American Offers Pay for Performance

[Ken MacTiernan]

I think Ken MacTiernan has recently posted that it's just plane wrong to accept any OT while your brothers are on the street. Which is it? Anyway - I agree with you. Work extra hours to make up what you lost. Doesn't do much for your quality of life, but it does pay the bills.



FWAA,
There are two schools of thought concerning working OT. (I know this is digressing from the thread but I wish to point out my personal beliefs concerning this topic.) First, if people are laid off and OT is needed the company gets the work accomplished cheaper. So why bring people back? Some who work the OT argue/debate/reason that it will cost the company more to continue paying OT and will eventually bring those laid off back.

I personally feel that I would rather not work for a few extra pieces of gold while my union brothers and friends are on the street. Both sides of the OT debate can be viewed as valid. I just think that when people are laid off and EVERYONE refuses to work OT the company will have to recall. Perhaps this is not going to happen because of personal charatcer, etc. But I am willing to take the first step. Will others follow?

As to the previous post concerning our contract language forcing the most junior man in current OT hours to work is plain wrong. But then again, we really do not have much in the way of contract language. Okay, enough with this side bar. I just wanted to explain myself to you.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

A fighter? Oh please, spare me.

Yes, a fighter. When informational pickets were held years ago JR was out walking the side walk informing the passengers about our issues.

The contract before the concessions, (which came after NWA AMT got the biggest raise in history.), all the AMTs in SAN burned our Tentative Agreements and video taped it with comments from us expressing our dismay with the poor TA. JR drove from LAX and stood beside us. The tape was sent to the international and Carty.

JR has put in so many hours fighting for Local 564 members he should be used as an example of what a fighter is. Not all twu elected officials are the same. There are many good ones out there and not all have their eyes on one day "drinking from the black chalice of greed" like burchette did.

 

[MCDP]

Yes, a fighter. When informational pickets were held years ago JR was out walking the side walk informing the passengers about our issues.

The contract before the concessions, (which came after NWA AMT got the biggest raise in history.), all the AMTs in SAN burned our Tentative Agreements and video taped it with comments from us expressing our dismay with the poor TA. JR drove from LAX and stood beside us. The tape was sent to the international and Carty.

JR has put in so many hours fighting for Local 564 members he should be used as an example of what a fighter is. Not all twu elected officials are the same. There are many good ones out there and not all have their eyes on one day "drinking from the black chalice of greed" like burchette did.

Sounds like he actually DID something for you guys in SAN.

 

[Bob Owens]

<_< ------- As for how MCI would vote on this Contract, don't jump to any conclusions! During the concessionary vote in 2003, most people felt MCI was on AA's extermination list. Weather true, or not, that was what the majority of people here believed! That is not the case today!

I believe it, word is that MCI and STL were 2 of the three that voted against even entertaining the idea of a two year extension. Our Local Pres,John "Who"?liano, who only got in place because Chuck could not run and his ticket spread lies about his opponent who came from TWA, as usual just votes however the Intnl wants him to."Hey Ho, you gotta be in it to win it. Did I do good Jim?"

 

[FWAAA]

So you're holding UALs failed ESOP as something the AA AMTs should've aspired to?

The same ESOP where 55% of the company got the employees only 3 board seats.(None on the compensation committee)

The same ESOP that had that annoying clause where you couldn't sell your stock unless you quit, got fired, or retired.

You admit its a bad idea. However, your continued liberal use of it as an example clearly shows you have no real idea how much of a "bad idea" it really was.

You completely misunderstand my post. I don't know why, but you missed the point. Here it is again.

Airline employees receiving a majority of the equity of their employer in exchange for massive concessions isn't a bad thing; ESOPs are a bad thing. Your post accurately summarizes why the UAL ESOP was a miserable failure and why ESOPs are used for screwing employees rather than rewarding them.

As I posted before, the AA employees got options on a measly 18% of the outstanding equity (a mere 35 million options) instead of the 50% or 60% or even 75% that they should have demanded. To help illustrate why those percentages are not out of the realm of possibility, I mentioned the 55% granted to the pilots and mechanics at UAL for their hefty concessions in 1994.

AA's unions all failed miserably when they accepted the 19% offer by AA instead of telling Arpey to shove that puny offer. Had AA's employes demanded a reasonable amount of options (say 160 million or 200 million shares), that would have given the rank and file a majority of the stock once it vested in 3 years.

With no ESOP in the way, they would have been able to vote for a majority of the directors instead of the three granted to the UAL ESOP. AA's employees would have been able to decide their own fate. They could have chosen directors and ultimately, could have chosen new management if Arpey, Beer, etc. weren't performing to their satisfaction.

Essentially, it would have become the world's larges employee-owned cooperative organization.

Again, as I posted before, the UAL ESOP was a bad idea and was badly executed. But that doesn't mean that giving employees a majority of the upside when they're forced to make givebacks is a bad idea. The problem for UAL was the ESOP, not that pilots and mechanics owned 55% of the stock.

