among front-line AA workers that if the contracts are rejected tomorrow, for better or worse, the flood gates are going to open and there will be operational mayhem. And if it does end up happening, bear in mind that none of it will have been sanctioned by any union -- it will be of individuals acting on their own will.

[Edited 2012-06-21 09:58:36]

Actually yes I believe employees can go to self-help.

This was actually a very likely scenario in one of the US Airways BK cases when it also sought to do a 1113c motion, and the question came up not if they had a right to strike, but when and what process the unions had to follow in notify their intent and if it fell under the RLA or Taft-Hartley Act as again there was a collision of BK law and Labor law. (basically right to immediate strike vs 30-day cool down period)

In other documents from a Q&A document I have from the United BK process.

Q. Do employees have any recourse in the event of imposed modifications or rejection of a collective bargaining agreement?
A. Yes employees maintain their rights to engage in forms of self-help such as protests or strikes. In similar light, the company has the right to engage in a lockout and seek alternative options incase employees refuse to participate under any revised employment terms or conditions.

Lastly I also tend to recall the threat of a strike was an issue in the Mesaba BK with its 1113c motion, where the pilots union voted upfront to strike if the motion was imposed.

Quoting commavia (Reply 33): Of course any employee can quit at any time, but if the court abrogates,

Does the law allow a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario?
If the union contract with AA is abrogated one would assume that the workers now become individual employees, other than AA threating to fire, suspend or cut pay, who legally speaks for the workers but themselves?

I am definately interested in reading the legal obligations by all when such contracts are abrogated.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35): Actually yes I believe employees can go to self-help. This was actually a very likely scenario in one of the US Airways BK cases when it also sought to do a 1113c motion, and the question came up not if they had a right to strike, but when and what process the unions had to follow in notify their intent and if it fell under the RLA or Taft-Hartley Act as again there was a collision of BK law and Labor law. (basically right to immediate strike vs 30-day cool down period) In other documents from a Q&A document I have from the United BK process. Q. Do employees have any recourse in the event of imposed modifications or rejection of a collective bargaining agreement? A. Yes employees maintain their rights to engage in forms of self-help such as protests or strikes. In similar light, the company has the right to engage in a lockout and seek alternative options incase employees refuse to participate under any revised employment terms or conditions. Lastly I also tend to recall the threat of a strike was an issue in the Mesaba BK with its 1113c motion, where the pilots union voted upfront to strike if the motion was imposed.

Well, if what you are saying is true, none of this has been entertained by any of AMR's unions -- at least not officially. None of it has been mentioned at all. Perhaps there is some sort of announcement pending -- following the judges's decisions tomorrow.

Why don't the employees just vote out all the unions (or a majority) and go along the lines of Delta?

Quoting n839mh (Reply 38): Why don't the employees just vote out all the unions (or a majority) and go along the lines of Delta?

Do you live under a rock?

I have a question and I ask this with all due respect to the American flight attendants.

It really seems as though (and I could be wrong) their payscale is not the issue, but the lack of productivity and flexibility AMR gets from them is the problem.

As a flight attendant for another airline, I know most of my colleagues and myself WANT to be productive when we are at work. If we have to be gone for three or four days, a lot of us want to fly productively to earn the most hours/money in the fewest number of days. In fact, I often hear my colleagues complain that many of our trips are not productive enough.

I can tell you that in my base and at my airline, the high-productivity trips are usually bid by very senior flight attendants.

I don't know many flight attendants at my carrier who want 24 hour layovers even if they have flown a transcon.

While I understand that more productive trips and better utilization of flight attendants would, unfortunately, reduce the number of flight attendants required to staff the operation and and result in furloughs... I don't understand why American's FAs and APFA are opposed to flying more productively?

That being said, I will also say that I have had friends of mine look at my trip sheets in amazement that we are so productive but still manage to have trips that are purely AM or PM trips with decent (13-18 hour) overnights. One went as far as asking for a copy of my trips for the year so he could present them to APFA and AMR and ask why they cannot be scheduled/staffed as productively as we are.

So again, I am not knocking the AA flight attendants... I am just asking... why the opposition to being more productive? Is that actually the feeling of the majority of AA FAs or is that APFA's stand?

Quoting commavia (Reply 40): Never a dull moment.

