Nice try.
A swing and a miss from you.
I posted what we received by accepting the extension.
You made broad claims that we gave up something that amounted to concessions resulting in "ZERO improvements".
You made the claim, you provide the proof.
Put up or shut up.
I am still waiting........
If you want to step in to this argument at least do it from near the beginning. It started on page 3 as an answer to 1AA. According to the annual financial filings, as well as many documented news reports, there were cost neutral agreements made with all the unions on property including amfa. As the filings describe, SWA was able to increase pay and profit payments in exchange for flexibilities. I am sorry if you do not agree, but when you take something away and are offerd something else, your net gain is ZERO. This even net gain was sold to your board of directors in order to approve your contracts.
http://www.airtimes....t/ar/wn2004.pdf
http://www.getfiling...-05-002093.html
From the 2005 SWA 10K filing, "Higher average wage rates and higher profitsharing expense per ASM from the increase in earnings were offset by continued productivity efforts that have enabled the Company to reduce headcount while continuing to grow its aircraft fleet."
http://www.getfilings.com/o0000092380-05-000006.html
So what did you loose?
Your agreements allowed for reduced head count. Overall you went down in mechanic to aircraft ratio and were able to do this by early out programs without replacing with new hires. I believe there was an increase in by open ended agreements allowing for more maintenance work to be sent to outside vendors but that is purely speculative based on a shortage of personnel.
Your decision to allow maintenance work to be sent outside the US is another issue but I believe that subject did not become allowable amfa language until 2008.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/Southwest-Airlines-Will-Send-Planes-to-El-Salvador-For-Maintanence.html
Sending work to El Salvador was not an overnight development and I am willing to bet there were talks about this earlier. Could this have been part of those flexibility discussions?
The subject I have been dissecting is not what you gained or gave up in 2004, but that some would claim that amfa is the reason you mechanics at WN are doing so well. I disagree and have questioned the notion using both submissions from 10K filings and documented news stories.
Don't try to sell me a river that you do not own. amfa did not negotiate any more than any other union on property in 2004. Even though Soutwest was profitable in 2003 and 2004, they were still facing one of the highest fuel rates yet to come, as well as an unstable market. The company did the right thing by negotiating cost saving measures with it's unions while adding to their employees individual compensation packages. This too is clear and explained in several portions of the financial reports in various years. In the end, however, you,1AA, swamt, or the informer can
NOT convince me that amfa had anything to do with this wage increase in 2004 especially after just winning the representational election. It is not the extension that keeps me at the keyboard, it is the suggestion of a few that amfa orchestrated the move. It fell on them and they were only too happy to take it. amfa accepted the extension because they
could not negotiate a contract in 2004. Your answer helps to prove that.
I appreciate your explanation which seems much more plausible than the swamt 9-11 toilet rant. But still your description of the cost neutral excuse "so that other unions would not rape them in negotiations" is simply unbelievable. As I have already explained, the exact reason is well described in your annual 10K filings.
The bottom line; you are the highest paid mechanics because of the company you work for, not the union that represents you.
To suggest amfa would or could be as successful with AA as they are at WN is irresponsible. I do not make these claims even about the Teamsters. I can only state that we at UA were in the same position as AA mechanics. amfa promises and stories only lead to more losses.