Instead, by settling on a mere 19%, the three major AA unions guaranteed that their members would never recoup their $8.1 billion in concessions. Instead, most of the upside went to people willing to gamble on AMR stock when it traded for $1.25 - $2.00 a share in Feb and March of 2003. Those speculators got most of the upside instead of the workers. That was a massive failure by the three unions. They effed their members but good. The two democratic AA-only unions have since replaced their leadership. The TWU leadership can't be replaced by the AA employees (and their attempt to replace the TWU failed as well).

 

[The Goose]

You completely misunderstand my post. I don't know why, but you missed the point. Here it is again.

Airline employees receiving a majority of the equity of their employer in exchange for massive concessions isn't a bad thing; ESOPs are a bad thing. Your post accurately summarizes why the UAL ESOP was a miserable failure and why ESOPs are used for screwing employees rather than rewarding them.

As I posted before, the AA employees got options on a measly 18% of the outstanding equity (a mere 35 million options) instead of the 50% or 60% or even 75% that they should have demanded. To help illustrate why those percentages are not out of the realm of possibility, I mentioned the 55% granted to the pilots and mechanics at UAL for their hefty concessions in 1994.

AA's unions all failed miserably when they accepted the 19% offer by AA instead of telling Arpey to shove that puny offer. Had AA's employes demanded a reasonable amount of options (say 160 million or 200 million shares), that would have given the rank and file a majority of the stock once it vested in 3 years.

With no ESOP in the way, they would have been able to vote for a majority of the directors instead of the three granted to the UAL ESOP. AA's employees would have been able to decide their own fate. They could have chosen directors and ultimately, could have chosen new management if Arpey, Beer, etc. weren't performing to their satisfaction.

Essentially, it would have become the world's larges employee-owned cooperative organization.

Again, as I posted before, the UAL ESOP was a bad idea and was badly executed. But that doesn't mean that giving employees a majority of the upside when they're forced to make givebacks is a bad idea. The problem for UAL was the ESOP, not that pilots and mechanics owned 55% of the stock.

Instead, by settling on a mere 19%, the three major AA unions guaranteed that their members would never recoup their $8.1 billion in concessions. Instead, most of the upside went to people willing to gamble on AMR stock when it traded for $1.25 - $2.00 a share in Feb and March of 2003. Those speculators got most of the upside instead of the workers. That was a massive failure by the three unions. They effed their members but good. The two democratic AA-only unions have since replaced their leadership. The TWU leadership can't be replaced by the AA employees (and their attempt to replace the TWU failed as well).

No doubt a failure of the unions. Consider, though, how the ownership (stock) has changed in the past year.

According to the 13-D forms filed with the SEC, there were many players holding quite a bit of AMR stock at the beginning of 2006. There are two major holders now - FMR Corp (Fidelity Funds) and DE Shaw (a brokerage house whose transactions occasionally accounts for 20% of the NYSE's total daily volume). Considering other funds like Vangard and a few others dropped out of ownership (probably after a sweetheart deal with AMR to buy back stock at an inflated price, $41/share in January 2007, thereby preserving their NAVs), you don't really think the big boys would have tolerated any possible voting power by us piss-ants, do you?

Addressing the unions' failure - I still wonder if they were paid off to turn a blind eye to the corporate shenanigans. In that case, their failure was Failure To Represent, in which case they should be booted out.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Addressing the unions' failure - I still wonder if they were paid off to turn a blind eye to the corporate shenanigans. In that case, their failure was Failure To Represent.

In the twu's case, it's quite obvious the blind eye we are seeing is their way of paying back the company for keeping them on the property. <_<

 

[FWAAA]

No doubt a failure of the unions. Consider, though, how the ownership (stock) has changed in the past year.

According to the 13-D forms filed with the SEC, there were many players holding quite a bit of AMR stock at the beginning of 2006. There are two major holders now - FMR Corp (Fidelity Funds) and DE Shaw (a brokerage house whose transactions occasionally accounts for 20% of the NYSE's total daily volume).

There are many other major holders right now as well besides the two you listed, and Shaw is a very minor player:

Jeffrey Gendell (big hedge fund) holds over 9%
FMR holds almost 8%
Vanguard/Primecap hold 10.5%
Shaw (big hedge fund) holds just over 3.5%

Here's the rest: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AMR

Considering other funds like Vangard and a few others dropped out of ownership (probably after a sweetheart deal with AMR to buy back stock at an inflated price, $41/share in January 2007, thereby preserving their NAVs), you don't really think the big boys would have tolerated any possible voting power by us piss-ants, do you?

Sweetheart deal with AMR? Huh? Buybacks? The market price of AMR hit $41 a share, but AMR didn't buy any at that price. AMR was a big seller (not a buyer) of new stock at that price in January (13 million newly issued shares). AMR netted $497 million in that deal. Vanguard is still the largest institutional holder (listed above). The price collapsed shortly afterward, just like it did for nearly every other airline stock. Apparently, traders thought that oil would go lower, and they were wrong. Smart sellers dumped AMR when it hit $41 and those smart sellers have probably bought back lately at just over half that price.

I don't follow the "big boys" not tolerating any voting power part - if AA's employees owned more than 50% (and they should, given the concessions), "big boys" would have no say in the employees' voting decisions.

