American Airline Mechanics couldn't have rejected a much better contract

[aapitbull]

Do you think a pro athlete will get a better contract by insulting management and playing poorly on purpose. If you are accepting a check, you should play hard, otherwise you should declare yourself a free agent and take one of those jobs in Tinker or AAR.

I don't think that AMR thinks that more money will movitate the TWU to increase performance. You should try working at peak potential for a month, then throttle back...at least then you could say - we can deliver that level of effort every day - for a price.. Who believes it is possible for the TWU to work any harder...

What was the last year folks can point to as the "TWU full performance years" pre-2003??

Did performance spike after the big 2001 raise?

While I don't know the exact date but it was about 8 to 10 months ago we had a delay free day at DFW they made big signs and made a big deal out of it, then they turned right around and used it in negoiations and said see your guys aren't upset their not unhappy with what they make you should settle for what we are offering. the reality is this airline flies around everyday on the good graces of its mechanics and pilots it would be no problem to park a third of their fleet.

 

[Bob Owens]

You know what, I think we do need to take a closer look at labor costs.

In 2002 AMR had 109,600 employees and their labor costs were $8.392 billion, that comes out to $76, 693 per employee.

In 2009 AMR had 78900 employees and their labor costs were $6.870 billion, that comes out to $ 87,000 per employee.

Now I know for a fact what my earnings were in 2009 from AMR and it wasnt more, it was less than 2002, a lot less, plus I had less vacation, less holidays, less sick time, IOD time, and I pay out $3000 more for medical. I have a family of five and what I pay out pretty much covers what the company pays out. I think most Unionized workers at AA can say the same so managment must have recieved a hell of an increase over the last seven years to not only absorb all our paycuts but to bring the average up by over $10,000! If there was one manager for every union worker they would have to have receieved approximately a $20,000 increase to do that!

 

[toroshark]

You know what, I think we do need to take a closer look at labor costs.

In 2002 AMR had 109,600 employees and their labor costs were $8.392 billion, that comes out to $76, 693 per employee.

In 2009 AMR had 78900 employees and their labor costs were $6.870 billion, that comes out to $ 87,000 per employee.

Now I know for a fact what my earnings were in 2009 from AMR and it wasnt more, it was less than 2002, a lot less, plus I had less vacation, less holidays, less sick time, IOD time, and I pay out $3000 more for medical. I have a family of five and what I pay out pretty much covers what the company pays out. I think most Unionized workers at AA can say the same so managment must have recieved a hell of an increase over the last seven years to not only absorb all our paycuts but to bring the average up by over $10,000! If there was one manager for every union worker they would have to have receieved approximately a $20,000 increase to do that!

What does Mr.ATD Don V. have to say about those numbers as it relates to giving up more concessions in negotiations?

 

[Bob Owens]

What does Mr.ATD Don V. have to say about those numbers as it relates to giving up more concessions in negotiations?

I presented a list of questions from the 10K over a year ago and I never got any answers. In all fairness I got distracted and did not pursue it so maybe he did as well.

I just noticed the disparity recently as far as total wages not reflecting the concessions we gave and the headcount reductions. I have to wonder why our "economist" never picked up on it.

If everyone in the company gave up roughly 25% of their Compensation, as we did with the pay and all the other concessions, that alone should have reduced total wages from $8.392 billion to $6.294Billion by 2004, then if you eliminate a third of the remaing workforce their costs should have been around $4.217 billion assuming the headcount cuts were pretty even across the board, assume we all got back the same and add in the 7% we got back ($295 million) it comes out to $4.512 billion by 2009, but it wasnt, it was $2.3 billion over that. Obviously some in the company are doing much, much better than they were in 2003, $2.3 billion worth better. Some could be attributed to OT, but not much. Can you say 'Rise program"? How about executive bonuses?

So lets say the company is likely to tip the scales this year at around $22billion, which is around $4 billion more than they did in 2002, with the reduced headcount and all the concessions, assuming everyone gave the same, their labor costs should be around $4.5 billion, or $3.9 billion less than it was in 2002, so between the rise in revenue and the cuts in labor the company should have at least $8 billion extra to play with. Keep in mind that eliminating 200 airplanes saves a ton of money as well even though for book keeping, tax and selling concessionary contract purposes, they get to show that as a loss. They eliminated the entire A-300 fleet, and all the parts as well. I have no idea how to figure that number out but you have to figure that its a sizable figure in itself, in the hundreds of millions if not billions. So figure at the very least $8 billion.

Sure fuel may have taken a bite out of that, $3.1 billion, that still leaves them with around $5 billion to hide.

Where is that $5billion going? We know over $2 billion is going to wages, just not our wages , where is the other $3 billion going?

Clearly not everyone has taken a hit.

Just $300 million of that would make us very happy, and probably save the company that amount through increased performance.

 

[Bob Owens]

Wow, five days and none of the opposition has even attempted to challenge this!

AA blew $8billion in and tells us they wont sweeten the deal, they are still insisting on a cost neutral contract based on 2003 concessions.

We gave them the ability to reduce maintenace labor costs by $620 million a year, or roughly 50%, not including the extra revenue we bring in from 3P work and they are bringing in around $4 billion a year more, they shared some of the gain with their mechanics in Europe who get better benifits and earn around $10/hr more than us but they still refuse to put any money on the table for us, guess they want to save that for their bonuses. What happened to 'ShAAired GAAin? $8 billion gained-0 shared. Sure fuel ate up $3 billion but not only did we have no control over that but we pay higher energy costs as well!

Brundage;

"At the end of the day, our cost structure is going to have to be competitive.”

What exactly does management mean by that?

I always thought the objective was to be profitable. I guess he means they want to win the race to the bottom.

 

[eolesen]

Brundage;

"At the end of the day, our cost structure is going to have to be competitive.”

What exactly does management mean by that?

I always thought the objective was to be profitable. I guess he means they want to win the race to the bottom.

Don't know how much simpler it could be said, Bob.

Yes, the objective is to be profitable. And if you don't have competitive costs, you'll never find profitability, because just about every other input into the equation (fuel, landing fees) is going to be the same for all airlines.

 

[frontline]

This is what I have been saying. I didn't like the contract or want to vote for it, but I did because the alternatives and even future possibilities looked the same or worse. They are not going to give us a contract that increases the company's costs right now, end of story. If they do they will have to do the same for APA and APFA, and that risks sinking the ship. So while I didn't like it, it was the "best" we were going to get now, and will still be the best we are going to get in a year when we ratify the same deal.

 

[Bob Owens]

Don't know how much simpler it could be said, Bob.

Yes, the objective is to be profitable. And if you don't have competitive costs, you'll never find profitability, because just about every other input into the equation (fuel, landing fees) is going to be the same for all airlines.

Fuel is the same for all? Didnt SWA have an advantage because of Fuel Hedges they bought from AA?

If all the costs are the same then shouldnt that apply to hourly rates for labor?

The airport charges the same fee per airplane if they are the same weight, more landings, more fees paid. We dont see an airline that has 50 landings a day complaining that they pay $600 million more for landing than an airline that only has 25 landings a day. SWA has one of the more recently settled contracts, they are basically a large Regional airline, they dont sell any $10,000 seats yet the contract they have with their mechanics, who only need to be qualified on one aircraft type, will bring them up to $45/hr, thats what I expect as well.

 

[Bob Owens]

This is what I have been saying. I didn't like the contract or want to vote for it, but I did because the alternatives and even future possibilities looked the same or worse. They are not going to give us a contract that increases the company's costs right now, end of story. If they do they will have to do the same for APA and APFA, and that risks sinking the ship. So while I didn't like it, it was the "best" we were going to get now, and will still be the best we are going to get in a year when we ratify the same deal.

Really, then why did they give management a raise? Why did they give our mechanics in Europe a raise? Why do they continue to accept bonuses? Why are they buying all those new airplanes and building or refurbishing all the Terminals and Admirals clubs. They are bringing in $4billion more after eliminating over 30,000 jobs, how good does it have to be before you would demand your fair share? We are talking about over $600 million is savings from us alone and they have $4 billion more coming in than they used to. How much of an improvement do you think is possible?

Honestly, it must be hard facing the day when everything terrifies you so. If we dont ask for anything we wont be dissapointed but that would not stop the pilots or the flight attendants from demanding and getting what they want. (They arent near the bottom of the industry like we are either). Remember 1995, we got hosed, that didnt stop the pilots from going on Strike in 97 and getting a lot more than we did, and you know what, the company is still here.

 

[Mr Red]

Frontline .... go cower in the foxhole,the rest of us will fight the battle!!!!

 

[TWU informer]

Bob, do you feel comfortable enough in your opinions and/or facts that you could win your arguements before a PEB or an Arbitrator?

