American Airlines' Arpey gets hefty raise

[Wretched Wrench]

I think what you meant to say was a few years back the Company offered the non union workers two choices.
1. Stay in the traditional plan (defined) with the Company contributing....
2.Freeze your traditional(defined)(in other words you keep it) and start a matching 401k.

Correct me if i am wrong please..from what i can tell to say it was taken away could be misleading????

Whether a choce was offered depended on age. You are correct in that no one's pension was taken away. Some were changed from defined benefit to defined contribution. Some older employees were allowed to keep their DB plan.

 

[Hopeful]

Thanks for clearing that up. So when these management types come on here and complain about restrictive workrules it must be for the flight crews because we really dont have any restrictive rules. It seems that your rules have become a burden upon the workers as well as upon the company, much like the Pilots. I always said that they should streamline their pay structure, even if it means that top pay, which most never see anyway, is reduced. The key is lifetime earnings. The high numbers that few get to see acts as a recruitment device for the company and works against the workers as they try to explain an overly complicated pay structure.

Good point! I do believe there are no restrictive workrules with respect to the mechanics!
When they hit us with the concessions, it was all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in one way shape or form!

 

[kirkpatrick]

My mole at Centerport said some time ago to expect the company to ask for MAJOR work rule concessions in the next contract--which may include cross-utilization.

Cross-utilization may be inevitable at AA, but I don't think it could possibly be implemented before the last TWAers' recall rights run out in July of 2008. Therefore I don't think it will be a factor in preventing our recall.

MK

 

[flyastrojets]

Whether a choce was offered depended on age. You are correct in that no one's pension was taken away. Some were changed from defined benefit to defined contribution. Some older employees were allowed to keep their DB plan.

Actually, us yung'uns were allowed to keep ours too, or I could've kept it. I was 20 something at the time. I thought about it. Decided I didn't trust an airline to manage my money, and went with the contributory 401K. My pension was frozen at that point.

All new hires after this point had no choice other than the 401K

When I left AA a few years back, I got a statement. If I make it til retirement age, I'll collect a little less than 200 bucks a month from the AA pension plan if it doesn't get terminated.

All the money AA contributed to my 401K is now in my new 401K at my new employer.

 

[jimntx]

Cross-utilization may be inevitable at AA, but I don't think it could possibly be implemented before the last TWAers' recall rights run out in July of 2008. Therefore I don't think it will be a factor in preventing our recall.

MK

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I was just making the point that it would not pay to discount the possibility for the future. As far as recalls, even though I am beginning to believe that the company will delay it as long as possible, I still say that there is no possible way to go 2 more years with no recalls at all--the offer of PLOAs for the Fall notwithstanding. The leaves are not being offered in every base, but evidently some bases are still overstaffed.

Also, I do not believe that the company will delay the recalls for the reason that they are trying to avoid recalling former TW f/as. I don't believe the company cares. They just want to keep the headcount as low as possible for as long as possible. They know that IF they need to recall, the contract says that they have to recall in seniority order; so, it's not as if they would have a choice in the matter.

 

[Skymess]

QUOTE(Skymess @ Jul 30 2006, 12:54 PM)


I want most of my contract negotiations to entail more hourly pay as opposed to fighting for keeping the country club lifestyle for the select few who don't want to work.

And, that's the very attitude that the company wants us to have. Don't get me wrong. I vudn't mind a dime or more in my paycheck each month, but we have, in the past, traded hourly pay for extremely restrictive work rules that make maximum utilization of that higher pay rate almost impossible.

I'm not talking about trading work rules for pay. I'm talking about the fact that there are other places ASIDE FROM WORK RULES that can be traded in order to get more pay in our pockets. One of those things that I would be willing to abolish is the fact that you only have to work 30 hours a month to get full medical benefits.

I have no problem with people who want to be part time at this job or who take most of the time off. I just don't think that, if push comes to shove, those people who do this full time should have to subsidize the part timers.

 

[jimntx]

QUOTE(Skymess @ Jul 30 2006, 12:54 PM)
I want most of my contract negotiations to entail more hourly pay as opposed to fighting for keeping the country club lifestyle for the select few who don't want to work.
I'm not talking about trading work rules for pay. I'm talking about the fact that there are other places ASIDE FROM WORK RULES that can be traded in order to get more pay in our pockets. One of those things that I would be willing to abolish is the fact that you only have to work 30 hours a month to get full medical benefits.

I have no problem with people who want to be part time at this job or who take most of the time off. I just don't think that, if push comes to shove, those people who do this full time should have to subsidize the part timers.

Yes! Can I have an Amen from the choir? Another thing that should stop is "full-time" union work except maybe for the officers. The Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed tend to lose touch with the real world of being a flight attendant.

 

[nbmcg01]

Yes! Can I have an Amen from the choir? Another thing that should stop is "full-time" union work except maybe for the officers. The Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed tend to lose touch with the real world of being a flight attendant.

Jim I have to disagree about "full time". I haven't flown since Jan. 2003 and I haven't lost touch with the "real world" of flying. It is more an issue of getting people to step up to the plate and run for office, good training for the reps, and a rotation of flying..ie staggered terms so no new person is fed to the corp wolves while in the office. BUT after serving a term, one must fly until the next election. This is a way to "grow" more reps and insure everyone has a chance to serve.

If you fly while in office there is a great conflict of interest while on the plane. Your first responsibility is always to the customer. When you're a union rep your customer is the f/a. It is impossible to divide "loyalties" when working a flight. The crew wants to talk "union" and that is where the conflict comes into play. All a pax has to overhear is a "union comment", report it, and the rep is in job jeopardy.

