AA Management and Cargo Airlines

[BoeingBoy]

You do love to change the argument or take a few words out of context when it suits you, don't you. You talk about getting UPS/FedEx pay and I ask where the money for that supposed to come from. So you change to "pay more". I say a a couple of hundred words about a subject and you take two or three and make an issue out of them.

Seems that you're content to make the decision to put 10's of thousands of people out of work if you don't get your way though. Did they elect you as their spokesman or do you just feel that yours is the only opinion that matters?

All of you at AA do whatever you want - it's not my fight. It'd just be nice (and one of my pet peeves) if a fact would enter the conversation once in awhile instead of just conjecture, opinion, scuttlebutt, and assumption.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

You do love to change the argument or take a few words out of context when it suits you, don't you. You talk about getting UPS/FedEx pay and I ask where the money for that supposed to come from. So you change to "pay more". I say a a couple of hundred words about a subject and you take two or three and make an issue out of them.

Seems that you're content to make the decision to put 10's of thousands of people out of work if you don't get your way though. Did they elect you as their spokesman or do you just feel that yours is the only opinion that matters?

All of you at AA do whatever you want - it's not my fight. It'd just be nice (and one of my pet peeves) if a fact would enter the conversation once in awhile instead of just conjecture, opinion, scuttlebutt, and assumption.

Jim

There goes the old management spin as you avoid and twist what I say. The struggle between labor and management is eternal and management always claims they dont have the money, but we saw how quick they raised the $1.4 bilion to bail out JAL, we see them buying new aircraft(around 40 this year at around $60million each), new ground equipement, building new terminals, putting winglets on entire fleets of aircraft, and lets not forget executive bonuses they never seem to have a problem finding money for all those things, (now we can expect the line about how those are all good investments for the future), but when it comes to paying us they say "where are we going to get the money from". The fact is they never ever admit they have the money. Where do they get it from? Maybe the $20billion in revenue they bring in every year, but really I dont care, because even though all those other expenses may be good investments they wont generate any revenue if people dont show up to work.

Like I said before nobody else answers the question "where are we going to get the money from" when they set their prices, neither should we.

 

[Hopeful]

Seems that you're content to make the decision to put 10's of thousands of people out of work if you don't get your way though. Did they elect you as their spokesman or do you just feel that yours is the only opinion that matters?
Jim

Guess what, Jim?
The concessions that were force fed upon us were a result of the company's threats to file bankruptcy and shed 10's of thousands of jobs.
Well, 10's of thousands of jobs disappeared regardless. Employees gave back billions, and they still want more.
I tell you what, why doesn't everyone in the working class work for minimum wage so we can have 100% employment. Hows that for an econmic stimulus.
Of course executives would be exempt from sharing any pain.

You say you never have worked for AA, so I will tell you this company ALWAYS cries poverty.
They are more concerned with compensating the priviliged elite at the top.

As each day passes with the company refusing to bargain in good faith, more employees are getting fed up and doing less and less and making sure AA stays WORST IN CLASS.

If they want bankrupt carriers cost, then agree to an impasse and let the chips fall where they may.

Let them lose control of the company while in Chapter 11.
I'd rather an arbitrator decide rather this AArogant mangement we have.

AA wants bankruptcy wages and contracts without bankruptcy.
Can't have it both ways, Jim.

Airline employees have been subsidizing low fares since deregulation.
Maybe shedding thousands of more jobs will force people to find work elsewhere.

This way the executives can pad their wallets and purses further for making the "OH SO PAINFUL DECISIONS TO FURLOUGH PEOPLE."

Enough is Enough.

Having worked for with former Eastern Airline folks since that company's demise, I can tell you that each one of them said it was worth destroying Lorenzo and the once great company that he destroyed. They would do it again.....

This is how many of us feel about AA and Arpey.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Not spin - wasn't it you who said you should be paid the same pay as your peers at UPS/FedEx/Southwest? So I merely asked where you suggest that the billions to do that would come from since at least for UPS it would mean paying the employees $5 billion/year more than AMR brings in. I never said you shouldn't try to get a raise at all - that's your spin.

