In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–11343 (REG).,12–11343 (REG). |
| Citation | 483 B.R. 381 |
| Parties | In re PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP., et al., Debtors. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, By: Benjamin S. Kaminetzky, Esq. (argued), Lynn Earl Busath, Esq. (argued), Paul S. Mishkin, Esq. (argued), Matthew R. Maddox, Esq., New York, NY, for Debtors and Debtors in Possession.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, By: Abid Qureshi, Esq. (argued), New York, NY, Conflicts Counsel to the Debtors.
Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, By: Thomas N. Ciantra, Esq. (argued), Bruce S. Levine, Esq. (argued), Joshua J. Ellison, Esq., New York, NY, for Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l.
Morrison & Foerster LLP, By: Brett H. Miller, Esq. (argued), Erica J. Richards, Esq., New York, NY, for Official Creditors' Committee.
DECISION ON DEBTORS' MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 1113, TO REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, a chapter 11 debtor may reject an executory contract that is a collective bargaining agreement if, but only if, the Bankruptcy Court finds that rigid requirements imposed under that section have been satisfied. Section 1113 attempts to “reconcile the public policy that favors collective bargaining with the reality of bankruptcy, recognizing that Chapter 11 is not merely business as usual but an extremely serious process that can lead to liquidation and the loss of the jobs of all the debtor's employees as well as of the creditors' opportunity for any meaningful recovery.” 1 In this contested matter in the chapter 11 case of debtor Pinnacle Airlines, a regional air carrier (which, together with its affiliates,2 has been referred to variously in briefing and argument, and here, as “Pinnacle,” the “Debtor” or the “Company”),3 the Company moves, pursuant to section 1113, for leave to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Air Lines Pilots Association (referred to in briefing and argument, and here, as “ALPA” the “Union,” or the “Pilots”).”
Pinnacle contends, among other things, that it is in a liquidity crisis that impairs its ability to survive. It further contends that the regional air transport industry has become commoditized (making pricing the determinant of ability to compete in the industry); that its Pilots' wages, benefits, and work rules are greatly above market; and that its labor costs must be reduced dramatically—to the extent of $59.6 million in cost savings—and quickly for Pinnacle to survive. In fact, Pinnacle argues, its labor costs must be reduced to make them the lowest in the industry—without which, Pinnacle contends, it can survive in neither the long or even the short term. As a result, the Company argues, the Pilots unjustifiably turned down the Company's proposal—an important element of a section 1113 motion showing.
The Pilots acknowledge the liquidity crisis, and that their labor costs need to be reduced. But they contend that the extent to which the Company needs the very major concessions the Company seeks has been overstated. And they further contend that the Company's demands—under which the Pilots' labor costs would drop below the lowest of any of Pinnacle's competitors—would portend a “Race to the Bottom” in employee labor costs under which employees would be the continual losers.
In that connection, the Pilots note that the Company dramatically increased its demands—by 78%—in August, after the Pilots had already responded to an earlier Company section 1113 proposal (then seeking $33 million in cuts) in a way that the Pilots contend should have met the Company's legitimate needs. The Pilots further argue that the Company's stated reason for the very large increase in its demands—that Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta Airlines” or “Delta”), the Company's only present customer, told Company representatives in June that Pinnacle was not competitive with the other regional air carriers providing similar services to Delta—was insufficiently supported, when Delta did not provide copies of the contracts with others that would support that view.
The Pilots further argue that the Company showed no downward movement whatever in its aggregate demands. And the Pilots further argue (or at least proceed on the assumption) that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Patriot Coal Corp.
...Grocery Co., Inc., 136 B.R. 182, 191 (Bankr.S.D.Ind.1990); In re American Provision Co., 44 B.R. at 909;In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., 483 B.R. 381, 406 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012). As a practical matter, once the debtors have made their prima facie case, the burden shifts to the union to show tha......
-
In re Mission Coal Co.
...nom. Ass'n of Flight Attendants v. Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (Mesaba II), 350 B.R. 435 (D. Minn. 2006)). 46. See In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., 483 B.R. 381, 411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012); see also, e.g., Walter Energy, 542 B.R. 859. 47. See, e.g., In re Amherst Sparkle Mkt., Inc., 75 B.R. 847, 85......
-
In re Walter Energy, Inc.
...of Flight Attendants – CWA–AFL–CIO v. Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (Mesaba II ), 350 B.R. 435 (D.Minn.2006) ).79 See In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., 483 B.R. 381, 411 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012).80 See Scheller Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13.81 See Zelin Decl. ¶ 16.82 See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1113(b)(1)(A) and (B), 1114(f)(1)(A......
-
In re Alpha Natural Res., Inc.
...“debtor can only be required to provide information that is within the debtor's power to provide.” In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., 483 B.R. 381, 411 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012). Accordingly, a proposed buyer of a debtors' business operations need not provide its own business plan. See Walter Energy......
-
Government Activism in Bankruptcy
...by its reference to the Business Plan or the practices of their competitors. Id. at 454. Compare id., with In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., 483 B.R. 381, 424 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) (denying the debtor's rejections because the pilot union had good cause for declining to accept the overreaching......