AA employees got shares for what reason?

[swamt]

Funny how 700 responds when the slams are against him.  BTW 700, does your mommy work at the NMB?

 

[700UW]

Wow, going there?

Hey Mr my Mother has been dead since 1995.

And your the one who keeps running to the NMB on issues that don't mean anything nor involve you.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Wow, going there? your the one who keeps running to the NMB on issues that don't mean anything nor involve you.

 
Again You talk about how things don't involve someone and don't mean anything.
 
So why are you on an AA forum telling us how great the IAM is what they have in the CBA.
 
WE here at AA have the TWU (totally worthless union) which you are not a memeber of. Nor do you pay dues to the TWU either.
 
You are also telling the mechanics how bad the union is that we would like to switch too when again you are NOT even a mechanic.
 
You are on just about every thread on the AA site about every subject, and you keep saying how you know and we can't read we should get a life and what ever else you can come up with.
 
SWAMT is here to give info about what AMFA has done for the SWA guys and how the IBT and IAM and TWU have lied about things, or streched the truth so that AMFA willl be looked upon in a negative light.
 
He was wong to attack your family, that is not Cool, families have nothing to do with our class and craft and what is happening in our industry.
 
 
 

AMFA at The NEW AA IN 2014​

 

[Slopoke]

I hate to add another non topic post to this thread, but 2 full pages of posts entirely off the subject is enough. Can we get this topic back on track, or if not, the mods need to lock this thread.

 

[NYer]

Still spinning for Little I see.

When AA cited the liability they would have by not freezing the pension and terminating future accruals it was based on what I would have received under those terms. So yes, when AA eliminated that liability I lost that money, it was money that AA had put on a website that gave me an approximation of what I would receive if I stayed till a certain retirement age, they created the website to justify the other concessions they took from us. Now if I stay till that same age I will receive around half of what it said before and I still have the fewest Holidays, least amount of Vacation sick time and lowest hourly rates. So I lost a lot more than half my pension.

Personally I've always said we should have let AA do what they were threatening to do back in 2003. The BK Juggernaut would have stopped there, at around a 14% across the board paycut instead of at least a 25% cut in compensation, then another 20% ten years later when they decided to file anyway. AA ended up with the best deals both rounds, and forced UAL back to the table and US into another BK. AA got more out of it than any other carrier, and people like you and Jim Little helped them.

 
Your first paragraph is a better representation of the pension loss.
 
Your second paragraph is a bit confusing since you're lamenting losing your pension accrual but at the same time you advocate a BK 10 years earlier which would have certainly caused a much higher loss to your pension since there would have been 10 less years of accrual.
 
I also recall you advocated for the airline to go into liquidation during this BK, reasoning that whomever took over the assets would give mechanics a better deal than what you ended up with...although with less available jobs.

 

[AANOTOK]

 
I also recall you advocated for the airline to go into liquidation during this BK, reasoning that whomever took over the assets would give mechanics a better deal than what you ended up with...although with less available jobs.

I remember that as well, and to this day it hasn't set well with me.

 

[swamt]

700, I went there because you made me go there.  Your the one complaining of me going to the NMB proving you wrong on who will run or conduct the election for the alliance vote.  And this bothers you soooo much.  Get over it.  But you can't...

 

[Bob Owens]

Your first paragraph is a better representation of the pension loss.
 
Your second paragraph is a bit confusing since you're lamenting losing your pension accrual but at the same time you advocate a BK 10 years earlier which would have certainly caused a much higher loss to your pension since there would have been 10 less years of accrual.
 
I also recall you advocated for the airline to go into liquidation during this BK, reasoning that whomever took over the assets would give mechanics a better deal than what you ended up with...although with less available jobs.

More spin.
Well if you recall it you should be able to prove it. Go ahead and pull up a post where I advocated BK. What I did say is that we should not roll over every time they threaten to do so and give more and more concessions, that even prior to 2003 AA had concessions in place without going into BK that competitors didn't have even after exiting BK. Time has shown that I was right, the concessions we gave in 2003 hurt workers at every other legacy carrier. It lowered the bar for everyone, UAL had just hammered out a deal in BK where they took a 14% paycut and not much else, after our deal was announced their creditors committee rejected the deal and made them go back for more, USAIR went back into BK a second time thanks to us and still came out with more Vacation, Holidays, sick time and Doubletime than we did. So I still say that we should not give more concessions outside of BK than they can expect to get in BK. As far as the jobs we lost 50% of them, as far as what would have happened in 2003 if they went BK, probably not much difference, you not being a mechanic, wouldnt realize that the ability to outsource is limited by the capacity, which had already been absorbed by other carriers and AA would lose the cost advantage they had with the Tulsa Base and OSMs. There would have been higher demand and the MROs would charge more.