Looks like Judge Lane has granted a 1-week extension to AMR and the APA:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-...g-american-airlines-230310989.html

Question: Does this suggest that the APA may not be as tightly aligned with Parker's plan as has been advertised? Or, is this the union simply attempting to "save" as much as possible for its members during the would-be transition between an abrogation of the contracts and implementation of new terms under a merged AA/US?

If that's the case, why did the APFA walk away completely from the table, unlike five of the TWU groups?

I think the APA board of directors did the right thing. It was not a no vote in general as we are being told, but the contract language was not put in place due to the time constraints. And based on what happend in the 2003 contract, they wanted all the i's dotted and t's crossed. There is definitely a trust issue between the pilots and the suits. It's the old trust but verify.

The parties have agreed and the judge has extended the ruling by a week, not for the parties to continue negotiating, but to put the proposal into concret contract language. I am fairly confident the board will vote by next Wednesday's deadline to pass the proposal to us for a vote. I have seen the "basics" and it is a definite improvement over the original 1113. It all of course comes down to what is ultimately put down on paper. I would be drawn, quartered, hung then shot if I were to make a hunch on how the membership will vote, so I won't.

I know there are a lot of experts out there on this forum, but I can say this is all being taken very serious by OUR board. Many, many pilots have served as Officer's in the Military, and I can assure you, you don't get there or here if you are an idiot. While there are some arm chair chest beaters, most are very mature, intelligent and able to make an appropriate decision.

While the back and forth of negotiation can be tedious, stressful and frustrating - its a damn sight better than the proposition of the court allowing AA to dump all of the contracts.

There are lots of smart folks who are on the board for the pilots, there will be a way to work this out.

skycub's observations are interesting; the productivity issue may be a good way for the flight attendants to salvage a decent solution and in the end, may be a benefit to the membership.

Good luck folks - hopefully this will be sorted shortly.

Quoting SkedGuy (Reply 42): Question: Does this suggest that the APA may not be as tightly aligned with Parker's plan as has been advertised? Or, is this the union simply attempting to "save" as much as possible for its members during the would-be transition between an abrogation of the contracts and implementation of new terms under a merged AA/US?

Probably a little of both - I imagine the APA is hedging their bets and trying to place both sides to get the best possible deal from both (not unlike the APFA and TWU).

In this case, though, the APA leadership is also likely confronting some difficult realities about their future, under either a merger or no-merger scenario. Either way, they're going to have to give on several key issues.

The key here is what is actually in the last, best offer from AMR - the company appears to have made some major moves in a lot of areas. And yesterday AMR announced that it was moving towards a deal with the PBGC and Department of Treasury to salvage the value (it not the current structure) of the APA's infamous lump-sum 'A Plan' pensions. It is obvious that there is movement here - from both sides. I still contend that the pilots deal will all come down to SCOPE, and I still maintain that on SCOPE, there is a deal to be had if both sides think creatively and put aside the bitterness of the past.

This is all likely reflective of the fact that, considering the pilots are the highest-paid already, and have the most to lose, there has also been a healthy amount of skepticism among the pilots about whether or not Parker's deal is actually the best course for the APA to pursue. While the APA leadership may be preaching unity, nearly a third of the board voted to take this deal to membership. Emails and Facebook posts abound from pilots skeptical of Parker, and frankly skeptical of the APA, and at least willing to entertain some of what AMR has proposed. That may be driving some of this rejection, then measured reconsideration, of AMR's offer.

What I think this most clearly illustrates, though, is what many have long suspected: this is really all about the pilots. It was the lack of movement on a pilot deal that finally brought the board to pull the trigger on Chapter 11, and it will be a deal with the APA - or lack thereof - that makes or breaks this whole process vis-a-vis labor. The pilot contract is the seminal, critical deal - not only are the pilots by far AA's highest-paid workgroup, but - unlike with, say, the flight attendants - the pilots' contract is the one that has a direct impact on so much of AMR's cost, productivity and revenue.

You can obviously see the broad outlines here of what the company is trying to do - the tried and true strategy of divide and conquer. AMR has already succeeded in getting consensual deals ratified with work groups representing nearly half of the TWU-represented employees, and if they are able to lock up a deal with the APA - which, again, is the single most strategically critical work group - that leaves just the APFA, plus M&E and Stores (and from what I have seen and heard about the deal the TWU cut with Parker, which honestly doesn't look all that much more friendly long-term to base maintenance than AMR's 1113 proposal, I suspect there are plenty of M&E folks who would be willing to see what else AMR might offer). Whether AMR's strategy succeeds is TBD, but I think that is their strategy, for better or worse.