Addressing the unions' failure - I still wonder if they were paid off to turn a blind eye to the corporate shenanigans. In that case, their failure was Failure To Represent, in which case they should be booted out.

If there's evidence of payoffs to the unions - they should be reported, individuals investigated, charged if appropriate and imprisoned if convicted. Is there any evidence of payoffs (other than Bob Owens' oft-repeated allegations of $3.1 million a year)?

 

[aviator28]

Despite what everyone has said, I think the informal, non-traditional approach is a good and proactive step for TWU and American -- it will set a standard for others to follow.

 

[TWU-GOTTA-GO]

Despite what everyone has said, I think the informal, non-traditional approach is a good and proactive step for TWU and American -- it will set a standard for others to follow.

I take it that you're not represented by them.

 

[TWU informer]

Despite what everyone has said, I think the informal, non-traditional approach is a good and proactive step for TWU and American -- it will set a standard for others to follow.

Actually a "non-traditional" bargaining approach by the TWU at American Airlines would mean we would not have another concession in our agreement this time. That is not what I think the intent of this advernture is.

That would be a welcomed change for all.

And the TWU at AA has been setting the reverse livelyhood standard for the Mechanic and Related profession since the early 1980's. I am not sure where you work, but having the TWU set a standard for everyone else to follow has not been a good thing for our profession in the past, unless you are a greedy corporate executive looking to earn a huge bonus.

I believe your post indicates that you have zero information regarding the past history of TWU negotiations, and further more you will not be hit directly in the pocketbook by the outcome of non-traditional compensation thus have no vested interest in the outcome.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Despite what everyone has said, I think the informal, non-traditional approach is a good and proactive step for TWU and American -- it will set a standard for others to follow.

Allow me to assume you are not an AMT at AA.

We at AA in the M&E Department have made sacrifices, like everyone else at AA, that were made based upon lies by AA, "Shared Sacrifice" and the twu's accepting the concessions when we were promised a "Full Revote". Both were outright lies but in the end life changing pay & benefit reductions were given to AA. All in the name of preventing our walk into BK.

The concessionary contract life time is due to expire and all that is wanted by the M&E Department is a full return of what was given up. This is not a demand that can be argued against by management. There is NO need to investigate non-traditional compensation or extensions. We gave and now we want to be rewarded for our sacrifices. It's that cut and dry.

American Airlines reportedly has some third party work they wish to obtain and these companies wish to have a AMT work force under a contract before signing any agreement. If American would only understand that if AMTs were paid fairly morale would increase and that would in turn offer additional incentives to market to these third party companies.

The twu doesn't need to offer the company ways to circumnavigate traditional rates of pay. The twu needs to LISTEN to the membership and get back what was taken. ANYTHING else will be deemed a failure.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Again, as I posted before, the UAL ESOP was a bad idea and was badly executed. But that doesn't mean that giving employees a majority of the upside when they're forced to make givebacks is a bad idea. The problem for UAL was the ESOP, not that pilots and mechanics owned 55% of the stock.

You are flat out of your mind if you think for one moment in todays buisness world(aviation) that any deal would be crafted where unions would have a majority stake/board control at the end of the day.

Sure AA employees could end up with 50% or more, but current management would never craft a deal where unions controlled the BOD.

Thats nothing more than a pipe dream.

 

[iluvaa]

Allow me to assume you are not an AMT at AA.

We at AA in the M&E Department have made sacrifices, like everyone else at AA, that were made based upon lies by AA, "Shared Sacrifice" and the twu's accepting the concessions when we were promised a "Full Revote". Both were outright lies but in the end life changing pay & benefit reductions were given to AA. All in the name of preventing our walk into BK.

The concessionary contract life time is due to expire and all that is wanted by the M&E Department is a full return of what was given up. This is not a demand that can be argued against by management. There is NO need to investigate non-traditional compensation or extensions. We gave and now we want to be rewarded for our sacrifices. It's that cut and dry.

American Airlines reportedly has some third party work they wish to obtain and these companies wish to have a AMT work force under a contract before signing any agreement. If American would only understand that if AMTs were paid fairly morale would increase and that would in turn offer additional incentives to market to these third party companies.

The twu doesn't need to offer the company ways to circumnavigate traditional rates of pay. The twu needs to LISTEN to the membership and get back what was taken. ANYTHING else will be deemed a failure.

you people are really smoking crack if you think we are getting everything we lost back. If you think they will spend every penny of the recenct profits to pay all 3 unions back you are dead wrong. So a 2 year extension might be a good idea to allow them to get a little stronger finacial picture

 

[MCI transplant]

you people are really smoking crack if you think we are getting everything we lost back. If you think they will spend every penny of the recenct profits to pay all 3 unions back you are dead wrong. So a 2 year extension might be a good idea to allow them to get a little stronger finacial picture

<_< ------- And what makes you think that if we did except a two year extension, anything would be any different? Do you really think we'd be in a better negotiating position? You don't seem to realise that the companies credability is shot! Dead! Finny! :down: