Here comes the BK threat from the company

[eolesen]

Commovia, just put him on ignore already. Even the people I know at DL get embarrassed whenever he opens his mouth and starts waving his pom pons about, especially now that he's no longer able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Commovia, just put him on ignore already. Even the people I know at DL get embarrassed whenever he opens his mouth and starts waving his pom pons about, especially now that he's no longer able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity...

except I would LOVE IT if you would just ignore me but you can't - you respond to whatever I say - because you absolutely can't stand not getting the last word in....

There is a valid conversation going on here about AA but you chose to throw in a superfluous comment to distract the conversation since you really don't like the fact that AA's aircraft order has been called in question.
.
Anyone who has read these forums for any length of time knows that you ABSOLUTELY cannot stand having AA performed to any other carrier... because if it is, it shows how poorly AA actually stacks up.... and calls you and others to acknowledge that other carriers really have done a far better job of running their businesses, despite the mythical benefits which you want to attribute to them having stayed out of BK.
.
Commavia is a smart guy.... but when he follows your example of starting to throw stones at the opposite team when you can't respond to the concerns that have been raised, well, then he loses his credibility.
At least people like FWAAA have the good sense to stop arguing when they know they can't counter the point being made.
.
Now returning to the topic, I have yet to hear from anyone an example of an airline - or just about any company with a similar financial structure - that has successfully replaced 70% of its fleet - or capital assets over a 7-8 year period given the amount of leverage AA already carries. That is the reason that I raised the issue about the size of AA's order and the impact it will have on AA's finances - and that is why Wall street is questioning the deal - and shorts on AMR are the largest in the industry and continue to grow. Wall Street is far from convinced that AA's big shopping spree is going to solve its problems.
.
I have also yet to hear an explanation as to why AA's pilots are more strategic than its other employees.

How about you stay on task and answer those questions.

 

[Buck]

except I would LOVE IT if you would just ignore me but you can't - you respond to whatever I say - because you absolutely can't stand not getting the last word in....

nar·cis·sism   /ˈnɑrsəˌsɪzɛm/ Show Spelled[nahr-suh-siz-em]
noun

1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.

2. Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

 

[WorldTraveler]

name calling : a not so thinly veiled attempt at covering up the inability to deal with the real issues at hand which here include AA's financial performance, its failing strategies, and the impacts these will have on AA employees.

So, likely this thread will bite the dust with no more answers than when it was opened because we have a teAAm that is more interested in defending the status quo than admitting that the system is broken and that radical changes need to be made to keep the ship from going down. And then of course there is the ever presence denial that someone else might actually be doing something better than AA.

Silly me for thinking I was talking w/ people who actually knew something about the airline industry and had the creative intelligence to make a difference... but apparently not.

 

[FA Mikey]

Then feel free to take your bat and ball.

 

[Buck]

name calling : a not so thinly veiled attempt at covering up the inability to deal with the real issues at hand which here include AA's financial performance, its failing strategies, and the impacts these will have on AA employees.

So, likely this thread will bite the dust with no more answers than when it was opened because we have a teAAm that is more interested in defending the status quo than admitting that the system is broken and that radical changes need to be made to keep the ship from going down. And then of course there is the ever presence denial that someone else might actually be doing something better than AA.

Silly me for thinking I was talking w/ people who actually knew something about the airline industry and had the creative intelligence to make a difference... but apparently not.

except I would LOVE IT if you would just ignore me but you can't - you respond to whatever I say - because you absolutely can't stand not getting the last word in....

I f you would have left this thought off of your post it would have been a very good post, no a great post.

I never actually called you anything. I just indicated that what you said was narcissistic.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You do realize the two quotes are from two different posts? So it is ok if I challenge someone else but certainly not you?
.
but we have important issues to discuss about the future of AA and its employees... surely you have a pertinent thought on the subject.

 

[Kev3188]

A few thoughts... Some may not be feasible, and some may not work, but I figured I'd throw 'em out there. I'll concentrate on Fleet and M & E...

