Pinnacle asking 7% from pilots
01-05-2012, 12:39 PM
#211
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 66
5% is just a drop in the bucket. Why go after employees pay first? That should be LAST!!
Sean Menke may have been a good guy at Frontier, but now he's making big mistakes.
How about going after Phil Trenary, Doug Shockey and Clive Seals contracts first - since they all get monthly payments and don't even work there, or even do consulting like they should be.
Pinnacle just wastes money non stop, that's the problem. Leave the pilots industry standard wages alone.
I have seen millions of dollars wasted upon unused sim time, when managers simply forgot about all the sim time purchased in other cities. And now seeing pilots going through worthless training, just to follow a few weeks later to go through training on different equipment. What a waste.
The pilots could work for free, and If management doesn't streamline the operation, then it still looses money.
This problem is totally the result of a mis-managed company from the top down.
Sean Menke may have been a good guy at Frontier, but now he's making big mistakes.
How about going after Phil Trenary, Doug Shockey and Clive Seals contracts first - since they all get monthly payments and don't even work there, or even do consulting like they should be.
Pinnacle just wastes money non stop, that's the problem. Leave the pilots industry standard wages alone.
I have seen millions of dollars wasted upon unused sim time, when managers simply forgot about all the sim time purchased in other cities. And now seeing pilots going through worthless training, just to follow a few weeks later to go through training on different equipment. What a waste.
The pilots could work for free, and If management doesn't streamline the operation, then it still looses money.
This problem is totally the result of a mis-managed company from the top down.
01-05-2012, 01:01 PM
#212
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,535
Boomer,
Just to clarify, pg 15.
"When Comair and ALPA negotiated the February 2005 pre-petition concession LOA Comair undertook to increase its fleet of aircraft as a condition of maintaining the cost concessions. Its inability to do so will result in the January 1 $8 million snapback."
The judge here is referring to the fact that the pilot's concessions were contingent on Comair increasing it's fleet, which comair was unable to do. As a result, the pilot's wages snapped back to what they were initially.
No, they had not snapped back. The snapback was to happen on 01/01/2007. In 2006, the judge ruled for the company in dismissing the ALPA contract and also granted an injunction to prevent our snapback wages from going into effect.
So as it stood, after Comair entered bankruptcy, the pilot's wages were due to revert to their pre-concession levels.
True. When we entered BK Delta elected to divert our aircraft to other regionals and then used that as evidence that we were too expensive. Similar to a father testifying at his own child abuse trial: "Your honor, my kid is terrible. He always behaves badly. Look at all the bruises he has from me having to punish him!"
This is what the judge meant by the fact that pilots were the only employee group who had not contributed wage concessions to the reorganization. As of the time of the judge's ruling, the pilots' wages were set at the level they were before concessions.
Again incorrect. We never got the snapback. The company used the 1113c process to impose substantial pay cuts and workrule changes. The judge refused our snapback in one ruling and rejected our concessionary contract in a different ruling. He allowed the company to impose cuts that were much more severe than our 2005 concessions.
If anything, this section of the ruling that you highlighted shows that bankruptcy judges closely examine which employee groups have made concessions and take that into account when imposing further concessions.
And he did not consider our 2005 concessions as BK concessions because they were "pre-petition". I could quote several other pages where he goes into the "fairness and equity" of all employees taking cuts during BK.
M.
Just to clarify, pg 15.
"When Comair and ALPA negotiated the February 2005 pre-petition concession LOA Comair undertook to increase its fleet of aircraft as a condition of maintaining the cost concessions. Its inability to do so will result in the January 1 $8 million snapback."
The judge here is referring to the fact that the pilot's concessions were contingent on Comair increasing it's fleet, which comair was unable to do. As a result, the pilot's wages snapped back to what they were initially.
No, they had not snapped back. The snapback was to happen on 01/01/2007. In 2006, the judge ruled for the company in dismissing the ALPA contract and also granted an injunction to prevent our snapback wages from going into effect.
So as it stood, after Comair entered bankruptcy, the pilot's wages were due to revert to their pre-concession levels.
True. When we entered BK Delta elected to divert our aircraft to other regionals and then used that as evidence that we were too expensive. Similar to a father testifying at his own child abuse trial: "Your honor, my kid is terrible. He always behaves badly. Look at all the bruises he has from me having to punish him!"
This is what the judge meant by the fact that pilots were the only employee group who had not contributed wage concessions to the reorganization. As of the time of the judge's ruling, the pilots' wages were set at the level they were before concessions.
Again incorrect. We never got the snapback. The company used the 1113c process to impose substantial pay cuts and workrule changes. The judge refused our snapback in one ruling and rejected our concessionary contract in a different ruling. He allowed the company to impose cuts that were much more severe than our 2005 concessions.
If anything, this section of the ruling that you highlighted shows that bankruptcy judges closely examine which employee groups have made concessions and take that into account when imposing further concessions.
And he did not consider our 2005 concessions as BK concessions because they were "pre-petition". I could quote several other pages where he goes into the "fairness and equity" of all employees taking cuts during BK.
M.
But thank you for taking time to read the ruling.
01-05-2012, 01:45 PM
#213
New Hire
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 8
Boomer,
Sorry you had to go through all that at Comair. It sounds like it was a raw deal. I certainly don't know as much about the comair situation as you do, and your insights are really helpful.
Bankruptcy is a sh$t sandwich no matter how you slice it. As I understand it, right off the bat management can accept or reject any contract they had entered into pre-bankrupcty. (No surprise they usually target everyone else's contracts and not their own).
Once they have rejected a contract, like a pilot group's contract, they then either reach a deal on a new contract (rare! if they coulda reached a deal they would have done it earlier) or take it to the judge in 1113c. The judge's role is to see if he can make all the pieces work by looking at projected revenues, the FA's pay, pilots pay, maintenance, management etc..etc...if there is no way in hell it would work, you get liquidation. In that sense, it is open to debate what the judge looks at when imposing concessions, but I think most people would tell you the judge looks at wages compared to industry averages, and concessions that labor groups have already given, and things along those lines. I guess the issue with Comair was the judge viewed concessions that were due to snap back as not much of a concession.
If there is a solution to the mess by bringing in new labor contracts, then the judge imposes the labor contracts that he thinks spread the pain around fairly. Of course managements have a way of dodging the bullet here with post-petition bonuses and other shenanigans that they pay themselves for supposedly righting the ship. The judge can't do much about these post-petition bonuses that happen after the fact. This is an unfairness in the system that should be fixed, and really happens because shareholders are too comatose to know they are being robbed blind in these situations.
The name of the game is to avoid BK, and that is what makes this situation so tough. Is Menke working in good faith? Is he trying to save the business, or is he just preparing for bankruptcy, regardless? That is the million dollar question.
At Frontier, Menke was making some progress until their credit card processing company panicked and pulled the plug - forcing them into bankruptcy. Pinnacle seems to be a ways away from anyone doing that to them (the only entity that could is Delta, and they run litigation risk if they withhold payments), so Menke might have enough time here to right things. We'll see.
M.
Sorry you had to go through all that at Comair. It sounds like it was a raw deal. I certainly don't know as much about the comair situation as you do, and your insights are really helpful.
Bankruptcy is a sh$t sandwich no matter how you slice it. As I understand it, right off the bat management can accept or reject any contract they had entered into pre-bankrupcty. (No surprise they usually target everyone else's contracts and not their own).
Once they have rejected a contract, like a pilot group's contract, they then either reach a deal on a new contract (rare! if they coulda reached a deal they would have done it earlier) or take it to the judge in 1113c. The judge's role is to see if he can make all the pieces work by looking at projected revenues, the FA's pay, pilots pay, maintenance, management etc..etc...if there is no way in hell it would work, you get liquidation. In that sense, it is open to debate what the judge looks at when imposing concessions, but I think most people would tell you the judge looks at wages compared to industry averages, and concessions that labor groups have already given, and things along those lines. I guess the issue with Comair was the judge viewed concessions that were due to snap back as not much of a concession.
If there is a solution to the mess by bringing in new labor contracts, then the judge imposes the labor contracts that he thinks spread the pain around fairly. Of course managements have a way of dodging the bullet here with post-petition bonuses and other shenanigans that they pay themselves for supposedly righting the ship. The judge can't do much about these post-petition bonuses that happen after the fact. This is an unfairness in the system that should be fixed, and really happens because shareholders are too comatose to know they are being robbed blind in these situations.
The name of the game is to avoid BK, and that is what makes this situation so tough. Is Menke working in good faith? Is he trying to save the business, or is he just preparing for bankruptcy, regardless? That is the million dollar question.