I don't know what you expect management to do since their job is to produce the product as cheaply as possible consistent with the long term interests of the company. If you're holding your breath for the day they get the checkbook out and tell the unions to name a figure, I hope you can hold your breath a very long time. By the same token, it's the union's job to get the employees it represents as good a deal as possible. That difference in what the two sides are trying to achieve is always going to create some amount of struggle between at the negotiating table. If you expect anything else you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Like I "said" to Hopeful, if you're expecting a lot of tears over your concessions from me you'll be waiting a long time. With the concessions at US that started in 1993 and continued being added to through 2 bankruptcies, I'll match your concessions dollar for dollar and have a lot of conceded dollars/benefits left over when you run out. And I didn't vote "yes" on any of those concessionary agreements.

Jim

 

[Hopeful]

duplicate post deleted

 

[Hopeful]

Forgive me, Jim. But with all due respect, you sound like a company spokesman. Now, maybe it is because you got hosed at US and feel there is nothing you can do about it. I can respect that.
If AA really wants the benefits of bankruptcy, then by all means file already. Eliminate the pension, lower wages, abbrogate all labor agreements, and let whoever wishes to work under tyrannical rule, so be it.
Stop crying the blues, gut labor,eliminate tens of thousands of more jobs.

So be it.

In the mean time, AA will have to get used to its new location at the bottom of the DOT rankings and stay WORST IN CLASS.

Jim, many of us have endured worse hardships in our lives, some of us are veterans of Vietnam and the Persian gulf war. We have suffered various personal tragedies.

I do not fear bankruptcy or company threats.
LET THEM FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY....for all I care.

You advocate a position that if you enable the company to prosper, they in turn will give us our due.
If you believe that, you are sadly mistaken.

AA should give us what we want, then file for bankruptcy and say "WE TOLD YOU SO"
This way, the bankruptcy judge can reduce us from a higher wage and benefit and workrules rather then reduce us from current low end ones.

And that will be the end of that.


This way the company will be free to impose whatever they wish on those who are fooolish enough to stay.

I do believe the bankruptcy code changed somewhat right after NWA and DAL did a last minute filing on the same day. Guess not to favorable to corporations using bankruptcy to abbrogate labor agreements.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Forgive me, Jim. But with all due respect, you sound like a company spokesman. Now, maybe it is because you got hosed at US and feel there is nothing you can do about it. I can respect that.

If pointing out that the money isn't and won't be there to pay the employees billions more is being a company spokesman in your mind, so be it. I certainly don't control how you feel or think. Being hosed, as you put it, has nothing to do with that issue. It does enter the equation when others that gave up less start the "woe is me, I've had it so bad, nobody suffers like I do" spiel.

You present an interesting dichotomy - saying the AA employees deserve more but urging bankruptcy so you'll get less.

Like a said to Bob, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the employees trying to get more, as long as it's not so absurdly much more that anyone in their right mind knows AA has no way of paying (like Bob and his UPS wage fantasy). Likewise, there absolutely no reason to get so emotionally involved is what is by definition an adversarial process between the unions and company.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

If pointing out that the money isn't and won't be there to pay the employees billions more is being a company spokesman in your mind, so be it. I certainly don't control how you feel or think. Being hosed, as you put it, has nothing to do with that issue. It does enter the equation when others that gave up less start the "woe is me, I've had it so bad, nobody suffers like I do" spiel.

You present an interesting dichotomy - saying the AA employees deserve more but urging bankruptcy so you'll get less.

Like a said to Bob, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the employees trying to get more, as long as it's not so absurdly much more that anyone in their right mind knows AA has no way of paying (like Bob and his UPS wage fantasy). Likewise, there absolutely no reason to get so emotionally involved is what is by definition an adversarial process between the unions and company.

