What now?

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 15

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

08-21-2012, 04:22 AM

#51

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa73

So do we get a worse deal by voting down the TA? Dunno. What I *DO* know is that we refuse to live on our knees. If we're gonna get slammed with something worst than the TA, it won't be because we caved.

I am very sympathetic to your position, I really am, and I am not involved in this discussion as a guy that is waving anything in your face or anything like that. It is an open forum discussion, and I am merely trying to understand your positions; no flamebait intended. So. That being said, wrt your statement, I am happy that you are proud of standing up to the man and all that, but if... when judge Lane abrogates your contracts, will that lessen the pain that you will endure? I know it was a turd.. I get that. What I saw in his ruling was a clear path for the company to unload the septic truck right on your heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa73

Make no mistake, AMR, the UCC and Judge Lane absolutely dread not having a pilot contract in place. Therein lies our leverage, and we plan on taking full advantage of it.

I am sure they do. But... the corporation will survive. Maybe. If you go into burn it down mode, the remaining value will be extracted. It seems to me that your choice is to participate in that extraction or not. Burn it down mode is a clear indication that you do not want to participate, and to a degree the corporation and the creditors do not care. It's the old "you can lead a horse to water..." thing. I think that your concept of leverage is what I guess poker players refer to as an "all in" mode with a pretty weak hand. Drink, don't drink.. like alfa said, an abrogated contract takes what little control you had left right out of your hands. Urge your leadership to get back to the table.

Just another thought. I have read several posts that say that even if you get abrogated, when the company emerges from BK you will be negotiating a new contract with a stronger company. FWIW, the company that emerges will be far from healthy, annnnd you will be starting the race from the back row at Daytona in a car that needs a pit. The 10,000 contracts that AMR will renegotiate or even abrogate outright will help, but DAL (who many experts have said did a good job in BK) emerged with over $14 billion in debt. That is a huge anchor around OUR necks, and has stalled our abilities in many ways (I am standing by for the inevitable incoming from the 'just say no' DAL crowd). That is a fact whether or not THEY want to acknowledge it. Capital markets are not open to your company with that kind of debt load. IF... AMR can shed the debt as well, then you have a point that you might have some leverage.. but I am dubious as to whether that can be done at this point. Either way, revenue growth at AMR MUST occur. Revenue.. I am not talking about costs here. 2 ways to get that... but I digress.. DYODD

08-21-2012, 05:26 AM

#52

aa73

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2006

Posts: 2,918

Tsquare, again... full abrogation/1113 term sheet will only serve to completely shed the wheels off the AMR vehicle. If that's the route they want to go down... so be it: they know fully well they won't be able to rebuild The New AA without the employees on board and with massive chaos. THAT is where the leverage is.

Burn down the house? Not at all. We are simply engaging in their own game of high stakes poker that they play so well. They weren't counting on that: they were hoping we'd cave once again, just like we have for the past 30 years.

AMR wants a pilot contract. So do the judge and the UCC. The UCC is what is driving everything right now, and they are getting very frustrated at ToHo's lack of leadership and bizarre flip flops. Mark my words - there will most probably be a new TA, significantly better than the last one, coming down the pike before the judge rules on the resubmitted 1113. My take is that it better be up to DAL/UAL standards or it will once again be voted down.

08-21-2012, 05:49 AM

#53

Enterprise

Line Holder

Joined APC: Feb 2012

Posts: 52

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

After the rejected TA and the judge's ruling, the American pilots should probably reconsider where they are. If any American pilot has not read the ruling they should read it today. From what I read the judge said:

American went bankrupt because their network was too small and they did not have enough feed. This has caused a serious revenue problem as the high value customers are abandoning them. Part of the reorganization will be to increase code sharing and RJ flying to fix that (did you read that Mesabah? Your crew room lawyering is once again shown to be wrong)
He does not care if the APA thinks that merging with US Airways is the best course of action, no merger has been agreed to
The company's witnesses were more credible than the APA's
Under Chapter 11, necessary changes do not mean the minimum to survive, it means enough changes to create a successful company
The APA's theory of "convergence", or that other labor groups would eventually catch up to their costs is not a credible plan of reorganization
Management does not have to lower their cost reduction targets to show good faith bargaining

The creditor's committee just spoke up also. Remember the current owners of the company, the stock holders are getting wiped out. The creditors are going to be the new owners. That is why they have a say about what goes on. This is what they said:

We supported labor getting a claim (ownership stake) in the new AMR, but only if they added value through agreeing to a contract
If the APA does not add any value with a rejection, they will get no ownership
Each day that goes along, value is slipping out of the APA's hands

These are not my words, those are the words of the people who hold your fate in their hands.

