Good job Bob Owens

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Maybe Doug didn't give the answer because it wasn't the right time or place?...

Will there ever be a right time or place?
 
Sometimes you have to "make" an opportunity.

 

[Overspeed]

Even without the Durst LOA we would have doubled the treasury.

Your bitterness has manifested into pettiness, and its pretty pathetic.

You should be basking in your victory, you got the contract you wanted, problem is you wanted this deal but not for you. You hitched your wagon to the big man and when he got unhitched, you got unhitched, fortunately for him he got far enough down the road where he will never have to work under the deal he championed, as long as he can stretch his cash option from the TWU pension to 55 or get a "settlement" to carry him to when he can get his AA pension"based on the rate reported by the union", no big deal; taking the 15% hit when your pension is based on a $150 k wage. Hey as long as he is gone and unable to do more damage I'm good. Unfortunately for you you don't get the TWU pension, and your AA pension will be based on the lower wage you helped put in place. The big man took good care of himself, and left you out to dry, but instead of being mad at him, you are mad at everyone else. Typical, not enough of a man to face your real nemesis so you hide behind an alias and try and stir up a scandal where nobody is listening. Lombardo didn't screw you, you made your choice, I'm willing to give him and the new team some time, but then again I'm not the one being queried by the members.

I recall how back when all the Presidents had to start punching a clock you were so disappointed that not one of us complained about it. As often as possible, no matter what the topic of the thread you would bring it up hoping for a response. Then it was our salaries, still pull that one up, like I said, don't like it make a motion to change it. You don't complain about the fact you didn't get to vote on going into one local or the bylaws, only ever complain about the salaries you didn't vote on. Now its UB, getting nowhere with any of that you are moving towards trying to start trouble within the board. Do I have Gary's back? YES. Do we agree on everything? No. Looking to have Gary removed so I can have the job? Heard the rumor already, not interested, even with the $2.5K/month salary you are obsessed with I'm not moving to Dallas. My wife is the main breadwinner now, earning around $8//hr more than I, even switched to her medical and dropped coverage at AA.

Now back on topic.
Ok on one thread we have you supporting managements decision to remove Inspectors and on this one defending Parker. So in other words nothing has changed except that now you aren't hiding behind the International in your support of management.

 
Well now we know you can't add and you believe your own BS. You once said that company paid officers was like AA paying hush money but now you get it and you are fine with it. Would 591 have the funds they do now without the Durst LOA? No. You have four officers pay covered 50% by AA or the equivalent of $200K approximately. Give the money back if you don't need it. We haven't even touched on the 12 or so others that aren't bidding shifts yet punch a clock and never show up at work. Scammers just like the last group.
 
I am happy and basking in the glow of this agreement. If we had it your way the judge would have allowed AA to outsource far more than they have. I wish we had gotten in the 2010 TA, the one that would have had us paid $38 on the line and $36 in the base. Yeah its a split but you didn't like that because you wanted more and you knew that BK was the only way to get rid of those pesky TUL overhaul mechanics.
 
HItched? What are you talking about? Hitched to who? Settlement? You lost me.
 
Do I think the inspectors should have been removed? I haven't seen any QA laid off have you? A less confusing RII/QA policy is a good thing.
 
Who in the Int'l am I hiding behind? I said according to GP's letter to Lombardo he sounds like 591 is taking the Int'l on.

 

[scorpion 2]

 
Well now we know you can't add and you believe your own BS. You once said that company paid officers was like AA paying hush money but now you get it and you are fine with it. Would 591 have the funds they do now without the Durst LOA? No. You have four officers pay covered 50% by AA or the equivalent of $200K approximately. Give the money back if you don't need it. We haven't even touched on the 12 or so others that aren't bidding shifts yet punch a clock and never show up at work. Scammers just like the last group.
 