It's been noted that productivity per employee is the lowest of all carriers. What specifically causes that to be, I dunno (Hi Frank), but it needs to come down. Rather than AA taking the easy way out and forcing concessions, it will truly take some balance. I'm not sure if either AA or the TWU is capable of that at this point, but here goes:

A. A *decent* early out across all workgroups. What constitutes "decent" is for you all to decide. I can tell you that NW-and now DL- offers them, but the medical is never enough for those of us w/a combined age & seniority of under 55. make it a good package, and I'm willing to bet that there's a stampede for the exits. Any backfilling is done at a lower rate than those that have left. Once the dust settles, offer it on an annualized basis, as needs dictate.

B. For Fleet, why not bring back as much of the work AE currently does in the hubs as possible? If there are line stations w/both AA & AE workers, then the case is even stronger.

DL took back all EV handling in ATL, all regional work in CVG, and most OO handling in SLC. It's a work in progress to do the same for all regional flying in DTW, and to a lesser extent MSP. Not sure what's going in MEM. UAL has done the same w/ZW in ORD. Doing so means a lot more work done in house, but not that many extra people. Productivity goes up a long way compared to cost incurred.

C. For M & E, maybe a shift from HMV work to component work. Not entirely (and, no, I'm not saying TULE needs to go), but it might dovetail nicely with the dip in work that will occur as the new A/C come on line. More checks and 3P work for the line stations helps make the case for keeping/increasing wages while raising productivity.

D. For new hires, pension is replaced w/a 401k. I might also go another step and add a one time option for existing employees to either stay w/a DB, or go to a DC plan. IIRC, AS did that during their last contract talks? I'm not really sure what prefunding is, but either way, taking retiree medical off of the table is a non-starter for me...

E. Tighten up rules so that people need to work a minimum # of hours in order to keep their benefits. Based on what I read on here, I'm guessing this is more of a Fleet and Inflight issue. IMO, if you trade all your shifts away, you shouldn't get to keep the medical. JMHO.

For Fleet and M & E, the TWU has got to go. Who replaces them is again up to you, but it's clear that they can't negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, and are also unwilling to dare try anything original at the table (again, I'm basing that on what many of you have posted, and the links you've shared).


Just some fodder for discussion...

 

[Frank Szabo]

A few thoughts... Some may not be feasible, and some may not work, but I figured I'd throw 'em out there. I'll concentrate on Fleet and M & E...

It's been noted that productivity per employee is the lowest of all carriers. What specifically causes that to be, I dunno (Hi Frank), but it needs to come down. Rather than AA taking the easy way out and forcing concessions, it will truly take some balance. I'm not sure if either AA or the TWU is capable of that at this point, but here goes:

A. A *decent* early out across all workgroups. What constitutes "decent" is for you all to decide. I can tell you that NW-and now DL- offers them, but the medical is never enough for those of us w/a combined age & seniority of under 55. make it a good package, and I'm willing to bet that there's a stampede for the exits. Any backfilling is done at a lower rate than those that have left. Once the dust settles, offer it on an annualized basis, as needs dictate.

B. For Fleet, why not bring back as much of the work AE currently does in the hubs as possible? If there are line stations w/both AA & AE workers, then the case is even stronger.

DL took back all EV handling in ATL, all regional work in CVG, and most OO handling in SLC. It's a work in progress to do the same for all regional flying in DTW, and to a lesser extent MSP. Not sure what's going in MEM. UAL has done the same w/ZW in ORD. Doing so means a lot more work done in house, but not that many extra people. Productivity goes up a long way compared to cost incurred.

C. For M & E, maybe a shift from HMV work to component work. Not entirely (and, no, I'm not saying TULE needs to go), but it might dovetail nicely with the dip in work that will occur as the new A/C come on line. More checks and 3P work for the line stations helps make the case for keeping/increasing wages while raising productivity.

D. For new hires, pension is replaced w/a 401k. I might also go another step and add a one time option for existing employees to either stay w/a DB, or go to a DC plan. IIRC, AS did that during their last contract talks? I'm not really sure what prefunding is, but either way, taking retiree medical off of the table is a non-starter for me...