At Frontier, Menke was making some progress until their credit card processing company panicked and pulled the plug - forcing them into bankruptcy. Pinnacle seems to be a ways away from anyone doing that to them (the only entity that could is Delta, and they run litigation risk if they withhold payments), so Menke might have enough time here to right things. We'll see.
M.
01-05-2012, 03:41 PM
#214
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,535
Boomer,
Sorry you had to go through all that at Comair. It sounds like it was a raw deal. I certainly don't know as much about the comair situation as you do, and your insights are really helpful.
Comair won three rulings against ALPA. One was the injunction that nullified the snapback clause due to kick in on 01/01/07 when Delta failed to meet the fleet guarantee they had promised for the 2005 concessions.
The second was ruling for the company in their 1113c motion to reject the pilot contract and impose their own.
The third was an injunction to prevent ALPA from striking when Comair imposed the 1113c contract, thus violating the status quo. (This one was technically a win for the company, since he postponed the case pending further review and we never actually had the opportunity to test the case law by striking).
Bankruptcy is a sh$t sandwich no matter how you slice it. As I understand it, right off the bat management can accept or reject any contract they had entered into pre-bankrupcty. (No surprise they usually target everyone else's contracts and not their own).
Management can not outright reject a contract, only the judge can do that for them. Prior to 1113c, Management can propose a new contract, and ALPA can accept it or counter-offer. Both sides must negotiate in good faith. When the company doesn't get what they want, they file the 1113c motion and the judge decides which proposal is more justified. I do not know of any case (in aviation, anyway) where the judge decided that a union's proposal offered a better chance than management's for the company to survive.
Once they have rejected a contract, like a pilot group's contract, they then either reach a deal on a new contract (rare! if they coulda reached a deal they would have done it earlier) or take it to the judge in 1113c. The judge's role is to see if he can make all the pieces work by looking at projected revenues, the FA's pay, pilots pay, maintenance, management etc..etc...if there is no way in hell it would work, you get liquidation. In that sense, it is open to debate what the judge looks at when imposing concessions, but I think most people would tell you the judge looks at wages compared to industry averages, and concessions that labor groups have already given, and things along those lines. I guess the issue with Comair was the judge viewed concessions that were due to snap back as not much of a concession.
Delta (Bastian, Glass, Anderson, Bornhorst) testified that Comair's costs were above average and not competitive. A group like Mesa would have a harder time proving that the pilot contract was a factor that led to BK.
If there is a solution to the mess by bringing in new labor contracts, then the judge imposes the labor contracts that he thinks spread the pain around fairly.
Exactly. This is where any good-faith paycuts outside of BK don't count for squat in 1113c, whether they are due to snap-back or not. The pilots need to hurt just like everyone else during BK.
Sorry you had to go through all that at Comair. It sounds like it was a raw deal. I certainly don't know as much about the comair situation as you do, and your insights are really helpful.
Comair won three rulings against ALPA. One was the injunction that nullified the snapback clause due to kick in on 01/01/07 when Delta failed to meet the fleet guarantee they had promised for the 2005 concessions.
The second was ruling for the company in their 1113c motion to reject the pilot contract and impose their own.
The third was an injunction to prevent ALPA from striking when Comair imposed the 1113c contract, thus violating the status quo. (This one was technically a win for the company, since he postponed the case pending further review and we never actually had the opportunity to test the case law by striking).
Bankruptcy is a sh$t sandwich no matter how you slice it. As I understand it, right off the bat management can accept or reject any contract they had entered into pre-bankrupcty. (No surprise they usually target everyone else's contracts and not their own).
Management can not outright reject a contract, only the judge can do that for them. Prior to 1113c, Management can propose a new contract, and ALPA can accept it or counter-offer. Both sides must negotiate in good faith. When the company doesn't get what they want, they file the 1113c motion and the judge decides which proposal is more justified. I do not know of any case (in aviation, anyway) where the judge decided that a union's proposal offered a better chance than management's for the company to survive.
Once they have rejected a contract, like a pilot group's contract, they then either reach a deal on a new contract (rare! if they coulda reached a deal they would have done it earlier) or take it to the judge in 1113c. The judge's role is to see if he can make all the pieces work by looking at projected revenues, the FA's pay, pilots pay, maintenance, management etc..etc...if there is no way in hell it would work, you get liquidation. In that sense, it is open to debate what the judge looks at when imposing concessions, but I think most people would tell you the judge looks at wages compared to industry averages, and concessions that labor groups have already given, and things along those lines. I guess the issue with Comair was the judge viewed concessions that were due to snap back as not much of a concession.