If anything, the APFA should have more full time reps actually doing good union work. Each base should have ongoing training in contract, rights and responsibilities of union membership, commuting 101, stress mangt., in flight crew issues, balancing flying and home life...the list is endless. The reason the APFA is so ineffective is because it IS more like a part time gig, done out of the trunk of a car, instead of a real full time position. Base reps should be required to either live or be at the base office full time. There should be proper staffing to insure coverage during "office" hours and ready response after hours.

Oh well, what do I know.... ps in all of my years as a union rep, I never lost a grievance. Things that make you go hummmmm And in their spare time reps should be gathering information as to the real needs of their workforce. This is an ongoing project and if the folks in Useless were "smart" they would have been costing out every provision of the CBA, factoring in needs vs wants and getting prepared. Like I said, what do I know?

 

[Bob Owens]

Dear Mr Arpey,

Before you do victory laps around the bank w/ your 23% raise, think of
the message it sends employees. Until now, you were the only exec who
moderately understood shared sacrifice & the other slogan turned into a
joke: pull together/ win together. This was even the subject of a recent
NY Times article which made you look like Oliver Twist on a corporate
stage. The author apparently was moved by your selflessness as other
execs were swinging from chandeliers.

You'll recall when I e-mailed you on 01/13/04 about the value of
returning some benefits to improve morale & consequently increase
productivity, you responded on 02/27/04 stating my views on productivity
was "very disturbing." The insinuation being workers should be totally
committed to the company's health without economic incentives. Yet,
execs are exempt from this intrinsic philosophy, & there's nothing
"disturbing" about it. Quite the contrary, lavishing execs w/ riches has
become a business plan, despite the hefty cost.

As sanctimonious as it sounds, there are 2 distinct rules governing
motivation @ AA; Workers must maintain the highest level of loyalty &
productivity in the industry even after submitting to life altering
concessions, while execs must be paid to maintain the same level of
motivation.

The only explanation given for the high cost of exec compensation is
that it assures their continued employment w/ AA. This, in essence, is a
sanitized way of saying their loyalty must be bought @ a steep price or
they'll go elsewhere. This legalized form of extortion drains millions
from the treasury.

The people @ the top are suffering from a severe case of arrogance. This
type of bravado reminds me of Civil War general Joseph Hooker, who
pompously proclaimed: "my plans are perfect." Shortly thereafter, Hooker
fought the Confederates in the Battle of Chancellorsville & was smacked
silly by a smaller army. Arrogance may advance the individual but it's
habitually destructive for the larger masses.

Lost in the orgy of excessive salaries, bonuses, stock options,
performance units is that a fundamental tenet of leadership is to lead.
Such extravagances as a 23% raise demonstrates your unwillingness to
provide leadership for a workforce that was asked to sacrifice
unmeasurably for the betterment of the company.

Sincerely,
G Santos
mechanic & burdening the sacrifice @ JFK
AMR shareholder

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Another great letter from Mr Santos
Dead on and to the point

 

[midnights]

Once again, well put Mr. Santos......if I were still in JFK, I'd buy you a ring-ding!

 

[jimntx]

Jim I have to disagree about "full time". I haven't flown since Jan. 2003 and I haven't lost touch with the "real world" of flying.

Nancy, I would agree with you if it were any union but the Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed. The reason why I put the word, full-time, in quotes is because they are at the Mother House full-time; however, no one seems to be working there full-time.

I recently called and wandered my way through the phone tree to get to a contract rep on duty. I then held for 45 minutes before giving up. No one ever answered the phone. And, this was on an alleged workday. I placed the call after 0900. I have heard from others that this is not at all an uncommon occurrence.

Reminds me of the time I walked into the Men's Department at Dillard's. I shopped around and waited almost 20 minutes for the knot of three employees to break up and one of them come over to assist me. Finally, I walked over and heard enough of the conversation to know that it had nothing to do with work.

Me: "Do any of you work here?"
Head of Knot: "We all do." (Said rather sarcastically.)
Me: "No. No. I didn't ask if any of you were on the payroll here. I asked if any of you WORKED here."

With that I walked out and haven't been back to a Dillard's since because I wrote a letter to the company about the incident and got no response at all from them. Would that I could do same with the BOPTR.

Let me add that I agree that more people should be trained and active in union work, but...
1. It was made clear to me on one of my last communications with the BOPTR that my job as a junior flight attendant was to pay my dues and keep my mouth shut.
2. After 5000 years of fighting among those Semitic 1st cousins, there should be peace in the Middle East, but there's not.

 

[nbmcg01]

Nancy, I would agree with you if it were any union but the Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed. The reason why I put the word, full-time, in quotes is because they are at the Mother House full-time; however, no one seems to be working there full-time.

I recently called and wandered my way through the phone tree to get to a contract rep on duty. I then held for 45 minutes before giving up. No one ever answered the phone. And, this was on an alleged workday. I placed the call after 0900. I have heard from others that this is not at all an uncommon occurrence.

Reminds me of the time I walked into the Men's Department at Dillard's. I shopped around and waited almost 20 minutes for the knot of three employees to break up and one of them come over to assist me. Finally, I walked over and heard enough of the conversation to know that it had nothing to do with work.

Me: "Do any of you work here?"
Head of Knot: "We all do." (Said rather sarcastically.)
Me: "No. No. I didn't ask if any of you were on the payroll here. I asked if any of you WORKED here."

With that I walked out and haven't been back to a Dillard's since because I wrote a letter to the company about the incident and got no response at all from them. Would that I could do same with the BOPTR.

Let me add that I agree that more people should be trained and active in union work, but...
1. It was made clear to me on one of my last communications with the BOPTR that my job as a junior flight attendant was to pay my dues and keep my mouth shut.
2. After 5000 years of fighting among those Semitic 1st cousins, there should be peace in the Middle East, but there's not.

LOL!!! Touche!