How much better will pilots and mechanics be in a BK court?

[AAviator]

Bob, Again,

Bob Owens,
Please answer FA Mikey.

He said "I love the SWA comparison. Since Southwest farms out its overhaulwork. Do you feel that''s OK for AA? Can they keep full pay for the few line station mechanics they would keep and layoff the rest? Is that better for your work group and profession?"

It would bolster your credibility (or lack of).

 

[AAviator]

bob?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 940 AM AAviator wrote:


Bob, Again,

Bob Owens,
Please answer FA Mikey.

He said "I love the SWA comparison. Since Southwest farms out its overhaulwork. Do you feel that's OK for AA? Can they keep full pay for the few line station mechanics they would keep and layoff the rest? Is that better for your work group and profession?"

It would bolster your credibility (or lack of).


----------------​

I have asked Mikey many questions that he will not answer but I will give the courtesy of anwering his since you brought it up.

Till recently Economies of Scale have dictated that for a small airline like SWA overhaul is not cost effective. The start up costs of aquiring or building a hangar and equiping it to do overhaul were prohibitive. Especially if there was not enough work to keep the line running. It was more cost effective to pay a larger carrier like AA to do it. AA would of course make a profit off this thus giving them an advantage over smaller carriers. AA stoped doing OH for other carriers and concentrated on doing only AAs work. This left the smaller airlines with less options and they started using other vendors that typically would have been considered substandard. Friends who work for some of these small carriers tell loads of horror stories about the condition of these planes when they are released after a heavy check. SWA is starting to bring in more work as they expand because it becomes more cost effective and the airline has better control over quality and can usually reduce parts inventory and get better utilization of their aircraft. Its the same as your car, if you bring it to some chop shop it likely will not be repaired as well as if you bring it to someone who specializes in your make and model.
Our costs per mechanic are comparative even though we have 7 fleet types. Our labor costs per hour must be less because SWA mechanics make more than our top paid line mechanics and we have thousands of low paid OSMs. That brings our total costs per hour down even though the various fleet types bring them up. Much of the cost of Maintenance is inflated by the cost of parts which are included in maint costs. Very few parts are interchangable between fleet types. The inefficiency of having so many fleet types does not provide us mechanics any benifit, in fact it makes for more difficulty so we should be paid more than SWA not less.
The companys decision to build AFW and aquire the TWA overhaul bases were not due to union pressure. The company cited these moves as investments not onerous expenses imposed by our contract. In our contract the company can contract out our work, they just cant lay people off who were here as of March 1,2001 as a result.Our contract does provide us the right to bid on the work before it is contracted out and if we demonstrate that we can do it cheaper then we get it. If our OH is more expensive for the company to do in house than to send it to someone else who is doing it for profit then it is due to the poor management of the base on the company's part. It should be cheaper since it is already set up.The company has failed to maximize its potential revenue from aircraft maintenance. Carrier like Brittish Airways enjoy free line maintenance at JFK because their mechanics generate enough revenue though working on other carriers to cover Brittish Airways costs, Delta Airlines JFK 80 or so Aircraft Mechanics generate over $1million in revenue for them by working for other airlines. American Airlines has the biggest, best equiped hangar on the airport yet they shun such work. Past management did not want to be bothered.
During negotiations the Presidents council did offer to allow the company to layoff as needed but the company rejected the offer. The company also played games with the figures at one point saying that in house labor costs are less than outsourced costs then saying that they were more. For example, using geustimates since I was not present at, one point the company maintained that its labor costs were say $80 per hour so they had to be reduced to the avialable outsourcing rate of $50 per hour. Using these figures towards the $280, then $310, then $315 million target the Council gave the company a number of layoffs that they could accomplish this goal. Then the company said well ,no you can only use a figure of $35 if you are going to do it through layoffs and using the $35 figure you will have to lay off too many people and we cant operate the airline.
Clearly the company was playing games, AFW told the company to go ahead and sell the base and enough with the threats. SWA is rumored to be in the market for an OH base and what better place could they get than the brand new nearby AFW? I think most of the mechanics in AFW would favor the move.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 9:23:15 AM FA Mikey wrote:

----------------
On 4/2/2003 6:16:43 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Why would you trust any of the threats that the company makes? Didnt they say that they would fire "all the cun+$ and fags" if you went on strike back in 93?


----------------​

Nice language, you kiss your mother with that mouth? Crandall made many threats. We were on a legal strike so there was no actual way he could. We all knew it.

I trust the threat of BK to be real and will happen if any group fail to join in. If you want to test them do and see. rest assured they have a prepackaged and fast track deal worked out. You will see your pay and job and CBA disappear quite fast.

