$291 million in net earnings for 2Q2006

[jetmechjer]

I am of the opinion that if AA had not taken away so much from their workers that their bottom line would have rebouded much sooner.

How much does the poor morale that is so prevalent hurt the company?

When you lay someone off the person most affected is off the property, the impact on workfoce morale is minimized, sure everyone feels bad for the guy who was laid off but thats why we voted for politicians who supported unemployment benifits, when they get the years in they will no longer get hurt, we all went through it at one time or another, but when you cut everyones pay everyone on the property has been hurt, hurt in ways they were not expecting or prepared for.

How much does it cost the company when a gear swing takes 8 hours instead of less than 2, an engine change takes 24 hours instead of less than 8 and planes sit broken for days or weeks because nobody cares enough to take an interest in fixing it, they simply put in their eight hours and pass it on? How much does it cost to lease extra aircraft, how much does aircraft underutilization cost? How much do they pay out for lost bags, damaged equipement, delays and cancellations each and every day, most of which can be attributed to poor morale? How does AAs numbers on these things compare to SWA?

If AA had kept the pay rates up they could have elimiated even more jobs than they have and seen real savings in labor costs through increased productivity. We all know that for years AA was overstaffed. AA was still hiring even after it was obvious the industry was in a slowdown, even after they took on TWA and even after 9-11. I was dumbfounded how as Treasurer of Local 562 I saw our membership increase by around 20% from 1999 to 2002. The industry was in an obvious slowdown from 2000 on but our membership was increasing!

Now they are trying to force increased productivity by not replacing anyone who leaves, but its simply not working like they planned, after all the spare aircraft are used they have to hold OT in order to get whats left fixed. And thats with the majority of pilots clearly "on board".What AA fails to see is that its the "can do" attitude that has allowed SWA to not only survive, but prosper. SWA charges low fares yet pays well. Everyone talks about SWAs productivity but they no longer want to discuss pay, sure the way a workforce is managed is important but so is how they are paid. If you want to pay like UAL and USAIR then dont expect SWA productivity. You are not going to get a can do attitude when the paycheck says F-U everytime you see it and if they cut your pay thats exactly what management is saying to you.

So, you have a family, debt and obligations, all set with the expectation that you were getting a certain amount of money then out of the blue they take away 25% of that, you cant just bolt, but you also realize that life will never be the same, it will be worse and it will be because of them. The company that you relied upon and were willing to make sacrifices and go above and beyond for has decided to no longer live up to their end but expects the same, if not more, from you. So what do you do? You show up and do what you must, you do what you are told, no more, no less and that is the difference between the productive worker at SWA and the worker at airlines that cut their employees pay.
Then why does he stay?
Could you please give us an example of the "unproductive work rules " that you speak of, in the M&R contract if you could please?

There is no need for AA to break the TWU since they already own it, they simply want to break the idea of unionism within the rank and file worker and Jim Little is more than happy to help.

That was very well put!! And that sums it all up to the point where everyone should understand the aircraft technicians new modo..........

THEY PAY ME JUST ENOUGH NOT TO QUIT!!!
SO I DO JUST ENOUGH NOT TO GET FIRED!!!

These are words never heard out of the mouths of UPS, FedEx or Southwest aircraft technicians.
Hopefully one day our mAAnagement will come to learn that one well treated aircraft mechanic can and will do more than 10 disgruntled mechanics?????

 

[Bob Owens]

That was very well put!! And that sums it all up to the point where everyone should understand the aircraft technicians new modo..........

THEY PAY ME JUST ENOUGH NOT TO QUIT!!!
SO I DO JUST ENOUGH NOT TO GET FIRED!!!

These are words never heard out of the mouths of UPS, FedEx or Southwest aircraft technicians.
Hopefully one day our mAAnagement will come to learn that one well treated aircraft mechanic can and will do more than 10 disgruntled mechanics?????

Unfortunately Little would rather have the dues of 10 disgruntled mechanics and Arpey believes he can charm us into forgetting that we cant pay our bills.

 

[Garfield1966]

Unfortunately Little would rather have the dues of 10 disgruntled mechanics and Arpey believes he can charm us into forgetting that we cant pay our bills.

But wouldn't any union do that? Unions are businesses, they are looking out for their interests first just like any other business. Here is crew skd, if I remember correctly, we did a combo, we took a pay cut but also lost some heads so we all do more work for less pay. We got to look out for our own self interest (to a degree) rather than have a 3rd part whose only interest in my welfare is my ability to pay dues.

the main problem I see with your previous post is that it appears that your work force was severely over staffed and under worked yet no one (the union) was willing to go to the company and say, hey, if you want to make ever more money and pass it around and to save for when times get tough, we have about "x" % to many people for the work we are doing. Lets go ahead and trim the work force.

It is an easy choice for me, I am in the top part of my work force and my performance is above average so I have no problem doing more work for the same pay. I feel bad for the folks who's performance is not up to par but I guess when it comes right down to it, it is survival of the fittest.

From what I recall, AMR said we want x amount of money in savings, you pick how you want to do it. Your union chose to cut your pay and now you are being asked to do more work as well. I don't see how this can be pinned on anyone other than your union. IMO, any union would have done the same thing and screwed you over, all the while, allowing you to have the pleasure of paying them to screw you over.

I still do not see how you are any better off with a union then I am with out, other than the fact that I have kept close to $10k in my pocket. To each his own I guess.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

It is an easy choice for me, I am in the top part of my work force and my performance is above average so I have no problem doing more work for the same pay. I feel bad for the folks who's performance is not up to par but I guess when it comes right down to it, it is survival of the fittest.

What about doing a lot more work for less pay? Unless you are willing to work more for less, your cost to the company is excessive. I feel your department may be in danger of being outsourced.

 

[Bob Owens]

But wouldn't any union do that? Unions are businesses, they are looking out for their interests first just like any other business.

Under normal circumstances Unions look out for their owners-the members, if they dont then the members replace the leaders, but with the TWU at AA the leaders are the International and we can not replace them.

the main problem I see with your previous post is that it appears that your work force was severely over staffed and under worked yet no one (the union) was willing to go to the company and say, hey, if you want to make ever more money and pass it around and to save for when times get tough, we have about "x" % to many people for the work we are doing. Lets go ahead and trim the work force.

Wrong again. The first proposal was to cut the workforce, the company rejected that proposal and claimed that if the cut the workforce that drastically they could not operate, then after the got the pay and benifit cuts they cut the jobs anyway.

From what I recall, AMR said we want x amount of money in savings, you pick how you want to do it. Your union chose to cut your pay and now you are being asked to do more work as well.

They said that, and they lied. They said pick it how you want it but then rejected every proposal they made until they got what they wanted.

I don't see how this can be pinned on anyone other than your union.

No there are two guilty parties, the Union leaders that accepted the bribes-Jim Little etc and the company that paid them.

 

[Garfield1966]

What about doing a lot more work for less pay? Unless you are willing to work more for less, your cost to the company is excessive. I feel your department may be in danger of being outsourced.

I guess anything is possible. Time will tell.

Under normal circumstances Unions look out for their owners-the members, if they dont then the members replace the leaders, but with the TWU at AA the leaders are the International and we can not replace them.

Not sure about the rest of your post but when it comes to the unions dues, my belief is that they will cover their own interests before yours every time.