Jim

So as a pilot for some other carrier who willingly gave away more than we did you're an expert on AA's finances. Maybe you should look closer at your own employers finances. Maybe you considered yourself overpaid for what you do so you felt it was right to do that, I dont, and never did.

What we are currently asking for would not be in the billions, in fact it would not even equal what we gave up. You have to remember that they would be paying at least 35% less of us (an additional $320 million savings that wasnt even part of the negotiated settlement)the higher wage that they were paying in 2003. So if we gave up $320million in 2003, restoration to 2003 would only cost around $200 million, the effect on their total costs would probably be less because of the money that they would save on OT and the costs of cancelled and delayed trips. We are currently asking for a top out of $40/hr, that would be add maybe another $75million. So what we are currently asking for wouldnt even eat up what we gave up in just pay and benifit cuts. To get to $46 which would be Industry leading, which we havent even asked for yet, would only be around $120 million more, so at the most it would cost AA $400 million (probably much less because by the end of the year there will be at least 500 less of us- that equates to an additional $40 million savings for the company)to bring us to industry leading, considering that they saved $620 million between pay cuts and headcount reductions driven by schedule reductions and productivity improvements it still leaves them with over $200 million in savings.

Being hosed? I dont recall putting "it" or anything that way, who is spinning here?

 

[Hopeful]

Like a said to Bob, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the employees trying to get more, as long as it's not so absurdly much more that anyone in their right mind knows AA has no way of paying (like Bob and his UPS wage fantasy). Likewise, there absolutely no reason to get so emotionally involved is what is by definition an adversarial process between the unions and company.

Jim

I don't think it is abusrd to tying to get back what we had in 2003 and that was only for roughly a year and half. And back in 2003, that contract put is in the upper half of mechanic wages. Not at the top, but upper half.

So asking for something that we had almost 7 years ago is not at all absurd.
I know for a fact that the executives have been restored and them some since their "concessions."

 

[BoeingBoy]

So as a pilot for some other carrier who willingly gave away...

Where did I say anything about willingly giving anything up Bob? Please point that out to me or admit you're wrong. If you're man enough, that is.

What we are currently asking for would not be in the billions

And I said to you that there was not a thing wrong with trying to get a raise. Why not mention that in your tirade?

I never said you shouldn't try to get a raise at all - that's your spin.

Being hosed? I dont recall putting "it" or anything that way, who is spinning here?

You, not me. Hopeful said that I'd "been hosed" and I replied to that. Didn't you see the quote of a portion of hopeful's post that I was replying to or is this just another instance of attack for no reason at all?

Frankly Bob, since you've added putting words in my mouth and claiming that I've done something that I haven't to your repertoire I see no reason to continue the conversation with you. It's obvious that a reasoned adult discussion is something you either are incapable of or don't desire. So I'm done. Wallow in your misery all you want.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

Where did I say anything about willingly giving anything up Bob? Please point that out to me or admit you're wrong. If you're man enough, that is.

Whats that a call out? You are the one who comes here saying that $46/hr is "fantasy", what do you make perhour? Even with your pay cuts? How much of a percentage spread is there between your top out and UPS? You come here as an advocate of management telling us that we have to find the money that will be used for our raises, throwing out grossly exaggerated figures of what it would cost and then claim that you were against taking the pay cuts you did? Sorry but my assumption that you were in favor of the pay cuts you took are based upon the position you've taken here.

And I said to you that there was not a thing wrong with trying to get a raise. Why not mention that in your tirade?

Sure but you also said it was "fantasy" to expect to get what others are already getting.

You, not me. Hopeful said that I'd "been hosed" and I replied to that. Didn't you see the quote of a portion of hopeful's post that I was replying to or is this just another instance of attack for no reason at all?

Fair enough, my mistake there.

Frankly Bob, since you've added putting words in my mouth and claiming that I've done something that I haven't to your repertoire I see no reason to continue the conversation with you. It's obvious that a reasoned adult discussion is something you either are incapable of or don't desire. So I'm done. Wallow in your misery all you want.