The judge's ruling has basically shattered all of the forum ideas about how the APA would prevail. The last and most brain dead forum idea is that American needs them to sign a contract so badly, they will come crawling back to negotiate. This is the most ridiculous statement to date. They don't need you to have a deal, they are getting their own deal sewn up by the judge in about two weeks.

So you have two options:

Agree to a crappy contract that contains a substantial claim in the reorganized American. Just to reiterate, the 13% claim that the Delta pilots got from their bankruptcy netted out to $1,300,000,000. That's a lot of zeroes there.
Accept and even worse contract rejection and get no claim

Financially, there is no choice, Option 1 is the only way to go. Emotionally, if the American pilots feel the need to throw away money in order to make some statement to somebody somewhere, then you can make that choice.

I am left in awe at the level of arrogance it takes to post something like this on another airline's pilots' board.

Luckily for you, our board is meeting this week and you can go in and make your Powerpoint presentation. I'm sure the board, council, and advisers will be left speechless by your incredible insight.

Holy crap. Seek help.......IMMEDIATELY.

(Is your last name Hunt by any chance?)

08-21-2012, 06:23 AM

#54

The Chow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Position: 1st year pay for the 3rd time

Posts: 1,434

I have to wonder what's AMR's end game

AMR has backslid for 10+ years. So now we're in BK.

But I haven't seen anything that will help American recapture lost markets and grow back into a powerhouse. AMR states they have more competition on their routes: solution RJ's. I don't see Southwest and Jet Blue using outsourced RJs.....

So is this just all one big fancy pump 'em dump 'em scheme?

Delta guys, how many CEO's did you have from the start of BK until now?

TC

08-21-2012, 06:29 AM

#55

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chow

Not counting the one we have now, we had 1.5. Leo Mullin was the guy that ran the train off the track, and GJerry Grinstein was an interim CEO that took over in an attempt to save his good name. He was on the committee that hired Leo The Incompetent, and must have felt a certain obligation to try and right the ship. That is why I give him the .5. But Leo and his gang were the ones that sent us down the tubes.

08-21-2012, 06:35 AM

#56

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enterprise

First of all, it is not YOUR board. It is an open forum, and anybody is welcome to comment here. If you don't like what he said, that is your prerogative, and of course you are free to disagree with his premise. As to whether or not it constitutes arrogance, I beg to differ. He was merely commenting on what the judge said, and inflecting his opinion based on what happened to us and to the other players that have been thru BK. But of course, you are different. OK.. prove it. Why don't you take what he said, and break it down, and enlighten us all as to where he is wrong instead of resorting to childish slurs that do nothing at all to further your case. Prove him wrong.

08-21-2012, 07:20 AM

#57

Mesabah

:-)

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Posts: 7,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

So you are saying that the attorneys that the independent union has hired are not very good? I mean, there is no conflict of interest, those lawyers aren't working for anybody else.. ostensibly... and (in your words) they bungled the case) Hmmmmm THAT is very interesting. How do you know that the next attorneys will be any better? Maybe ALPA doesn't suck as bad as everybody thinks. Naaaaahh couldn't be THAT..

The advantage of botching your case is that the senior pilots make out in the long run. Now that the AMR pilots have stood up, they will all share an equal burden in this process unless they agree otherwise.

08-21-2012, 07:28 AM

#58

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah

So they sandbagged? Are you for real?

08-21-2012, 07:34 AM

#59

Mesabah

:-)

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Posts: 7,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

So they sandbagged? Are you for real?

No, they simply followed what is the norm for the industry. Someone has to "eat it", that's reality.

08-21-2012, 09:22 AM

#60

Enterprise

Line Holder

Joined APC: Feb 2012

Posts: 52

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

As to whether or not it constitutes arrogance, I beg to differ. He was merely commenting on what the judge said, and inflecting his opinion based on what happened to us and to the other players that have been thru BK.

Most of the "facts" presented were completely WRONG, making the rest of the argument moot. Very few of his comments were of what anyone SAID, it was mostly speculation on what he thought something meant, things that MAY happen presented as facts, and finishes with telling us how we should accept a C-scale contract that we will be stuck with for 10 years.

Brilliant.

Another point to consider is that is any of his arguments had any merit, it assumes that the pilots of AA completely missed these facts, knew nothing about what happened in other carrier's bankruptcies, and our hired legal council and advisers also are clueless to these irrefutable facts and logic.

Wake up and smell the arrogance.

I don't have time to waste breaking down each bullet point. There were a lot of them, and almost every single one of them was WRONG.