Nonsense. On a personal belief level, I agree with much of what you wrote. Like Arpey, I saw airline bankruptcies and the casting off of promises and pension obligations as morally reprehensible.
Years before you posted here, I posted here and elsewhere that in my view, United and US Airways should have been shut down and liquidated to pay their pension promises (to the pilots, of course, since they were the ones who saw cuts to their accrued benefits).
I was roundly criticized by many for such an unpopular view. Here and elsewhere, people asked "how could I wish for tens of thousands of good people to lose their jobs?" Well, it's an area where Bob Owens and I agree (and there aren't many of those). Had UA and US shut down and liquidated, the remaining players would have picked up the pieces (and many of the employees) and continued to move the passengers around the country.
Additionally, had they shut down, that would have removed some of the excess high-cost capacity from the country, helping the others.
But instead of that, UA and US survived, albeit with huge paycuts and terminated pensions. US then flew for eight more years solo, dragging down the fare levels with its Advantage Fare program, which was aimed primarily at AA (where US connecting fares were much lower than AA's nonstop fares). And thanks to the pilot war at US, Parker's airline had a huge labor cost advantage over its competitors, including AA. A shutdown at US and UA would have been good.
But however noble Arpey's view of bankruptcy may have been, it lacked the cold, calculating prowess of a winner in today's business climate. Those who ignore the numbers and act on emotion are doomed to fail. Including, eventually, Arpey himself. Yes, the bastard extracted huge paycuts along with a variable compensation scheme that rewarded himself and other execs as AMR recovered from its $1.25/sh low in 2003 to $41/sh in January 2007. For all his moral crusading on bankruptcy and promises kept - he was just another greedy bastard who wanted to share in the stockholders' windfall. And windfall it was - I posted about my participation in that gluttony of riches.
Once UA and US were able to terminate ALL of their employee pension obligations and foist them on the PBGC, the last act for AMR was written, but it would be a few years before we'd see it play out. Eventually, the Board of Directors was convinced that Ch 11 was the only viable plan - helped by the pilots' rejection of AA's last offer just before the Ch 11 filing.
Having finally filed for Ch 11, new management (since Arpey resigned rather than take AA into Ch 11) sought to use all the cost-saving tools that UA, US, DL and NW utilized, including terminating the pensions, which would preserve a lot of cash for years to come. And all of a sudden, Gotbaum the Shithead was denying AMR the same benefit afforded to everyone else. Remember the pro-merger employee cries of "All the other airlines got to merge and screw consumers - now it's AA's turn and the DoJ has no business interferring in AA's manifest destiny of merging with US and becoming the biggest airline." Carried to its logical extreme, Laura Glading the Brilliant (she was delighted that the pensions were not terminated) was in favor of screwing consumers (since she was very pro-merger) and yet didn't want to over-tax the poor over-burdened PBGC by cutting AA's on-going pension costs. How noble of her.
I recognize that the pilots were VERY pleased that AA's pensions were frozen and not terminated. I can also clearly see that all AA employees have long subsidized the pilot A plan (their defined benefit plan). The most notable subsidies were the 2003 concessions instead of filing for Ch 11 then and the 2011 Ch 11 filing. AA's pilots are not the highest paid in the industry but they're not far from the top. AA's flight attendants aren't at the top, but they have long been close to the top.
Can't say the same about AA's mechanics and fleet service. AA's ground employees earn substantially less than their counterparts at WN, UPS, FedEX and even non-union jetBlue. AA's TWU-represented employees have paid the biggest price for "saving the pensions." Not only are your wages much lower than at the others I listed above, your retirement contributions are paltry. On top of that, you now have no profit sharing just in time for AA's most profitable year EVER. In the first six months of 2014, the new AA has earned $1.9 billion before special items. Unless oil prices skyrocket or unless the global conflicts magnify, AA is on track to earn about $4 billion in profits this year (before special items). Horton the Devil offered everyone profit-sharing of 15% of first dollar profits. That was his opening offer in the Term Sheets, for Chrissakes, and yet here you are today with ZERO profit sharing. Competent unions would have demanded and held out for 20% profit sharing and would have applauded termination of all pensions. The pilots could have been compensated with more stock to offset their A-plan termination and the only people who would have paid for that would be the holders of old AMR stock (AAMRQ) who would not have been enriched with a huge windfall. Yep. A second windfall about 10 years after the last time.
Like I said - on a personal level, abandoning pensions is a bad thing. And on that personal level, I agree with more of your views than you think. But contributing $1.5 billion to the underfunded pensions in the three years 2012-14? Might as well have set fire to a pile of cash. Remember the "backpack of bricks?" Well, the on-going pension contributions are another example of filling the backpack with bricks. Or think of it this way: Might as well just load 10,000 pounds of ballast onto every mainline flight. Bags of sand would work. That might help AA spend $720 million more on fuel this year with no corresponding benefit. AA's pension contributions are no different. AA had a legal right to abandon that expense and was bullied into keeping that expense, and the staggering part is that employees and union leaders cheered AA's higher on-going expenses as a result.
Anyway - back to the topic: The combination of two unions that have consistently failed to achieve higher wages for their maintenance constituents doesn't look to me like the recipe for success. If AA's mechanics and related want to go a different route, like with AMFA, they should be afforded that chance.