Quoting SkedGuy (Reply 42): If that's the case, why did the APFA walk away completely from the table, unlike five of the TWU groups?

As has long been the case, the APFA is the most militant of the work groups. They know the score: they're already basically the lowest-paid and least respected (sadly), ostensibly among the easiest to replace, and they have the least to lose. As such, it only stands to reason that their duly elected leadership would reflect those realities and attitudes.

[Edited 2012-06-21 21:16:00]

Besides the delayed 1113c motion now pushed to Friday June 29th, there are a few other things on the courts agenda this week.

o Extension to negotiate covering 5 MD-80 aircraft – N513, 7514, 7540, 7541, 7542
o Extension to negotiate covering 4 B757s – N621, 628, 633, 635
o Extension to negotiate covering 2 B767 – N364, 368
o Motion directing AMR to produce documents per subpoenas for testimony for PBGC
o Motion to lift stay on pending litigation against AA in North Carolina
o Approving settlement with HP Enterprise regarding usage of critical technology services including allowing HP Ch11 claim of approx $7.7mil.
o Motion allowing AA entry into collective bargaining agreement with units of TWU that approved companies previous labor term sheet TA.
o Authority to retain and employ Ernst & Young LLP as auditors
o Establishing global procedures for treatment of reclamation claims
o Fully allow approximately 125 Ch11 claims against AMR
o Disallow, or reclassify 205 Ch11 claims against AMR

As to the issue of whether airline unions can engage in self help (i.e., work stoppages), if a contract is abrogated under section 1113, I think the answer is "who knows?" All of the court decisions regarding the issue of self help covered companies that aren't under the RLA. I haven't seen any such case law for an airline or railroad bankruptcy during the airline bankruptcies that came along after 9/11.

I know that United's F/As were threatening CHAOS while United was seeking to throw out their contract, but the union never went through on its strike threats, and the two sides eventually agreed to a new contract.

The problem that arises is that if the judge grants AMR's request under section 1113, then AA is free to impose a contract. But, no federal mediator has released the sides into the cooling-off period. So on it's face, it appears that any strike would be illegal. So, the question becomes whether a contract imposed by a bankruptcy judge under section 1113 frees a union from the provisions of the RLA that require declaration of an impasse and a cooling-off period.

I think that would be the first time a judge has to decide the issue.

If anyone is more knowledgable about labor or bankruptcy law, please feel free to correct me.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 47): As to the issue of whether airline unions can engage in self help (i.e., work stoppages), if a contract is abrogated under section 1113, I think the answer is "who knows?" All of the court decisions regarding the issue of self help covered companies that aren't under the RLA. I haven't seen any such case law for an airline or railroad bankruptcy during the airline bankruptcies that came along after 9/11.

From what I have read, the prevailing case at the moment would be Northwest versus its Flight Attendant Union.

The Northwest FA contract was governed by the RLA and they did seek self-help following the abrogation of their contract in bankruptcy court. An injunction was issued and was confirmed by an appellate court. If I remember correctly, the majority of the court ruled that the self-help provisions of the RLA were no longer valid after the "legal" termination of a contract that had been governed by the RLA. The termination of the contract was considered "legal" because it had been conducted by a judge in accordance with section 1113 proceedings of the bankruptcy court.

AA and the APFA have agreed to more talks July 3-5. Interesting they scheduled it over the holiday, but I guess it goes to show how short the timeline is, and the importance of continued talks. Perhaps this latest development will delay Judge Lane's decision. I know the company and APA reported earlier this week Judge Lane would delay his decision if the pilot's union sent the contract out to vote, but would rule on Friday if they did not. Interesting development nonetheless.

On a side note, AA has announced a new premium cabin service on international flights beginning December 2, 2012. It's such a drastic change, apparently, that all International Flagship Service qualified flight attendants will have to attend training in order to keep that qualification. Training begins in August. Also, the company has announced training for the flight attendants on the 777-300ER. Training will be three days in Dallas and begins in August as well.