I am happy and basking in the glow of this agreement. If we had it your way the judge would have allowed AA to outsource far more than they have. I wish we had gotten in the 2010 TA, the one that would have had us paid $38 on the line and $36 in the base. Yeah its a split but you didn't like that because you wanted more and you knew that BK was the only way to get rid of those pesky TUL overhaul mechanics.
 
HItched? What are you talking about? Hitched to who? Settlement? You lost me.
 
Do I think the inspectors should have been removed? I haven't seen any QA laid off have you? A less confusing RII/QA policy is a good thing.
 
Who in the Int'l am I hiding behind? I said according to GP's letter to Lombardo he sounds like 591 is taking the Int'l on.

The pay scale graph for the 2010 contract was a joke. The company could have manipulated it so that very few would have gotten the top pay even if they worked the line. Lets not forget everyone 45 and under lost their retiree medical in that deal too.  

 

[DallasConehead]

The pay scale graph for the 2010 contract was a joke. The company could have manipulated it so that very few would have gotten the top pay even if they worked the line. Lets not forget everyone 45 and under lost their retiree medical in that deal too.  

Which everyone that's still here lost anyway

 

[scorpion 2]

Which everyone that's still here lost anyway

And would have lost regardless,  if the 2010 deal was voted in.

 

[Overspeed]

Which everyone that's still here lost anyway

 
True but under the 2010 TA no one would have lost the retiree medical. The funding option changed. Those 45 to 50 would have had a bridge and those under 45 would have paid entirely through unused SK bank. The vote no coalition did a good job of misinforming members that they would have no retiree medical. But like you said, in the end none of us have it now. So who won?

 

[Overspeed]

And would have lost regardless,  if the 2010 deal was voted in.

 
Remember the MCT's voted for the 2010 TA with the retiree medical change. They lost the retiree medical but still kept their pay rates. We on the other hand ended up going in to BK court with $34 an hour instead of $39 in 2012. The MCT's even got the same annual raises as us so we would have been over $40 by now and would have been arguing the outsourcing for the most part in BK. We would have also had more VC, Holidays, and full pay SK pay.
 
Yeah voting no was a great idea. Should have listened to the Int'l

 

[Duke787]

Again this is a chart 700UW posted. 
 
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CHART IS CORRECT EITHER. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE CHART OR THE SARAH PALIN COMMENT TAKE IT UP WITH 700UW, HE POSTED IT.
 
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56988-party-of-the-rich/
 


 
 
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57219-prisoner-swap/page-6

Anybody who quotes a pundit like Sarah Palin, Rush Lindbaugh, Ed Schultz, or Keith Oberman shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Duke787]

And would have lost regardless,  if the 2010 deal was voted in.

This is what the NO voters say so they don't fell bad for losing out on $33k dollars and all the other stuff, how nice would it be to have an additional 20 sick days in the bank.

Remember the FAs pilots and MCTs (who are TWU) didn't lose their pay or other stuff in BK so that excuse, "we would have lost in BK anyway" doesn't hold water.

Everybody lost out on pension and retirement medical.

 

[Duke787]

Remember the MCT's voted for the 2010 TA with the retiree medical change. They lost the retiree medical but still kept their pay rates. We on the other hand ended up going in to BK court with $34 an hour instead of $39 in 2012. The MCT's even got the same annual raises as us so we would have been over $40 by now and would have been arguing the outsourcing for the most part in BK. We would have also had more VC, Holidays, and full pay SK pay.
 
Yeah voting no was a great idea. Should have listened to the Int'l

Should have listened to duke787

Who would have thought that after 7 years of the mother of all concessions, a contract that had

Pension
Overhaul
Retiree medical if over 45
A healthy pay raise
10 sick days
10 holidays

All this during the recovery of the biggest economical crisis since the depression , and at a time where our competitors went BK and cut the pensions and outsourced their OH.

 

[comatose]

I see spineless morons still can't figure out why the company called it a zero cost contract.

 

[Overspeed]

I see spineless morons still can't figure out why the company called it a zero cost contract.

 
Spineless? I guess you really hate more VC, Holidays, and more pay than you currently have now. And you would have had it four years ago but here you are...still complaining and with five Holidays, same one week of VC minimum, making $36 when you could be making $40, and dreaming about what could have been. Just think, even if you would have accepted that TA you would have all those things back and could still fight for your beloved AMFA. Instead you have less than before and are still fighting for your beloved AMFA. Sounds like you did not chose wisely grasshopper.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Should have listened to duke787

Who would have thought that after 7 years of the mother of all concessions, a contract that had

Pension
Overhaul
Retiree medical if over 45
A healthy pay raise
10 sick days
10 holidays

All this during the recovery of the biggest economical crisis since the depression , and at a time where our competitors went BK and cut the pensions and outsourced their OH.

I believe you have some incorrect information above.
 Retiree medical was for those over 50.  It would have been given away in BK resulting in what we now have.
There were not 10 holidays in that TA.  I am not 100% sure but I seem to remember 7.
The "Healthy pay raise" for Tulsa AMTs was a $3000 lump sum payment and no hourly raise.
Also included in the TA was the management board to select crew chiefs, as well as work rules that were imposed in the BK contract.
You are trying to cover a pile of dog crap with frosting and call it desert.  Typical of the TWU Koolaid drinkers.

 

[Overspeed]

I believe you have some incorrect information above.
 Retiree medical was for those over 50.  It would have been given away in BK resulting in what we now have.
There were not 10 holidays in that TA.  I am not 100% sure but I seem to remember 7.
The "Healthy pay raise" for Tulsa AMTs was a $3000 lump sum payment and no hourly raise.
Also included in the TA was the management board to select crew chiefs, as well as work rules that were imposed in the BK contract.
You are trying to cover a pile of dog crap with frosting and call it desert.  Typical of the TWU Koolaid drinkers.

 
Just to be clear, the retiree medical did not go away under the 2010 TA. The funding option changed for those under 50 but you are right. BK would still have wiped it out.
 
It was 8 hoildays at 2X pay for HW
 
TUL was a lump sum and COLA raises only.
 
The CC selection was in the TA but the rate went to $2.75 from $1.75
 
All the station LOAs would have stayed in so it was not anywhere like the BK CBA.
 
Wage adjustment was going to be top rate for peer group versus peer group average which was better.
 
I am not saying the 2010 TA was great but it was way better than what we have now which is entirely the point. The vote no coalition completely misjudged the company. They believed that AMR would not file BK with so much cash but instead it was the perfect time. The company maintained control because they did not have to get DIP financing freeing their ability to control the POR. It may have been underhanded but it was possible under the law. That is why even if you are excited because the vote no coalition throws rocks, it has not put one dime in your pocket. In fact they have done the opposite. Listening to them denied you of putting more money in your pocket for the last four years, three extra holidays at 2X pay, full pay SK pay, and minimum two weeks of VC with a max of six but apparently you were fine with taking that risk. You could have rode the vote no coalition all the way to abrogation and risked having more overhaul outsourced than is currently allowed and still have all the crappy work rule changes, no top rate, half pay SK, and one week less VC.
 
As our Charlie Sheen says "WINNING!!!"

 

[Duke787]

I believe you have some incorrect information above.
 Retiree medical was for those over 50.  It would have been given away in BK resulting in what we now have.
There were not 10 holidays in that TA.  I am not 100% sure but I seem to remember 7.
The "Healthy pay raise" for Tulsa AMTs was a $3000 lump sum payment and no hourly raise.
Also included in the TA was the management board to select crew chiefs, as well as work rules that were imposed in the BK contract.
You are trying to cover a pile of dog crap with frosting and call it desert.  Typical of the TWU Koolaid drinkers.

You're right 9 years of the 2003 was a great idea and having that contract going into BK really worked out for us. Even with the benefit of hindsight you still think it was the smart move to vote down the 2010 TA. Well at least guys don't have to work weekends and OH future is secure.