E. Tighten up rules so that people need to work a minimum # of hours in order to keep their benefits. Based on what I read on here, I'm guessing this is more of a Fleet and Inflight issue. IMO, if you trade all your shifts away, you shouldn't get to keep the medical. JMHO.

For Fleet and M & E, the TWU has got to go. Who replaces them is again up to you, but it's clear that they can't negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, and are also unwilling to dare try anything original at the table (again, I'm basing that on what many of you have posted, and the links you've shared).


Just some fodder for discussion...

You're forgetting the most simply part of this equation, Kev - productivity is not to be addressed with respect to fixing problems (many of which are company roadblocks) until after the twu signs a regressive contract, ergo, the company wants a double bite at the apple.

As for your items are concerned, good ideas - A through C are good - D: I would love for the pension to be frozen and a 401(k) with match be instituted so that damned pension can't be held over the heads of the ignorant. As for the retiree medical, the stink is about a program that's only at issue if a person retires before Medicare eligibility, otherwise, it's useless.

Item E - all for that.

The twu going away? Let's just say we're basically paying the company dues - they go bye-bye.

Now - the practical aspects. Due to the "need" of the company to take two bites at the concession apple (both by contract and, no doubt, letter of agreement after signing), there will be no meaningful negotiations and that's only if the twu were gone already as they're all for the concessions. Let the company negotiate for what they want up front but that won't happen - it'll be a "surprise package" like the layoffs that weren't supposed to happen after the 2003 givebacks with the SOBs of the International playing their violins for us.

Yes - with a dull chainsaw and a bag of rusty tire tools.

 

[eolesen]

B. For Fleet, why not bring back as much of the work AE currently does in the hubs as possible? If there are line stations w/both AA & AE workers, then the case is even stronger.

Did EV or OO have their own union employees? Did ZW? Were they signatory on the space they were using, or subleasing from the major?

Eagle's ramp employees are represented by the TWU, so you'll never see the TWU being able to address that one without facing a DFR suit from one side or the other.

At some airports, it has been cost prohibitive to do so, but where possible, they're signatory to their own ramp space. Even where they're not, there are now rules in place at the biggest airports to prohibit the requirement to use a leaseholder's employees while subleasing a gate. In JFK, where Qatar and other airlines renting gate space from AA were using third parties to perform ramp handling, vs. using AA, the lawsuit filed by TWU to oppose QR's right to choose has already been thrown out of court.

 

[kma]

Apparently, the company has withdrawn from negotiations with the pilots and will be submitting a "last best offer" within the next week or two. The offer will also be accompanied by the threat of BK if we do not accept.

Welcome to 2003.

The APA will tell them to pack sand, so I guess we will finally get to see if the company is bluffing or not.

 

[kma]

A few thoughts... Some may not be feasible, and some may not work, but I figured I'd throw 'em out there. I'll concentrate on Fleet and M & E...

It's been noted that productivity per employee is the lowest of all carriers. What specifically causes that to be, I dunno (Hi Frank), but it needs to come down. Rather than AA taking the easy way out and forcing concessions, it will truly take some balance. I'm not sure if either AA or the TWU is capable of that at this point, but here goes:

A. A *decent* early out across all workgroups. What constitutes "decent" is for you all to decide. I can tell you that NW-and now DL- offers them, but the medical is never enough for those of us w/a combined age & seniority of under 55. make it a good package, and I'm willing to bet that there's a stampede for the exits. Any backfilling is done at a lower rate than those that have left. Once the dust settles, offer it on an annualized basis, as needs dictate.

B. For Fleet, why not bring back as much of the work AE currently does in the hubs as possible? If there are line stations w/both AA & AE workers, then the case is even stronger.

DL took back all EV handling in ATL, all regional work in CVG, and most OO handling in SLC. It's a work in progress to do the same for all regional flying in DTW, and to a lesser extent MSP. Not sure what's going in MEM. UAL has done the same w/ZW in ORD. Doing so means a lot more work done in house, but not that many extra people. Productivity goes up a long way compared to cost incurred.

C. For M & E, maybe a shift from HMV work to component work. Not entirely (and, no, I'm not saying TULE needs to go), but it might dovetail nicely with the dip in work that will occur as the new A/C come on line. More checks and 3P work for the line stations helps make the case for keeping/increasing wages while raising productivity.

D. For new hires, pension is replaced w/a 401k. I might also go another step and add a one time option for existing employees to either stay w/a DB, or go to a DC plan. IIRC, AS did that during their last contract talks? I'm not really sure what prefunding is, but either way, taking retiree medical off of the table is a non-starter for me...
ha
E. Tighten up rules so that people need to work a minimum # of hours in order to keep their benefits. Based on what I read on here, I'm guessing this is more of a Fleet and Inflight issue. IMO, if you trade all your shifts away, you shouldn't get to keep the medical. JMHO.

For Fleet and M & E, the TWU has got to go. Who replaces them is again up to you, but it's clear that they can't negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, and are also unwilling to dare try anything original at the table (again, I'm basing that on what many of you have posted, and the links you've shared).


Just some fodder for discussion...

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you, Kev, for returning the conversation to the topics that matter - and to you, Frank, and E, for your replies.
.
Health care costs are something that no company is willing to make any long term commitment to given the rapidly escalating costs... providing health care coverage for a lifetime is getting as hard to find as it is to find companies that will pay defined benefits. Companies want to know the costs they are incurring when they commit to them and they really do not want to provide benefits beyond the time period that a company works for them.
.
While a 401k can be more palatable to alot of people than a DB plan, there is no other alternative for a lot of people to find health care... until they hit Medicare age. It is a whole 'nother debate but there should be some serious questions being asked about having healthcare for seniors in the US to be almost exclusively provided by the gov't because private employers will not commit to providing those benefits.
.

As you note, all of the ideas presented require a desire for both the TWU and AA to negotiate.
I'm not sure if it is true - and anyone can provide an update - but if it is true that the TWU has left the negotiating table and the APA and APFA are still talking to AA, then the worst place the TWU represented AA employees could be in is on the cutting room floor of a restructuring pow wow presided over by AA, APA, and APFA.
It is highly doubtful that the APA will agree to much if any scope concessions... which means that if the company has to make up for what the pilots won't give, they will be turning to the TWU represented groups that are not negotiating.
.
While the TWU might not be very effective, this is absolutely the time to throw whatever support behind them in the midst of what could be THE FINAL EXAM. TWU represented employees MUST ensure their interests are protected, esp. in light of the company's stated plans and the APA's intentions of doing "one better" than the rest of the labor groups at AA.
AA will take full advantage of the TWU's weak position and the disdain for it by so many members if those members don't rally to protect their interests when it most counts.
.
E,
most of the DCI carriers were/are more unionized that DL... not sure how DL managed to convince the DCI carriers that they would have to give up control of much of their ground operations at many of the hubs to DL... but I believe it had to do with DL's belief that it could provide higher quality services (and honestly I think it has improved) as well as DL's desire to protect the jobs of its employees ... perhaps DCI carriers had a higher turnover rate so the impact was relatively minor; many of the DCI employees were allowed to apply with DL...and I'm not sure may have been bridged over to DL....
Unforunately Kev's idea about AA taking over ground handling for AE seems counter to the deal to divest AE in which AA is apparently promising AE ground handling revenues since they cannot commit to long term RJ contracts.

 

[Bob Owens]

You're forgetting the most simply part of this equation, Kev - productivity is not to be addressed with respect to fixing problems (many of which are company roadblocks) until after the twu signs a regressive contract, ergo, the company wants a double bite at the apple.

The only true way of measuring our productivity is against previous performance and not with competitors because our competitors used outsuorcing as a means of hiding labor costs. At AA the opposite was done, distorting the figures the opposite way. So our competitors productivity was erroneously inflated, by a large amount do to hiding labor costs through outsourcing and ours was erroneously deflated against past performance by insourcing more work.