Jim

You wont be missed.

 

[FWAAA]

. . . we see them buying new aircraft(around 40 this year at around $60million each) . . .

Not even close, Bob. AA's new 738s are closer to half of your $60 million estimate.

 

[FWAAA]

What we are currently asking for would not be in the billions, in fact it would not even equal what we gave up.

AA's problem isn't that the mechanics want an extra $400 million or so each year, it's that Fleet probably wants about the same amount and that the FAs want about the same amount. So now we're up to about $1.2 billion or so each year. And that doesn't include the pilots, who have demanded about $2 billion to $3 billion more per year. So the total is about $3 billion to $4 billion each year.

Where do you propose AA get an extra $3 billion plus each year? I know the answer - "Not my problem." That is a lot easier than actually discussing the issues of how an airline suddenly increases its wage expense by 50% or more.

Some of us have no difficulty understanding why the negotiating committee was trimmed or how the union made the selections.

 

[JimJimmyJim]

AA's problem isn't that the mechanics want an extra $400 million or so each year, it's that Fleet probably wants about the same amount and that the FAs want about the same amount. So now we're up to about $1.2 billion or so each year. And that doesn't include the pilots, who have demanded about $2 billion to $3 billion more per year. So the total is about $3 billion to $4 billion each year.

Where do you propose AA get an extra $3 billion plus each year? I know the answer - "Not my problem." That is a lot easier than actually discussing the issues of how an airline suddenly increases its wage expense by 50% or more.

Some of us have no difficulty understanding why the negotiating committee was trimmed or how the union made the selections.

The company needs to bring a serious offer to the table. To date they haven't came close. This lump sum, ASM, Eagle ratio, and retirement crap, just to name a few, ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Bob Owens]

AA's problem isn't that the mechanics want an extra $400 million or so each year, it's that Fleet probably wants about the same amount and that the FAs want about the same amount. So now we're up to about $1.2 billion or so each year. And that doesn't include the pilots, who have demanded about $2 billion to $3 billion more per year. So the total is about $3 billion to $4 billion each year.

Where do you propose AA get an extra $3 billion plus each year? I know the answer - "Not my problem." That is a lot easier than actually discussing the issues of how an airline suddenly increases its wage expense by 50% or more.

Some of us have no difficulty understanding why the negotiating committee was trimmed or how the union made the selections.

Your statement is full of "probablys" and very rough estimates. ($2 to $3 billion, which is it, are the pilots asking for a $150,000 RAISE or just a $100,000 RAISE?? ). Where are you getting your figures from? A 50% increase in wage expense? Well if your numbers are correct, which I doubt, that goes back to how much they took away doesnt it? If someone gets a 50% paycut it takes a 100% pay increase just to get them back to where they were, does that make it unreasonable? Tack on inflation and you have to go even higher.Then you have to factor in headcount reductions which would offset the wage increase in the wage expense. Somehow your 50% seems a little off, then again I'm going from our wage expense back in 2003 when our revenues were lower, around $18 Billion, and we had around 35% more employees.

I dont know what the other workgroups are asking for nor am I negotiating for them. One of the differences is that what we're asking for others already have, most of the other departments are asking for industry leading which we should be as well seeing how wages across the industry plummeted after 2002.

Word is that Delta just jumped $2 ahead of us. So now, according to the companys list, only UAL is behind us and they are in negotiations. Presently we top out at around 30% less than SWA, I dont think that other workgroups have as much of a spread between what they are getting and industry leading.

We are way, way behind the pack.



The list prices for 737s as of Jan 2010 were as follows:

737-600 $51.5 – 58.5 million USD
737-700 $58.5 – 69.5 million USD
737-800 $72.5 – 81.0 million USD
737-900ER $76.0 – 87.0 million USD

The article does say the prices can vary quite a bit from list, as much as 1/3 but since we weren't given that info I figured I'd stick to the low end of list.