You see unlike you I believe that Unions should negotiate, not just be a messenger for the company where they take members dues and say "this is what they are offering A or B , you decide", I believe Unions should throw a "C" option in there that is more than what the company feels like offering, if the pie is too small we should not be left with the only option being how do we divide it but rather that we demand a bigger pie.

Under the Little regime our Union was a company union, they took our dues but the top level of the Union was simply an extension of HR, even other TWU members called it the "AA-TD". Little would bring tainted people into the ATD, hypocrites , drunks and felons and pay them a lot of money to undermine any real sense of unionism. He would take people who professed to be born again, while knocking up their secretary who use their position to promote an anti-union agenda, or guys who were caught in criminal activity, who then turned and ratted on their coworkers but still could not get an airport ID or guys who had run in's with the law due to DWIs and move them up in the organization. The damage they did, people such as yourself, will likely not be undone within our careers, and thats unfortunate. Unions are supposed to be here to make sure workers get a better deal, not make excuses for the company and help the company screw over their members. We know why you hide under an alias, not because you are afraid of retaliation from the company, but rather because you want to hide who you are from your peers.

Accrual on the pension is exponential, with the biggest gains made during the last years before you retire, so the next ten years I would accrue more than I accrued the first 25 years. I am pretty much an average mechanic at over 50 years of age. AA saved more by terminating the pension now, when the average age is well over 50, than they would have had they terminated the pension ten years ago when the average age was below 40. In addition to that our "extra concessions" more than funded any additional accruals. These "extra concessions", concessions that others did not give up in BK, came out to over $5000 a year, plus the company wasn't even funding the plan properly. Sure they claim they put in $2billion over the ten years but that comes out to less than what they would have had to put in a 4501K match. That $2billion includes contributions to the executive and pilots pensions, like I said they admitted that the 401K was going to cost them more , but due to the fact that the concessions they took from us, the concessions that we gave supposedly to save the pension, were not used for the pension, future costs could be higher when the liabilities become payable. Who told us to lobby to allow AA to not properly fund the pension-Jim Little, and no doubt you were right up is ass pushing for it as well. To sum it up additional accruals were more than funded by us but our funds are not there, instead there remains an IOU from a company that has broken every promise they ever made to us.

 

[Flying low]

More spin.
Well if you recall it you should be able to prove it. Go ahead and pull up a post where I advocated BK.

I'm thinking that NYer has a pretty good memory...
From post # 724177 back in 2003: The sad fact is if they lose we lose but if they win or succeed we lose. I dont care to engage in that sort of competition. Let them play whatever games they like, lets get our money or shut it down.
From post #724544, same year: As the Gap between us and our peers grows its reasonable to expect that our performance will degrade as well. Why would we want AA to succeed if their success is built on our economic decline?? We would be better off to see it fail and let a carrier that pays better pick up the routes and passengers and put in our applications there, and the only way they would be able to do that is if AA failed.
Just two examples of you saying that AA should just close it's doors.

 

[AANOTOK]

Bob, I sure as hope to hell you are not saying you never stated that liquidation would be better. If you are, your credibility is shot. I'm not gonna dig through all these posts, but I know for a FACT you said that and I remember thinking what a greedy sob, not caring if 80,000 plus lost their job as long as you and your work group got yours.
 
And yes, you used the word "Liquidation".

 

[MetalMover]

Since Flying Low obviously didn't make this up, and these are indeed actual posts, for anyone to want bankruptcy to destroy tens of thousands of lives, it is deplorable and self serving. 
And to also assume that bankruptcy would create opportunities elsewhere as other airlines would ultimately pick up the pieces is a bit foolish.
These tens of thousands of people would be starting over, lives and families disrupted as they might have to relocate.
Lower starting salaries...the list goes on and on.
 
Those posts are truly disturbing.

 

[Bob Owens]

I guess you can read what you want out of one part of what was likely a much longer post. Neither post even mentions BK, both say that we should not give concessions no matter what. At the time Jim Little was making comments where he was saying if we didn't give concessions that AA may go straight to chapter seven and liquidate, even the company didn't push the threat that far and they repudiated his statements.

Having people who hide behind an alias questioning my credibility is amusing.