----------------​

That is what I was told they said, not me.
If he could not replace you then what makes you think Carty could now? If the contracts are abrogated you can legally strike. The creditors would not like that after they lost their shirts at EAL.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 2:23:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:



I have asked Mikey many questions that he will not answer  but I will give the courtesy of anwering his since you brought it up.

----------------​

Your a dreamer bob. I anwsered all the questions you posed.

 

[Bob Owens]

A couple more Mikey;

On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:



Which is worse a temporary 14% cut or 17.5% with massive concessions FOR SIX YEARS!.

What are they (UAL)asking from their mechanics? Its likely that a lot of what UAL is asking for WE ALREADY GAVE.

Our average cost per mechanic is the lowest in the industry once years of service and OSMs are factored in. What excuse other than the fact that they want it is AA going to use to convince the Judge to abrogate the contract?

If you look at the Carey and Typesetters cases that our unions are pushing at us they are completely different, Careys costs were 60% above industry average and the Typesetters wanted to protect archaic rules that basically protected workers with skills that were no longer useful and resisted retraining. Neither of those factors are present here. If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?




Thats just from this tread should I look for more questions that you did not answer?

 

[AAviator]

Bob , seems to me then, by your logic, AA can save boatloads of $ by outsourcing the RB211 work, the A300 work, and 777 work. If southwest is just now reaching the point of financial return to bring the overhaul in house. Southwest has 400+ 737''s right?

AA needs capital NOW. Its out of reach with a short term agreement with snap backs.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 235 PM FA Mikey wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 2:23:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:



I have asked Mikey many questions that he will not answer  but I will give the courtesy of anwering his since you brought it up.

----------------​

Your a dreamer bob. I anwsered all the questions you posed.

----------------​

Dreaner? Here is one, maybe you were sleeping.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:30:17 PM FA Mikey wrote:

Reality is we are losing millions. AA did have a time line to basically live or file. You are pissed that FS didn''t take a big enough hit then you are pissed that the company held it over the head of TWU.

How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.

Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.

----------------


Who was this addressed to?

 

[AAviator]

Bob, so without the ratification, what happens in your opinion. No BK, the war ends, we all wake up tomorrow morning and this was just a bad dream. Am I right? Have you seen the UAL deal? Sounds to me like the no voters here still think we''re not in financial straits.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 3:16:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 235 PM FA Mikey wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 2:23:11 PM Bob Owens wrote:



I have asked Mikey many questions that he will not answer  but I will give the courtesy of anwering his since you brought it up.

----------------​

Your a dreamer bob. I anwsered all the questions you posed.

----------------​

Dreaner? Here is one, maybe you were sleeping.
----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:30:17 PM FA Mikey wrote:

Reality is we are losing millions. AA did have a time line to basically live or file. You are pissed that FS didn''t take a big enough hit then you are pissed that the company held it over the head of TWU.

How long should the concessionary contracts run? Would you loan AA more money without them? I would prefer a financial trigger to have things revert back. Instead its on a time frame that raises will be given.

Long after AA starts to make money we will be paying creditor banks and other institution that we owe money too.

----------------


Who was this addressed to?




----------------​

Well bob I am not sure what you mean by the word dreaner, and the question mark. But I wrote those questions. For you or anyone else who cares to anwser them. Its a web board, anyone can post or anwser if they choose to.

 

[Bob Owens]

Here are a few more you did not answer Mikey;

Is threatening that "if you dont have an agreement by noon today we are filing BK and asking for this" (the Vermont Plan) good faith bargaining?

Is threatening to close all the bases and lay off half the workers in the entire system good faith bargaining?


Is telling the Union that you cant ask for anything and you must come up with $310 million then raising it to $315 million good faith bargaining?


Is demanding massive concessions for an extended period of time really necisary for the survivability of the company when everyone admits that these are unusual times?

Are we going to have people crashing our airplanes into buildings, having tails fall off,a recession and be in Iraq for six more years?

If so then we should vote No anyway because why sell yourself cheap at the end?

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 3:28:24 PM Bob Owens wrote:


A couple more Mikey;

On 4/2/2003 10:23:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:



Which is worse a temporary 14% cut or 17.5% with massive concessions FOR SIX YEARS!.

What are they (UAL)asking from their mechanics? Its likely that a lot of what UAL is asking for WE ALREADY GAVE.

Our average cost per mechanic is the lowest in the industry once years of service and OSMs are factored in. What excuse other than the fact that they want it is AA going to use to convince the Judge to abrogate the contract?

If you look at the Carey and Typesetters cases that our unions are pushing at us they are completely different, Careys costs were 60% above industry average and the Typesetters wanted to protect archaic rules that basically protected workers with skills that were no longer useful and resisted retraining. Neither of those factors are present here. If this was so automatic then how come, after 5 months the judge has still not abrogated UALs contracts in their entirety?




Thats just from this tread should I look for more questions that you did not answer?


----------------​

Well, bob, as you may or may not know. The 14% at UAL you refer to is a temporary measure until a final agreement with the union is met, or the company imposed deal is imposed on May 1.

As to the second question, about UAL asking for stuff you already gave up. So, this is not SWA. This is not UAL. The only people who care about what you already gave up are the mechanics. You blame us for your inability to negotiate with AA. If you think a judge will say well over the years you gave up all the real important maintenance jobs like deicing and push-back. You should be exempt from any cuts in the BK court. I assure you the judge wont care or consider your poor quality bargaining ability.

As to your so called lowest paid mechanic''s. Do you really think a judge will care that you have somehow worked numbers to say you are the lowest paid. I am sure the pilots and flight attendants could and will work numbers in the same way. IN BK court each union will be fighting for the smallest cuts. In a contest of unions in front of the judge, where do you think the TWU fits in, between the APA and the APFA? Reality is AA has a stronger team than the TWU. The TWU will be the only one bargaining for you in BK court.

So TWU tries to use a president you dont follow or find relevant. APA, APFA and the TWU analysts looked at the books and came to the same conclusion. Its do or die, or should I say its do or bankruptcy.

It is actually by my count still 4 months for UAL and the judge set a pay cut of 14% and a deadline of May 1. No deal, kiss your fat CBA good-bye. I dont understand, if you dont trust the TWU in representing your best interests here and now. Do you feel your will be better represented in a court? Not likely.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 356 PM Bob Owens wrote:


Here are a few more you did not answer Mikey;

Is threatening that "if you dont have an agreement by noon today we are filing BK and asking for this" (the Vermont Plan) good faith bargaining?
----------------​

You call it a threat. I call it the last options. We were all on a time table. AA was very short on two things that day time and money. We do not now nor did we have then an indefinite period of time to work out deals. Its a one shot deal. Take then short term cuts and the company has a fighting chance. Dont we file BK and AA goes for the jugular in concessions.

----------------
On 4/3/2003 356 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Is threatening to close all the bases and lay off half the workers in the entire system good faith bargaining?

----------------​

As I said before you whine about they were threatening to layoff half the workers. You are all of a sudden concerned about Fleet service clerks?

----------------
On 4/3/2003 356 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Is telling the Union that you cant ask for anything and you must come up with $310 million then raising it to $315 million good faith bargaining? Is demanding massive concessions for an extended period of time really necisary for the survivability of the company when everyone admits that these are unusual times?

----------------​

In a deal to save the company you complain you weren''t allowed to ask for anything. It must have sucked to not be able to makeup for the 300 plus million the company was asking for with 300 million plus in padding and cost somewhere else in your contract.

Is it bad faith bargaining to raise the bar 5 million. Was it really that much. I can only guess AA needs the cuts and for the period time they say to get additional loans from the banks and other lenders. If they go to the lessor and other venders and say we need to negotiate cuts from you. Having us already in line gives them a good bargaining position, to show we are viable and a good risk investment for the future. It shows little uncertainty and that employees and management are already on board and working to make it through the tough times ahead.

These are unusual times and there are unusual measures. I am not sure what you want. You seem to believe tomorrow or next year we will be massively profitable. Yet you forget we have 13 plus billion to repay. That number keeps going up.

----------------
On 4/3/2003 356 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Are we going to have people crashing our airplanes into buildings, having tails fall off,a recession and be in Iraq for six more years?
----------------​

If you dont think a terror attack cant happen again than you are quite naive. If you think we wont be policing Iraq for the next 10 years you are quite naive. If you think a airplane accident of any kind is impossible at any given moment you are extremly naive.

----------------
On 4/3/2003 356 PM Bob Owens wrote:

If so then we should vote No anyway because why sell yourself cheap at the end?
----------------​

The answer is to vote yes, Why flush your career down the toilet. By putting all your cards in the TWU hands to play against the companies lawyers and the bankruptcy judge. You will have larger cuts more draconian work rules, if you still have the luxury of a CBA. That''s selling your self cheap.

 

[Bob Owens]

You call it a threat. I call it the last options. We were all on a time table. AA was very short on two things that day time and money. We do not now nor did we have then an indefinite period of time to work out deals. Its a one shot deal. Take then short term cuts and the company has a fighting chance. Dont we file BK and AA goes for the jugular in concessions.


Last options could be considered a threat. Timetable? Who set the timetable, dictated the terms etc? The Company. What did all of a sudden three weeks ago management realize they were headed towards BK?

Short term cuts? Is SIX YEARS SHORT TERM??? Six years will take my 4 year old from preschool to middle school. Six years is not short term cuts!!!

It seems to me that AA already went beyond the jugular, they hit bone.




As I said before you whine about they were threatening to layoff half the workers. You are all of a sudden concerned about Fleet service clerks?

They were threatening to close the bases, lay them all off and half the line workers. I did not mention anything about fleet service clerks.

In a deal to save the company you complain you weren't allowed to ask for anything. It must have sucked to not be able to makeup for the 300 plus million the company was asking for with 300 million plus in padding and cost somewhere else in your contract.

Assmptions, assumptions, assumptions. What we were asking for would not have resulted in any additionmal costs.
Eliminnate part time language- we have never had part time language so it would have cost the company nothing.
Modify the pay progression for new hires to two years instead of five- would have cost the company nothing since in a shrinking company new hires would be replacing retirees.

Is it bad faith bargaining to raise the bar 5 million. Was it really that much. I can only guess AA needs the cuts and for the period time they say to get additional loans from the banks and other lenders. If they go to the lessor and other venders and say we need to negotiate cuts from you. Having us already in line gives them a good bargaining position, to show we are viable and a good risk investment for the future. It shows little uncertainty and that employees and management are already on board and working to make it through the tough times ahead.

No it was $35 million. Our share for 16000 workers was originally $280 million or $17500 each, then it was increased to $310million or $19000, then $315 million.
How much are the FAs giving up and how many are there? Well in order to show that AA is a good risk why didnt you agree to work for nothing, that is if you do actaully work as a Flight Attendant or are you on Union leave?

These are unusual times and there are unusual measures. I am not sure what you want. You seem to believe tomorrow or next year we will be massively profitable. Yet you forget we have 13 plus billion to repay. That number keeps going up.

Yes these are unusual times but they will not last forever nor are we the only ones affected. What you are doing is expecting the workers to bear the entire brunt of this crisis for six years. We are better off holding our ground and joining UAL, then Continental and DAL will follow. With the virtual collapse of the industry the government will be forced to either take action or allow us all to close our doors.
​

If you dont think a terror attack cant happen again than you are quite naive. If you think we wont be policing Iraq for the next 10 years you are quite naive. If you think a airplane accident of any kind is impossible at any given moment you are extremly naive.

The terrorists will likely go for softer targets. I doubt we will ever see anything like Sept 11 again. I will not live my life in constant fear. If you want to be afraid that every day is your last go ahead, then you dont have to think about six years down the road now do you? What are you saying? We should work for lousy wages so the company can afford another Sept 11 and 587?


The answer is to vote yes, Why flush your career down the toilet. By putting all your cards in the TWU hands to play against the companies lawyers and the bankruptcy judge. You will have larger cuts more draconian work rules, if you still have the luxury of a CBA. That's selling your self cheap.

We went through a six year deal already. If this goes through my career is down the toilet. By the end of this deal our pay will be the equivelent of $28000 a year below inflation. The 17.5% pay cut will have increased to 26.5% through inflation. When you add in the benifit cuts it comes to well over 40%.
In 2009 the top pay for a 30 year mechanic working midnights and weekends will be $32.88. Thats several dollars less than it is today.
What will be the top hourly rate for a similar FA in 2009? What is it today?

 

[Bear96]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 3:56:30 PM AAviator wrote:


Bob, so without the ratification, what happens in your opinion.  No BK, the war ends, we all wake up tomorrow morning and this was just a bad dream.  Am I right?  Have you seen the UAL deal?  Sounds to me like the no voters here still think we''re not in financial straits.

----------------​

AAviator, good question, and I too am anxiously awaiting Bob''s reply.

Bob, if the one or more of the TAs get voted down forcing AA to file Ch.11, please share your wisdom with us. Share your prediction of the events of the weeks and months following the filing concerning what AA will look like, how many employees they will have, and what their labor agreements will look like compared to these TAs. And please share with us the facts and premises on which you base your predictions.

(PS-- These bases must be rooted in reality (ie., no "This is only cyclical and the economy will recover"); and for enhanced credibility, they should be conservative (ie., no "Let''s assume UA will go under in two weeks; the SARS epidemic will miraculously end tomorrow; and we will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and all Arab people next Wednesday at noon GMT, all of which will immediately and drastically improve revenue.")

Thanks for your insight!