AA vs. SWA - Maintenance

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 2:05:05 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Buck and Bob, during your last contract, if the TWU would have presented you with the exact same contract that was in place at Southwest (their old contract, not the current one negotiated by the Teamsters), the AMFA would have already been voted in. You would have run the TWU out of town back then. Seems foolish now, but back then you would have never stood for it, although hindsight is 20/20.

----------------
​

You''re babbling.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 820 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You''re babbling.​

----------------​

Really? So you would have voted for Southwest''s old contract...back when times were good and they were paid less and had no pension? Catch me....I''m feeling faint.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 8:36:54 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/23/2003 820 PM Bob Owens wrote:

You''re babbling.​

----------------​

Really? So you would have voted for Southwest''s old contract...back when times were good and they were paid less and had no pension? Catch me....I''m feeling faint.

----------------​

Not that I can see why you want to know if I would have voted on a contract I new nothing about???
What were the payscales and other benefits under WN old contract?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 11:33:01 PM Buck wrote:




Not that I can see why you want to know if I would have voted on a contract I new nothing about???
What were the payscales and other benefits under WN old contract?

----------------​

Buck - they were most likely less than you were making. They also had no "guaranteed" pension (they still don't). A lot of their long term incentives were (are) tied to the company's performance. It seems like a lot of unions could care less about the company's performance - they want the guaranteed increases and there is no incentive for the members to try to cut costs until the situation becomes dire. IMHO, you would have shot that contract down in a heartbeat. But it's easy to look over at them and say that THEY are making this much, so why don't we? My point is to get to where they are, you'd have to live the way they lived back then...something that was completely and totally unacacceptable to you guys back then. Indeed, with the lack of "guaranteed retirement" (I use those words very loosely) , I doubt that you would have voted for their current contract, despite it's higher hourly wage and company match 401K and stock purchase plan.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:51:37 AM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:24:57 AM Buck wrote:




Yet the average wage at American for the mechanics has been the lowest in the industry since 1983. The topped out wages may have been higher and AA had a guaranteed pension. But of course these items were paid for by the lowest average wage.

It doesn''t matter - you as an AA employee would never have voted for the same contract LUV employees did because AA was "different".

You do not know how the sheep at Aa would have voted. They have voted in some really bad concessionary contracts.

We have had profit sharing programs, LeAAp and other performance incentives. I believe that WN has had a very nice stock purchase program over the years? And when a company is ran structurally sound this is the type of incentive that pays off. All AA can do is blame labor, but they never want to fix the problem.

Here''s the catch 22 - in order to make a stock purchase plan as lucrative as the one at SWA, labor would indeed be called upon to do their share. But since too many view the stock as "iffy", there is no incentive to do any better, as a guarantee is better than the performance of the stock...at least it USED to be.

We as labor have been called upon to do our share. We took a 17.5% wage cut plus a weeks vacation and the loss of 5 holidays and the 12% cap on our medical was lifted and many work rules were changed. It is true that the stock would have to lucrative, but that is what the board of directors is there to ensure.

The workforce is not only there to provide a compensated service for the company, but they want to be happy with what they are doing. Why is moral at a all time low?

Good attitudes have prevailed at Southwest for 32 years, despite being "paid less" then their counterparts at other airlines. Focusing on what the "lowest wage" is funding isn''t conducive to good attitudes. Indeed, with all the talk of the AMFA at AA, it would seem that rather than have the "lowest wage" fund the bene''s of the most senior, the soloution is to cut them loose in a downturn. Then who pays for the bene''s?

I agree the industry is cyclical and layoffs should occur. The goal of my union should to improve wages, benefits and working conditions which in turn provide for a better moral.

What is easy to say is that if WN CASM is 7.5% and AA is ??, but lets say 8.5% after the labor concessions, then if AA treats it''s workforce equally with WN than labor should be compensated equally. AA''s size in itself dictates some advantage to have more of a market share. More potential to have revenue generated.

MArket share means nothing if the flights are not profitable. This is a mistake of managment - the revenue model is broken, and has been for quite sometime. They may "own" the market share, but they are using a broken model to price the routes - and no, the solution isn''t to raise all the fares. The solution IMHO is "value pricing".

And why are the flights not profitable?

I am just guessing, but if I had been working for WN and the moral was high then I would have voted as the majority did. However they still replaced their union representation, can you explain that. Industry leading contract in wages and they fired their rep????

Indeed they did. But in the meantime, rather than focus all their energies on throwing out the representation, they let their existing union negotiate their contract. They could have postponed everything and tried to vote out their union before any negotiations began, but they didn''t. But I really pose the question not to find what you''d do if you were a Southwest employee, but what you would do if American Airlines presented you, an American Employee, with the identical contract that was presented to Southwest. My guess is that you would have voted it down.

You have no idea how myself or the membership would have voted. My educated estimate (19 years under the TWU) is that AA could at that time had any contract they brought back. What is the TWU going to do about it?

As for the 401k, we as you know do not match as do many major corporations. This in itself is somewhat demaning when you compare benefit packages.

But only a few short months ago, any discussions of a 401K match was dismissed with the "I can''t buy food with a 401K match." It would have been voted down by you. Because when comparing benefit packages a few months ago, nobody wanted to include profit sharing, 401K match, stock options, or a stock purchase plan. But yes..Southwest has a VERY attractive 401K match.

I do not believe I was in that conversation?

If AA matched 401k cintributions many at AA would be satified with the wages today. However that is speaking from the top of the payscale and living in a low economic area of the country. My friend Bob Owens will tell you that those in the higher economic areas struggle daily.

A cop in New York City makes less than a senior mechanic at AA. A mechanic at Jetblue makes less than an AA mechanic. A school teacher in NYC makes less than an AA mechanic. Certainly all the residents of NYC are not millionaire investment bankers, are they?
----------------
​

And a plumbers apprentice makes more than a senior mechanic at AA What do those profession have to do with mine? Only the JetBlue mechanic should be compared. But this is about AA and Southwest. I cannot comment on JetBlue, I know nothing about them.

----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:24:57 AM Buck wrote:




Yet the average wage at American for the mechanics has been the lowest in the industry since 1983. The topped out wages may have been higher and AA had a guaranteed pension. But of course these items were paid for by the lowest average wage.

It doesn''t matter - you as an AA employee would never have voted for the same contract LUV employees did because AA was "different".

We have had profit sharing programs, LeAAp and other performance incentives. I believe that WN has had a very nice stock purchase program over the years? And when a company is ran structurally sound this is the type of incentive that pays off. All AA can do is blame labor, but they never want to fix the problem.

Here''s the catch 22 - in order to make a stock purchase plan as lucrative as the one at SWA, labor would indeed be called upon to do their share. But since too many view the stock as "iffy", there is no incentive to do any better, as a guarantee is better than the performance of the stock...at least it USED to be.

The workforce is not only there to provide a compensated service for the company, but they want to be happy with what they are doing. Why is moral at a all time low?

Good attitudes have prevailed at Southwest for 32 years, despite being "paid less" then their counterparts at other airlines. Focusing on what the "lowest wage" is funding isn''t conducive to good attitudes. Indeed, with all the talk of the AMFA at AA, it would seem that rather than have the "lowest wage" fund the bene''s of the most senior, the soloution is to cut them loose in a downturn. Then who pays for the bene''s?

What is easy to say is that if WN CASM is 7.5% and AA is ??, but lets say 8.5% after the labor concessions, then if AA treats it''s workforce equally with WN than labor should be compensated equally. AA''s size in itself dictates some advantage to have more of a market share. More potential to have revenue generated.

MArket share means nothing if the flights are not profitable. This is a mistake of managment - the revenue model is broken, and has been for quite sometime. They may "own" the market share, but they are using a broken model to price the routes - and no, the solution isn''t to raise all the fares. The solution IMHO is "value pricing".

I am just guessing, but if I had been working for WN and the moral was high then I would have voted as the majority did. However they still replaced their union representation, can you explain that. Industry leading contract in wages and they fired their rep????

Indeed they did. But in the meantime, rather than focus all their energies on throwing out the representation, they let their existing union negotiate their contract. They could have postponed everything and tried to vote out their union before any negotiations began, but they didn''t. But I really pose the question not to find what you''d do if you were a Southwest employee, but what you would do if American Airlines presented you, an American Employee, with the identical contract that was presented to Southwest. My guess is that you would have voted it down.

As for the 401k, we as you know do not match as do many major corporations. This in itself is somewhat demaning when you compare benefit packages.

But only a few short months ago, any discussions of a 401K match was dismissed with the "I can''t buy food with a 401K match." It would have been voted down by you. Because when comparing benefit packages a few months ago, nobody wanted to include profit sharing, 401K match, stock options, or a stock purchase plan. But yes..Southwest has a VERY attractive 401K match.

If AA matched 401k cintributions many at AA would be satified with the wages today. However that is speaking from the top of the payscale and living in a low economic area of the country. My friend Bob Owens will tell you that those in the higher economic areas struggle daily.

A cop in New York City makes less than a senior mechanic at AA. A mechanic at Jetblue makes less than an AA mechanic. A school teacher in NYC makes less than an AA mechanic. Certainly all the residents of NYC are not millionaire investment bankers, are they?
----------------
​

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 5:48:06 AM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/23/2003 11:33:01 PM Buck wrote:




Not that I can see why you want to know if I would have voted on a contract I new nothing about???
What were the payscales and other benefits under WN old contract?

----------------​

Buck - they were most likely less than you were making. They also had no "guaranteed" pension (they still don''t). A lot of their long term incentives were (are) tied to the company''s performance. It seems like a lot of unions could care less about the company''s performance - they want the guaranteed increases and there is no incentive for the members to try to cut costs until the situation becomes dire. IMHO, you would have shot that contract down in a heartbeat. But it''s easy to look over at them and say that THEY are making this much, so why don''t we? My point is to get to where they are, you''d have to live the way they lived back then...something that was completely and totally unacacceptable to you guys back then. Indeed, with the lack of "guaranteed retirement" (I use those words very loosely) , I doubt that you would have voted for their current contract, despite it''s higher hourly wage and company match 401K and stock purchase plan.

----------------​

Yet the average wage at American for the mechanics has been the lowest in the industry since 1983. The topped out wages may have been higher and AA had a guaranteed pension. But of course these items were paid for by the lowest average wage. We have had profit sharing programs, LeAAp and other performance incentives. I believe that WN has had a very nice stock purchase program over the years? And when a company is ran structurally sound this is the type of incentive that pays off. All AA can do is blame labor, but they never want to fix the problem. The workforce is not only there to provide a compensated service for the company, but they want to be happy with what they are doing. Why is moral at a all time low? What is easy to say is that if WN CASM is 7.5% and AA is ??, but lets say 8.5% after the labor concessions, then if AA treats it''s workforce equally with WN than labor should be compensated equally. AA''s size in itself dictates some advantage to have more of a market share. More potential to have revenue generated. I am just guessing, but if I had been working for WN and the moral was high then I would have voted as the majority did. However they still replaced their union representation, can you explain that. Industry leading contract in wages and they fired their rep???? As for the 401k, we as you know do not match as do many major corporations. This in itself is somewhat demaning when you compare benefit packages. If AA matched 401k cintributions many at AA would be satified with the wages today. However that is speaking from the top of the payscale and living in a low economic area of the country. My friend Bob Owens will tell you that those in the higher economic areas struggle daily.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 8:36:54 PM KCFlyer wrote:
So you would have voted for Southwest''s old contract...back when times were good and they were paid less and had no pension? Catch me....I''m feeling faint

----------------


Probably not.

The point is not that I want to work for SWA. The point is that the reasonable expectation is that if you work for a full service airline where one is qualified on seven different aircraft types vs working for a low cost airline is that our pay would be higher, not less.

Many of us started off in this industry working for low cost carriers. They are not “new†and the “explosive growth†is not unprecedented. Most of those “low cost†carriers disappeared anyway. The only thing that is “new†is that all the unions involved were never so eager to roll over like they have this time. The only thing that is “new†is that the full service airlines pay less than the “low cost†airlines.

As far as the “Guaranteed†pensions. The fact is that your pension is determined by your pay, so if your pay goes down in order to protect your pension you are losing twice. Giving up huge concessions to protect a pension is a bad deal if you are going to stick around to work under those concessions. The pension, along with your concessions could be gone tomorrow. Ever hear of "a bird in the hand"? Under those conditions we would be better off to keep our pay, along with an adequate 401K match.

Should we resist losing defined benifit? Yes. Should we work for less (which reduces the benifit) for the rest of our lives in order to keep it? No. To lose $20,000 per year for 20 years in order to keep a defined benifit pension is stupid, better to go for the $20,000, and bank it yourself. As long as the company has control of it, it will always be at risk, even with the PBGC. What happened to the TWU represented Pan Am guys? They gave concessions, which lowered their benifit anyway, then the fund was underfunded when the company folded anyway, they will get pennies on the dollar.

They should have kept their pay, let the carrier fold years sooner, started accumulating time somewhere else and they probably would have gotten more from their Pan Am pension plus what ever they got from their next job.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:51:37 AM KCFlyer wrote:

A cop in New York City makes less than a senior mechanic at AA. A mechanic at Jetblue makes less than an AA mechanic. A school teacher in NYC makes less than an AA mechanic. Certainly all the residents of NYC are not millionaire investment bankers, are they?
----------------
​

Not really. If I were a NYC Cop then more than likely I would be retired by now and recieving a pension in excess of what my yearly pay is.

If I were a school teacher then I would only work 180 days a year and be retired by now collecting a pension.

No not all the residents are milllionaire investment bankers but most of the residents who have similar skills make as much if not more and do not work as many days per year, holidays, weekends and shifts.

After investing 25 years into a career I feel that I have the right to fight to improve conditions and resist negative changes to our conditions that are imposed upon us by those who are not subject to those conditions. I feel that since we have a union that union should also try to resist moving backwards, perhaps they would if they were accountable. Unfortunately for us thats not the case. They never told us about how our unions were structured back in A&P school and most people, even union people cant understand it.

----------------​

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 11:32:31 AM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:51:37 AM KCFlyer wrote:

A cop in New York City makes less than a senior mechanic at AA.  A mechanic at Jetblue makes less than an AA mechanic.  A school teacher in NYC makes less than an AA mechanic.  Certainly all the residents of NYC are not millionaire investment bankers, are they? 
----------------
​

Not really. If I were a NYC Cop then more than likely I would be retired by now and recieving a pension in excess of what my yearly pay is.

If I were a school teacher then I would only work 180 days a year and be retired by now collecting a pension.

No not all the residents are milllionaire investment bankers but most of the residents who have similar skills make as much if not more and do not work as many days per year, holidays, weekends and shifts.

After investing 25 years into a career I feel that I have the right to fight to improve conditions and resist negative changes to our conditions that are imposed upon us by those who are not subject to those conditions. I feel that since we have a union that union should also try to resist moving backwards, perhaps they would if they were accountable.  Unfortunately for us thats not the case. They never told us about how our unions were structured back in A&P school and most people, even union people cant understand it.

----------------​

----------------​

I''d agree with you if you were writing this in 1998 when record profits were rolling in.

You seem to ignore the fact that in 2003, your employer was nearly broke and could no longer afford to pay you your old wages.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 11:42:48 AM FWAAA wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2003 11:32:31 AM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2003 9:51:37 AM KCFlyer wrote:

A cop in New York City makes less than a senior mechanic at AA.  A mechanic at Jetblue makes less than an AA mechanic.  A school teacher in NYC makes less than an AA mechanic.  Certainly all the residents of NYC are not millionaire investment bankers, are they? 
----------------
​

Not really. If I were a NYC Cop then more than likely I would be retired by now and recieving a pension in excess of what my yearly pay is.

If I were a school teacher then I would only work 180 days a year and be retired by now collecting a pension.

No not all the residents are milllionaire investment bankers but most of the residents who have similar skills make as much if not more and do not work as many days per year, holidays, weekends and shifts.

After investing 25 years into a career I feel that I have the right to fight to improve conditions and resist negative changes to our conditions that are imposed upon us by those who are not subject to those conditions. I feel that since we have a union that union should also try to resist moving backwards, perhaps they would if they were accountable.  Unfortunately for us thats not the case. They never told us about how our unions were structured back in A&P school and most people, even union people cant understand it.

----------------​

----------------​

I''d agree with you if you were writing this in 1998 when record profits were rolling in.

You seem to ignore the fact that in 2003, your employer was nearly broke and could no longer afford to pay you your old wages.

----------------​

Why are they nearly broke? Is it the mechanics fault? What did we change? Mismanagement of the company is why.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 11:42:48 AM FWAAA wrote:

I''d agree with you if you were writing this in 1998 when record profits were rolling in.