BK is not our decision, our decision is whether or not we give concessions. We gave concessions and they went BK anyway. You cant stop a company from going BK, and giving concessions outside of BK sure as hell wont put you in a better position if they do, in fact Tom Roth the economist hired by the TWU, because we did a good job of discrediting John Donnelly, even stated that you are better off going in fat than skinny. In other words we never should have agreed to concessions before BK especially if the company is threatening to go BK, certainly not concessions that lowered the bar below industry average, yet Little had said the exact opposite, he said that if we gave concessions and they went BK anyway (Little also said its not a question of if but when) the court would look more favorably on us, which they didn't.

I still say that giving those concessions in 2003 was the wrong thing to do, all it did was allow AA to continue to pay leases on Fokkers, facilities they don't use, pay the banks back and clear debt then place the largest order for new planes in history and drastically lower the bar for the whole industry. We screwed the guys who were in BK by giving AA more without going BK than they gave up in BK. Saying that we should not give concessions regardless of the companies threats is not advocating bankruptcy, like I said BK is not our decision to make.

Lower starting salaries? You seem to forget how much you have lost, your salary today is still lower than it was ten years ago, and thats just the wage. You effectively lost half your compensation, you have a lower topped out wage its been lower for ten years.

Twenty years ago the guys from EAL made a tough choice, but it was the right choice, and yes they had to start at the bottom again and within three years they were making a lot more than they would have had they agreed to Lorenzos demands, now look at us, ten years after giving concessions and we still have a lower wage, less Holidays, less vacation, less sick time, no retiree medical, no more DB and our match is just 5.5% of a wage thats less than it was ten years ago. Had the EAL guys succumbed to Lorenzo what it took 9-11 to do for management may have happened ten years earlier, we all owe them gratitude for what they did, we all benefitted from it. Our employer ended up getting everything Lorenzo was after and more. You claim its foolish to assume that should AA disappear that other carriers would expand? I think its foolish to assume that should AA disappear that you will never work again. To assume that the millions of people who fly AA every year will all of a sudden stay home, that the hundreds of planes will go to the desert and not be repainted and leased to other airlines, that terminals will remain vacant, all because we didn't agree to concessions? Who is being foolish, you had a life before AA, and you would have one after. The fact is that when EAL disappeared other carriers expanded and more than filled the gap, and they did that with much lower load factors. Same with Pan Am and other carriers, my assumption is based on thirty years of observation , what are your assumptions based on other than fear? Saying that we will survive no matter what happens to AA is not advocating BK, its a point against giving concessions no matter what the threat is.

The fact is tens of thousands of lives have been disrupted and remain disrupted ten years later. Losing half our compensation for ten years and running has had an enormous impact on us. How much more are you willing to give up? At what point would you tell AA that no matter what they threaten you with the answer is NO?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, I sure as hope to hell you are not saying you never stated that liquidation would be better. If you are, your credibility is shot. I'm not gonna dig through all these posts, but I know for a FACT you said that and I remember thinking what a greedy sob, not caring if 80,000 plus lost their job as long as you and your work group got yours.
 
And yes, you used the word "Liquidation".

So you are saying that we should be OK with being at the very bottom of the industry because by doing so it saved you from losing your job which is not at the bottom of the industry?

Let me ask you something, were the pilots wrong to go on strike in 1997? How about the FAs in 1992? In both cases the company claimed that if those groups were successful the company could be put out of business. Should every unionized group agree to be at the very bottom of the industry so other groups don't feel that their jobs could be put at risk? If so shouldn't we all just give up being in a union and simply let the company dictate whatever they want?

You know for a fact what? Are you claiming I advocated BK? Or are you saying that I said we would be better off letting them liquidate than agree to the very worst deal in the industry? You call saying NO to the worst deal in the industry advocacy of BK?

By the way how did your work group fare? Are there any FSCs at any carrier making close to double what you are?

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm thinking that NYer has a pretty good memory...

Just two examples of you saying that AA should just close it's doors.

So you had to go back to 2003 to find something to spin to try and support NYer, but you seem to forget that he said "this BK" which was filed in 2011, not 2003.


Every time a Union goes on strike they are saying that they would rather the company close their doors than agree to the terms offered, thats what strikes do-they shut down production. If you dont believe in that then you have no business being in a Union and you should just accept whatever the company wants to give you.

 

[Flying low]

So you had to go back to 2003 to find something to spin to try and support NYer, but you seem to forget that he said "this BK" which was filed in 2011, not 2003.
Every time a Union goes on strike they are saying that they would rather the company close their doors than agree to the terms offered, thats what strikes do-they shut down production. If you dont believe in that then you have no business being in a Union and you should just accept whatever the company wants to give you.

Since NYer first started talking about the (BK) 10 years ago, could his word (this) mean the 10 year ago fiasco? Guess one could read it either way, 10 years ago or 2 years ago...