 

[Kev3188]

You're forgetting the most simply part of this equation, Kev - productivity is not to be addressed with respect to fixing problems (many of which are company roadblocks) until after the twu signs a regressive contract, ergo, the company wants a double bite at the apple.

Oh, I didn't forget... Wish it wasn't that way for you guys, though...

As for your items are concerned, good ideas - A through C are good - D: I would love for the pension to be frozen and a 401(k) with match be instituted so that damned pension can't be held over the heads of the ignorant. As for the retiree medical, the stink is about a program that's only at issue if a person retires before Medicare eligibility, otherwise, it's useless.

I, too, hate the way a pension is held over everyone's head, at the expense of other items. It's frustrating.

Did EV or OO have their own union employees? Did ZW? Were they signatory on the space they were using, or subleasing from the major? Eagle's ramp employees are represented by the TWU, so you'll never see the TWU being able to address that one without facing a DFR suit from one side or the other.

EV and OO frontline employees are non-union. ZW is IAM. No clue about any of the real estate issues.

As for a DFR? Maybe, maybe not. I thought about that while I was writing the original post, but with ZW and UA both IAM (districts 143 & 141 respectively) I figured it might be doable.

At some airports, it has been cost prohibitive to do so, but where possible, they're signatory to their own ramp space. Even where they're not, there are now rules in place at the biggest airports to prohibit the requirement to use a leaseholder's employees while subleasing a gate. In JFK, where Qatar and other airlines renting gate space from AA were using third parties to perform ramp handling, vs. using AA, the lawsuit filed by TWU to oppose QR's right to choose has already been thrown out of court.

Interesting... I'd be curious which airports are/aren't constrained by these leases. I'd also be interested to know which line stations have both AA & AE employees (if any)...

thank you, Kev, for returning the conversation to the topics that matter - and to you, Frank, and E, for your replies.
.
Health care costs are something that no company is willing to make any long term commitment to given the rapidly escalating costs... providing health care coverage for a lifetime is getting as hard to find as it is to find companies that will pay defined benefits. Companies want to know the costs they are incurring when they commit to them and they really do not want to provide benefits beyond the time period that a company works for them.

Not a lifetime, just 'til 65 Medicare kicks in.

As you note, all of the ideas presented require a desire for both the TWU and AA to negotiate.
I'm not sure if it is true - and anyone can provide an update - but if it is true that the TWU has left the negotiating table and the APA and APFA are still talking to AA, then the worst place the TWU represented AA employees could be in is on the cutting room floor of a restructuring pow wow presided over by AA, APA, and APFA.
It is highly doubtful that the APA will agree to much if any scope concessions... which means that if the company has to make up for what the pilots won't give, they will be turning to the TWU represented groups that are not negotiating.

That's one of my concerns. If there's movement on the APA front, and the TWU negotiators are being called "pricks," then where's that leave the membership?
.

AA will take full advantage of the TWU's weak position and the disdain for it by so many members if those members don't rally to protect their interests when it most counts.

They're taking advantage of it now, IMO.
.

...and I'm not sure may have been bridged over to DL....

Dunno how many moved to M/L. EV employees were credited w/ half of their seniority when they came over.

Unforunately Kev's idea about AA taking over ground handling for AE seems counter to the deal to divest AE in which AA is apparently promising AE ground handling revenues since they cannot commit to long term RJ contracts.

Something every last FSC on the system should be railing against. I don't see the TWU doing anything to show *why* AA shouldn't, though. The ideas I presented make the case for strengthening scope in a win-win fashion. I suspect that the TWU will throw many stations close to the flight threshold under the bus because that's the only give-to-get they know how to do.

The only true way of measuring our productivity is against previous performance and not with competitors because our competitors used outsuorcing as a means of hiding labor costs. At AA the opposite was done, distorting the figures the opposite way. So our competitors productivity was erroneously inflated, by a large amount do to hiding labor costs through outsourcing and ours was erroneously deflated against past performance by insourcing more work.

If you have those figures, then why doesn't the rest of your team at the table? Why is Viditech et al unable to make an effective case for you guys?