In 1998 the company said "We have a contract, too bad". Apparently they screwed us in the 90s by using accounting tricks to exaggerate their losses. More than likely they did the same this time, $988 million for "Goodwill", prepaid leases, accellerated depreciation, charges for "Frequent Flyer" miles that may never materialize etc.

You seem to ignore the fact that in 2003, your employer was nearly broke and could no longer afford to pay you your old wages.

Paper losses. We all had them, 401K for example, only we cant write ours off unless we actually lose money.

Again, why are our executives making more than SWA? Why dont we go to the same place that they get their executives to get ours? If it works for every other work group then why not the executives?

----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 938 AM FWAAA wrote:

Each and every WN employee works more (gives more of themselves) than employees at the other airlines. Their pilots fly more hours than any other airline. Their flight attendants clean the airplanes between flights. Their mechanics do more work with fewer bodies (and outsource the expensive stuff). And you're wondering why WN is making money and no other (forget B6 for the moment) major airline is??

Your statement on the pilots an the flight attendants can be checked but what do you base your statement on the mechanics on?

By the way our pilots, FAs and MANAGEMENT make more than SWA, but the mechanics make less. If those groups make more than SWA then why should our mechanics be the only ones who make less?

Why can't AA afford to pay you $35?? Quite a few reasons (some of which you have been in denial over for the last few months). Can AA afford to pay you $35? No. AA almost ran out of money and almost filed for Ch 11 two months ago.

Yes, but they can afford to pay our management more. Why should the manager of a money losing company get paid more than the manager of a money making company? Still, why should mechanics, who it can be argued do more than SWA get paid less? Our mechanics tend to be qualified on many different aircraft types whereas SWA mechanicss are qualified on just one. This gives AA the ability to generate additional income by working for other carriers.

You would never have considered working for WN and would never have signed the same contract as they did at AA. Yet here you are, having lost (yes, LOST) the race and you're crying that you want what they have. Well, you should have signed up with a winner, not a loser. If WN is so great now, why don't you quit and go work for WN?

Well, I never said that SWA was great, you are the one saying that we should agree to work for less than them despite the fact that we produce more than them, yet others, especially the people who run this company, fail to produce yet get paid higher than SWA.

You work for "Almost (Out of Business) Airlines" and you're whining that you don't work for Southwest "The Clear Winner Airlines." Get over it.

Why should we work for less? We are more diverse and more productive.

Sure it's management's fault, but crying about poor management isn't magically going to allow AA to pay you what WN pays its help.

Maybe we need new management and new representation that would demand such a change before they tell us to give away everything we worked for.

Face it - they guys who repair airplanes are never going to be rich. The guys who repair video conferencing devices, on the other hand . . .

Who said that we expect to be rich? We just expect to get paid a fair wage for what we do. If AA cant pay it then let them shut down so a better managed company can expand. If we quit, that does nothing to help another company expand, unless we all do it at once, but then the company would cry foul and seek a court order forcing us to work. And they would likely get it. So it seems that other people want it both ways also.

Again, why do our managers, the ones who put this company in dire straits, still collect fortunes for their time? Why is it unreasonable for a diverse mechanic at AA to expect to make at least as much as a more limeted mechanic at SWA makes? Especially given the fact that not all of AAs workers make less than their SWA counterparts?

----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 2:00:46 PM Buck wrote:

Why are they nearly broke? Is it the mechanics fault? What did we change? Mismanagement of the company is why.
----------------
​

You are correct. Now...how do you propose to get the company back on track? Bear in mind that the pilots, flight attendants, rampers, agents and reservations agents aren''t too keen on taking cuts either. Neither are many that fall into the category of "management" yet make less than a mechanic. What''s the solution?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/24/2003 2:36:40 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 6/23/2003 938 AM FWAAA wrote:
Sure it''s management''s fault, but crying about poor management isn''t magically going to allow AA to pay you what WN pays its help.

Maybe we need new management and new representation that would demand such a change before they tell us to give away everything we worked for.



----------------​

I asked Buck and I''ll ask you - what do you propose to right the wrongs and get AA back to profitabilty? Shut it down? Do you think every mechanic will find work at an "expanding" survivor? Shutting down AA can put the mechanics at a distinct disadvantage, as the "expanding survivors" can afford to be particularly choosy when it comes to who they hire. Seniority will mean nothing. Ability and .... attitude ... will guide their hiring decisioins.