Well played ad hominem attack.
Do you have any contribution to the topic of this thread or just ad hominem attacks?
AMR Wins U.S. Court Approval for $1.5 Billion Financing
- Thread starter usa1
- Start date
Well played ad hominem attack.
Do you have any contribution to the topic of this thread or just ad hominem attacks?
777 / 767 / 757 Love
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2012
- 204
- 188
While you and I rarely see eye-to-eye I have to give to you on this one. Bottom line, AA employees got screwed on the 2003 givebacks because both sides of the negotiating table were stupid. What 2003 should have been about is increase in efficiences, that could benefit both sides (like allowing pilots to schedule up to 90 with no flex time involved, but allowing them to go as little as lets say 82-83 rather than 78). That is just one tiny example, but instead they made everything about dollars and cents, which as we have seen with Delta, IS NOT THE BIGGEST ISSUE. What an AA pilot gets an hour is not NEARLY as costly as how many hours that pilot has to work, or the costs of supply that pilot with benefits. Union has to protect all of its members, but if they scaraficed 1000 members thru some furloughs and some byeouts they could have recuced the pension liability and costs of benefits all while putting more money in each of the remaining members pockets. Wish both sides had worked towards that......
They should have worked with the mechanics to figure a way to incerase efficiencies by finding ways to get more work from outside AA (like they did with FedEx) so they could expand and update maintenance facilities and make sure there was always revenue there coming from OUTSIDE AA to help offset costs of labor. Finally, they should have done the big plane order starting back then to get rid of that COSTLY MD-80 fleet, maintenance costs are as much a reflection of #### aircraft breaking, not just cost of mechanics.
I blame managment for the lack of foresight, and I blame labor for being unwilling to step back and see a situation from a different angle. Both sides, if they had been smarter, would have been able to make more of the 2003 concessions. Instead, everyone spent 9 years treading water / slowly sinking to the bottom.
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
So which vendors at AA did that happen to?
You seem to forget that we gave concessions for nine years prior to BK and even if we had negotiated a deal the company still would have filed, like they did at USAIR.
Pathetic spin attempt,
US Bank was asking for interest on money that was already returned, where does that sound like I would have applauded had they got what they asked for?
So US Bank asks for the absurd and gets denied and spinmasters like you come out and claim that it gives the process, and Judge Lane credibility, hardly.
When banks lend money they expose themselves to risk, and collect interest on those funds in exchange for that risk, you never mentioned how much US Bank had already made off those funds, they got back every penny they put out, in a real bankruptcy they would have lost their money and been put on the creditors list.
Of course AA would have filed anyway, but it's far from certain that AA would have taken back pay improvements had the AA mechanics ratified the 2010 TA.
Didn't two other TWU groups ratify their TAs in 2010 and not see their pay rates reduced (17% bankruptcy cut was taken from work rules/benefits and not pay rates)?
I understand that the 2010 TA conditioned its small payraises on concessions that you and others found unacceptable, but the fact is you would have had two years of higher pay at the time the bankruptcy concessions. Many of your union brothers pointed that out over and over again once AA filed in 11/2011. You guys are at the bottom now partly because you all rejected AA's attempts to raise your pay slightly in 2010. We'll never know where you'd be right now had you ratified the 2010 TA, but given the experience of the two other TWU workgroups, you might be enjoying slightly better pay had you not voted down that TA.
Ronin
Member
- Aug 15, 2012
- 16
- 9
OldGuy,
You hit that last one right on.... I read this blog alot, I dont comment too much but this Elitist must be aspiring to be a CEO. He has some good points, but if he's never been in our shoes, keep your mouth shut and try to learn from people who work and want to make things better. Not shove our faces into the wall.
Especially when you have billions of dollars and get to make sure that the laws are written that way, the only time it becomes iffy it when the titans decide to batlle, in this case we, the peons, are supposed to see this false contest as something real.
Perhaps if the TWU would have acted like a union and sought to be released we would have done better, without the concessions.
We were never offered a pay raise. We were offered a pay increase to what we were being paid at that current time. It would be a pay raise once we recieved pay that was more than what we were making in 2003 prior to our pay and benefits cut.I do believe in 2018 when our contract expires we will still be below our 2003 rates.
Kind Regards,
Harvey West
Ok let me try to explain.......... In 2010, we were asked to let the company have our prefunded retiree medical. For this overhaul mechs were offered a $3K signing bonus and no raise. Line mechs were offered $2.55 per hour line pay. We were forced to give up all of our benefits and a huge portion of our pay in 2003 in order to save the retirement medical and the pension. Then in 2010 the company wanted the retiree medical from me for a one time payment of $3K before taxes. The money was supposed to be in lieu of a raise for a 6 year deal. There would have been tiny raises at the middle and end of the deal. The line guys were trading their retiree medical for $2.55 per hour. Now if they had offered to give us back the things we lost in 2003 then it would have been something to consider. I would like to ask you if you would give up your retirement for a one time payment of $3000 before taxes? We knew they were going to get rid of the pension as soon as they were able because they were grossly underfunding it. So AA wanted complete victory by getting our retiree medical too. Now the TWU was onboard with all of this and was not happy we voted it down. There were many other reasons that made this a terrible deal for us. But the biggest reason I personally voted no was because the retiree medical was worth much more to me than the money I was offered.
He forgets that with the 2010 TA we still would have had a weeks less vacation every year, the lowest Holiday pay, the least amount of sick time, no doubletime and other concessions that our peers who went through BK still have to this day.
On the retiree medical those of us under 50 would have lost it all, we would have had to trade our contributions for "sick time credts" to be used towards company provided retiree medical that we would have lost anyway.
Yes Bob those were other gems included in the offer. It is easy for someone who has not lived through this to suggest we were wrong to vote this down. I remember talking to Steve Luis at great length about this deal and he was actually surprised I was against it. The over/under 50 thing was a no brainer for me (I was 51 in 2010) since I have seen what AA and the TWU do to us. Under 50 would have lost retiree medical and over 50 would have had it until AA filed BK, which we all knew was the plan. In my experience at AA, you don't have any benefit until you actually get to use that benefit. And the TWU acts like you lost nothing when they give it away. Case in point, the extra week of vacation lost. I was told that since I wasn't going to get the 6th week for three years, I hadn't lost anything. It's mentality like this that continues to put us last in the industry in every good benefit. I am still confused as to how the TWU has survived this long.
Similar threads