 

[1AA]

Bob, do you feel comfortable enough in your opinions and/or facts that you could win your arguements before a PEB or an Arbitrator?

I doubt Bob can because the TWU International is spineless and would fold up like a cheap Walmart lawn chair made in China and they are not capable of putting up a good argument on the memberships behalf.

 

[eolesen]

Fuel is the same for all? Didnt SWA have an advantage because of Fuel Hedges they bought from AA?

If all the costs are the same then shouldnt that apply to hourly rates for labor?

The airport charges the same fee per airplane if they are the same weight, more landings, more fees paid. We dont see an airline that has 50 landings a day complaining that they pay $600 million more for landing than an airline that only has 25 landings a day. SWA has one of the more recently settled contracts, they are basically a large Regional airline, they dont sell any $10,000 seats yet the contract they have with their mechanics, who only need to be qualified on one aircraft type, will bring them up to $45/hr, thats what I expect as well.

1) All airlines have the opportunity to hedge, assuming they've got the cash. It's like any other commodity that can be pre-purchased in bulk. And don't forget that WN lost money on their hedges as prices unwound.

2) WN flies more passengers every day than AA. How you can say they're "a large regional" with a straight face is astounding.

3) WN does pay their mechanics well on an hourly basis, but don't forget they don't have retiree medical or a pension. They also have been permitted to outsource large percentages of their overhaul and component work, and as a result have a very small number of mechanics in comparison to AA.

Let's also note that while you love to repeatedly point to the wage WN pays, you and others seem quite loath to consider taking their contract lock, stock & barrel. Same thing with the CAL contract some of you were crowing over. You love the compensation, but don't want to consider the other factors.


TWU-I, I don't think that anyone could propose (let alone justify) the 2001 book to an arbitrator or a PEB and be taken seriously. Nobody I've spoken to outside of AMR seems to think so, either.

But that's a gamble some of your bretheren seem willing to take. Good luck with that.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

[

TWU-I, I don't think that anyone could propose (let alone justify) the 2001 book to an arbitrator or a PEB and be taken seriously. Nobody I've spoken to outside of AMR seems to think so, either.

But that's a gamble some of your bretheren seem willing to take. Good luck with that.
[/quote]


In 2001, in the midst of 9-11, we were voting on a contract that gave us retro checks of around $7000 dollars and huge raises. The company did not blink in spending that money knowing well that would be losing billions in the near future and no relief in sight. If the company could find the money in the worst of times, then they will find it now with the current positive balance sheet.

 

[Bob Owens]

1) All airlines have the opportunity to hedge, assuming they've got the cash. It's like any other commodity that can be pre-purchased in bulk. And don't forget that WN lost money on their hedges as prices unwound.

2) WN flies more passengers every day than AA. How you can say they're "a large regional" with a straight face is astounding.

3) WN does pay their mechanics well on an hourly basis, but don't forget they don't have retiree medical or a pension. They also have been permitted to outsource large percentages of their overhaul and component work, and as a result have a very small number of mechanics in comparison to AA.

Let's also note that while you love to repeatedly point to the wage WN pays, you and others seem quite loath to consider taking their contract lock, stock & barrel. Same thing with the CAL contract some of you were crowing over. You love the compensation, but don't want to consider the other factors.


TWU-I, I don't think that anyone could propose (let alone justify) the 2001 book to an arbitrator or a PEB and be taken seriously. Nobody I've spoken to outside of AMR seems to think so, either.

But that's a gamble some of your bretheren seem willing to take. Good luck with that.

1. So in other words they dont all pay the same like you said.
2. SWA flys mainly single class short to medium haul domestic flights out of secondary cities like American Eagle and Com Air, so yes they are more like a large Regional carrier than a legacy carrier such as AA or Delta.
3.Wrong, they get both. The Retiree health is paid for with their sick time which is fortified with their IOD time, they have had 20 years of getting 12 days a year to build up their sick banks and havent lost any vacation or Holidays either. They get better than an 8% match on their 401K, the $20,000 a year they make more than us allows them to derive the maximum benifit and the match is on all earnings, including OT. OT is not included in our pension calculation. SWA always shipped out a lot of their work and had lesss mechanics, even when they made less money than us.

Nobody that you've spoken to, well they never spoke to me to hear the other side. They pay half of what they used to pay and they are bringing in $4billion more. Pretty much everybody else has seen large increases, airports, oil companies, banks, vendors, its our turn.