Delta (Bastian, Glass, Anderson, Bornhorst) testified that Comair's costs were above average and not competitive. A group like Mesa would have a harder time proving that the pilot contract was a factor that led to BK.
If there is a solution to the mess by bringing in new labor contracts, then the judge imposes the labor contracts that he thinks spread the pain around fairly.
Exactly. This is where any good-faith paycuts outside of BK don't count for squat in 1113c, whether they are due to snap-back or not. The pilots need to hurt just like everyone else during BK.
Here it is again:
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...64_opinion.pdf
01-05-2012, 04:00 PM
#215
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,535
Here is the Judge's ruling that prevented ALPA from self-help when the company imposed their 1113c contract:
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...24_opinion.pdf
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...24_opinion.pdf
01-05-2012, 04:14 PM
#216
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,535
I have to correct myself, there is indeed a case where a judge sided with a union in an 1113 motion.
In looking at old Comair case files, I discovered that there were actually two 1113c motions against the FA's (Teamsters).
In the first one (April 2006), the judge found that the company had not bargained in good faith and sent them back to negotiate further.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...67_opinion.pdf
In the second (July 2006), the judge found that Comair had done a better job and threw out the FA contract.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...27_opinion.pdf
In looking at old Comair case files, I discovered that there were actually two 1113c motions against the FA's (Teamsters).
In the first one (April 2006), the judge found that the company had not bargained in good faith and sent them back to negotiate further.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...67_opinion.pdf
In the second (July 2006), the judge found that Comair had done a better job and threw out the FA contract.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinion...27_opinion.pdf
01-06-2012, 08:55 AM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: non acceptus excretus
Posts: 561
Having Been through it twice I can say that I would as a pilot remember that Ican work for free and still not keep my airline out of BK.Management will find a way to do it any way and a pilot s pathetic five percent will only ultimately go to management bonuses... And then the judge will cut your pay some more any way. Just have guts and go for max pay till the last day and in the end you will be better off for it.
01-06-2012, 10:11 AM
#219
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B76ER
Posts: 64
This is all good discussion but I'd be willing to bet my career at Comair (oh wait, never mind...that'll be gone soon) that the militant "full-pay-to-the-last-day" faction will gladly crusade on boards like this but those who buy into the company rhetoric and are afraid to take a stand keep their mouths shut until after said votes occur, at which point they will claim that no way in hay-all would they agree to concessions. This is what happened at Clownair. 51-49 in favor of concessions in bankruptcy and yet nobody I ever fly with ever seems to admit they voted yes. When we are down to 44 aircraft this summer, there will still be the "51ers" that can't replace $104/hr in a tough economy with nothing but a H.S. diploma and a 6,000 sq ft home in Northern Kentucky or Orlando or wherever.
I feel for the Pinnacle brethren. Just don't think what's happening to you is occurring in a vacuum. Listen to what Boomer is saying because I can corroborate all of it.
I feel for the Pinnacle brethren. Just don't think what's happening to you is occurring in a vacuum. Listen to what Boomer is saying because I can corroborate all of it.
01-06-2012, 10:19 AM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 152
This is all good discussion but I'd be willing to bet my career at Comair (oh wait, never mind...that'll be gone soon) that the militant "full-pay-to-the-last-day" faction will gladly crusade on boards like this but those who buy into the company rhetoric and are afraid to take a stand keep their mouths shut until after said votes occur, at which point they will claim that no way in hay-all would they agree to concessions. This is what happened at Clownair. 51-49 in favor of concessions in bankruptcy and yet nobody I ever fly with ever seems to admit they voted yes. When we are down to 44 aircraft this summer, there will still be the "51ers" that can't replace $104/hr in a tough economy with nothing but a H.S. diploma and a 6,000 sq ft home in Northern Kentucky or Orlando or wherever.
I feel for the Pinnacle brethren. Just don't think what's happening to you is occurring in a vacuum. Listen to what Boomer is saying because I can corroborate all of it.
I feel for the Pinnacle brethren. Just don't think what's happening to you is occurring in a vacuum. Listen to what Boomer is saying because I can corroborate all of it.
How about a new sticker:
"I don't need a roadshow to vote NO..."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
