XML 17 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.3.0.15
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] 
Commitments Contingencies and Guarantees [Text Block]
The Company leases airport facilities and certain operating equipment under operating lease agreements. ABX leases portions of the air park in Wilmington, Ohio under a lease agreement with a regional port authority, the term of which expires in May of 2019.
In September 2008, CAM entered into an agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (“IAI”) for the conversion of up to fourteen Boeing 767-200 passenger door freighters to a standard freighter configuration. The conversion primarily consists of the installation of a standard cargo door and loading system. Through September 30, 2011, twelve such aircraft have completed the modification process. As of September 30, 2011, the last two of the fourteen Boeing 767-200 aircraft were undergoing modification to standard freighter configuration. As of September 30, 2011, to complete the aircraft currently undergoing modification, CAM expects to pay IAI approximately $9.0 million.
In August 2010, CAM entered into an agreement with M&B Conversions Limited and IAI for the conversion by IAI of up to ten Boeing 767-300 series passenger aircraft to a standard freighter configuration during the 10-year term of the agreement. As of September 30, 2011, two such aircraft have completed the modification process and two Boeing 767-300 aircraft were undergoing modification to a standard freighter configuration. If CAM were to cancel the conversion program as of September 30, 2011, it would owe IAI approximately $1.5 million associated with additional conversion part kits which have been ordered. In October of 2011, CAM purchased another Boeing 767-300 passenger aircraft for freighter conversion.
In October 2010, CAM entered into an agreement with Precision Conversions, LLC (“Precision”) for the design, engineering and certification of a Boeing 757 "combi" aircraft variant. The Boeing 757 combi variant to be developed by Precision will incorporate 10 full cargo pallet positions along with seating for up to 58 passengers. In April 2011, CAM purchased a Boeing passenger 757 aircraft which is currently undergoing combi development. In July 2011, CAM purchased another Boeing 757 passenger aircraft and inducted it into the standard freighter modification process with Precision. CAM is committed to convert at least two Boeing 757 aircraft with Precision. If CAM were to cancel the conversion program as of September 30, 2011, it would owe Precision approximately $8.0 million associated with engineering efforts and conversion part kits which have been ordered. In October of 2011, CAM purchased another Boeing 757-200 passenger aircraft for combi conversion.
Guarantees and Indemnifications
Certain operating leases and agreements of the Company contain indemnification obligations to the lessor, or one or more other parties that are considered reasonable and customary (e.g. use, tax and environmental indemnifications), the terms of which range in duration and are often limited. Such indemnification obligations may continue after expiration of the respective lease or agreement.

Civil Action Alleging Violations of Immigration Laws
On December 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint against ABX, a total of four current and former executives and managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case was filed as a putative class action against the defendants, and asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO). The complaint, which was later amended to include a second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005. On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three of the five claims constituting the basis of Plaintiffs' complaint. Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the Court issued a decision permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint for the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed claims. On October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants filed an answer denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
The complaint is similar to a prior complaint filed by another former employee in April 2007. The prior complaint was subsequently dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff’s request on November 3, 2008.
FAA Enforcement Actions
The Company’s airline operations are subject to complex aviation and transportation laws and regulations that are continually enforced by the DOT and FAA. The Company’s airlines receive letters of investigation (“LOIs”) from the FAA from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The LOIs generally provide that some action of the airline may have been contrary to the FAA’s regulations. The airline responds to the LOIs and if the response is not satisfactory to the FAA, it can seek to impose a civil penalty for the alleged violations. Airlines are entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or a Federal District Court Judge, depending on the amount of the penalty being sought, before any penalty order is deemed final.
The FAA issued LOIs to CCIA arising from a focused inspection of that airline’s operations during the fourth quarter of 2009, several of which resulted in the FAA seeking monetary penalties against CCIA. ABX received an LOI from the FAA alleging that ABX failed to comply with an FAA Airworthiness Directive involving its Boeing 767 aircraft and proposing a monetary settlement. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for those monetary penalties being proposed by the FAA, although it’s possible that the FAA may propose additional penalties exceeding the amounts currently reserved.
Brussels Noise Ordinance
The Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer ("BIM"), a governmental authority in the Brussels-Capital Region of Belgium that oversees the enforcement of environmental matters, brought an administrative action against ABX alleging numerous violations of an ordinance limiting the noise caused by aircraft overflying the Brussels-Capital Region, which is located near the Brussels Airport. On May 13, 2011, the BIM levied an administrative penalty on ABX in the amount of €0.1 million (approximately $0.2 million) for numerous alleged violations of the ordinance during the period from May 2009 through November 2009. ABX appealed this matter to the Environmental College in Brussels. However, on October 10, 2011, the Environmental College affirmed the decision of the BIM. ABX now intends to appeal the decision to the Council of State.
The ordinance in question is controversial for the reason that it is was adopted by the Brussels-Capital Region and is more restrictive than the noise limitations in effect in the Flemish Region, which is where the Brussels Airport is located. The ordinance is the subject of several court cases currently pending in the Belgian courts and numerous airlines have been levied fines thereunder.
Similar administrative actions may be brought against ABX with respect to alleged violations of the ordinance during the period from December 2009 through December 2010, which could also result in the imposition of administrative penalties.
ABX ceased operating in Belgium at the end of 2010.
In addition to the foregoing matters, the Company is also currently a party to legal proceedings in various federal and state jurisdictions arising out of the operation of their business. The amount of alleged liability, if any, from these proceedings cannot be determined with certainty; however, the Company believes that their ultimate liability, if any, arising from the pending legal proceedings, as well as from asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are probable of assertion, taking into account established accruals for estimated liabilities, should not be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.
Employees Under Collective Bargaining Agreements
As of September 30, 2011, the flight crewmember employees of ABX, ATI and CCIA were represented by the labor unions listed below:
Labor Agreement Unit
Percentage of
the Company’s
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Airline Pilots Association
Airline Pilots Association