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

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/4/2003 5:37:03 PM Bear96 wrote:

Bob, if the one or more of the TAs get voted down forcing AA to file Ch.11, please share your wisdom with us.
Stop right there. Who is forceing AA to go into BK? The threat that if all the unions dont accept the TAs is the company's choice, nobody if forcing them to take that position. That position can change if they so choose.

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.

You want predictions go to the Psychic hotline. All I know is if I vote this in I am committing to work for $128,000 less than my current rate, adjusted for inflation. I cant control what the company chooses to do, I can only control what I agree to. So far I see no reason why I should commit to work for $128,000 less. What guarantees come with this committment? Nothing. You can no more guarantee that the company will not go BK with or without the concessions. The company says that it will "try". Well that is not worth $128,000 to me. As you are likely to see over the next few days or weeks if this gets voted down, the absolutes that the company dictated will change. If you are so stupid as to trust these people then they are right, they are over paying you. Watch them slip and slide.

(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.")

I will not make any such assumptions. The fact is that Air travel is an essentail service. The government can not let the industry totally collapse. If AA goes in, its likely that the rest will follow. What then? Let all the airlines liquidate? Wake up, come back to reality, its not like nobody is flying. I remember on SEPT 11 loading bags on and off the baggage belt so stranded passengers could leave the airport. The company had sent most of the other employees home but asked all the mechanics to remain at work. Since there were not enough baggage handlers we volunteered to help out so the people could go home. It was a mess. I remember an old man saying that it was terrible what happened in the city but he could not understand why he was not going to go home that night. It was not going to stop him from flying. Everyday I see our planes pack them in. Do you expect me to believe that these people are thinking "if I have to spend a lot of money I will be afriad to fly but if its cheap I'm willing to risk my life". They fly because its the best or only way to get where they need to go. So terrorists, hijackings, SARS, Iraq, BK,contaminated water,mechanical failures or whatever else you want to throw out there the industry will not only still be here next year and beyond but they will be flying more people over the long term than they do now or before. And that industry will still need loads of workers, some with specialized skills, the only thing that is uncertain is who will benifit from all of this? The stockholders and bosses or the workers who sacrifice normality to provide safe reliable service? I will not be rushed into a foolish decision and give away my future upon the advice of those who have misled and betrayed me in the past. Me Too, Early Out, System Attrition, WinWin Contracts and the list goes on. They were dishonest and misleading then, why should I trust them NOW? Voting NO keeps options open. Yes there is the risk that they may go BK but that risk is still there if I vote yes. But no one can say for certain that going in BK will be worse than not going BK. From what I saw most of the Vermont plan has been incorporated in our agreement. In some examples the Vermont pLan is better! Again who says that the company will get that any way? The fact is you or I dont know what will happen if we vote NO, I do know one thing for certain, if this gets passed this career has nothing to offer me any more.

Thanks for your insight!

You're welcome


----------------
​

 

[Bear96]

Thanks Bob...

...for confirming (if anyone really had any doubt) that you will be voting "Against" with no thought or regard for the consequences.

And you also seem to be under the assumption that voting "Against" concessions really means you won''t be seeing any concessions.

Must be nice down there with your head in the sand.

 

[AAviator]

Bear96
Its dark and moist where he has his head. The sand will come later. It seems to me that to a large degree what he says is true. That being said, the providers who are successful in todays environment are the new norm. The southwests of the world will continue to provide where the AA''s will go the way of Pan Am, Branniff, even TWA. Its funny, I can almost see the Pan Am Clipper mechanic with a greasy skippers hat and a red rag hanging out of his back pocket standing there on the ramp at idewild field, with a cup of coffee in his hand watching that flying boat take off into the early morning mist. And do you know what he''s thinking?

Heres what he''s thinking
"The fact is that Air travel is an essentail service. The government can not let the industry totally collapse. If Pan Am (AA) goes in, its likely that the rest will follow. What then? Let all the airlines liquidate? Wake up, come back to reality, its not like nobody is flying..........."

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/4/2003 929 PM Bear96 wrote:

Thanks Bob...

...for confirming (if anyone really had any doubt) that you will be voting "Against" with no thought or regard for the consequences.

And you also seem to be under the assumption that voting "Against" concessions really means you won't be seeing any concessions.

Must be nice down there with your head in the sand.

----------------​

No, it means that I am not stupid enough to voluntarily give away any chance I have of recouping what I may lose in the short term. I am fully aware of what is going on. I am also fully aware that as little as three years ago the airlines were making huge amounts of money and in less time than that we could be making money again. This is a long term contract that provides NO GUARANTEES. I know if we approve this, in 2009 I will have to try and support my family on todays equivelent of $43000. What am I getting for committing to this sacrifice? I am being told that the company will "try" not to come back for more. So if things do not improve they may come back for more.

We can go back and forth on this. I dont see the point in argueing with you. You probably will not even be voting on this. You hide under an alias, so for all I know you might be management, an appointed union official (same thing), from AIRCON or an investor that has airline stocks. I cant beleive that any employee who has to work under these terms for six years would take the position that we should agree to anything like this. I would rather see this place go C-7 than accept this. Then when one of the other carriers expand, which they will in this "essentail industry" I could expect to be earning the equivelent of what I am now in 5 years or less instead of $43000. To AAviator. I never implied that AA could not go out of business, however keeping AA flying at the expense of lower wages does not make sense. Better to let it die if it cant pay the going rate because a flawed business plan can not be saved by pay cuts. Pay cuts will kill this company not save it.It did not save Pan AM, EAL, TWA, Peoples Express, they were all paying less when they went C-7 than their competitors. Show me one airline that went BK because of their hourly labor rates. SWA pays their mechanics more than AA, yea they dont have the OH that AA has but since our OH has a large number of OSMS that means that our cost per hour per mechanic are much lower. The fact that the company fails to realize an advantage from that fact is the result of poor management.Throwing massive concessions towards poor management makes as much sense as throwing money ito the fire.

 

[AirwAr]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 9:28:14 AM Bob Owens wrote:

.
.
.
I am also fully aware that as little as three years ago the airlines were making huge amounts of money and in less time than that we could be making money again. This is a long term contract that provides NO GUARANTEES.
.
.
.
----------------​

This is one thing I don''t understand. Why is it that the unions contractually agree to wage increases or pay cuts on future wages? For example, agreeing a wage increase of 3% each year for the next 4 years. Who the heck knows what''s going to happen next year, let alone 4 years from now?

The unions should tie their annual increases to management’s increases. If management gets a raise, then the unions get a wage increase. If management has a pay freeze, unions have a pay freeze.

 

[AAMT]

This sucks! Do I want vote yes? No! But I will and here''s why. First perception is reality. We are at war and people all over are making sacrifices. If we vote no we are essentially saying we dont care about our company,(at least in the worlds eyes)but by voting yes we are heros willing to make the same sarifices as everyone else. Vote your opinion your entitled to it, but try to look from the outside of the fence. I agree with everything Owens has said but it still doesn''t matter. So I am going to do the right thing and make a very tough choice and vote yes. Besides another six months of stress about this crap would age us all at least six years anyway. Let it go, we are over a barrel "and thats the way it is."

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 4/6/2003 11:33:28 AM AAMT wrote:

This sucks! Do I want vote yes? No! But I will and here''s why. First perception is reality. We are at war and people all over are making sacrifices. If we vote no we are essentially saying we dont care about our company,(at least in the worlds eyes)but by voting yes we are heros willing to make the same sarifices as everyone else. Vote your opinion your entitled to it, but try to look from the outside of the fence. I agree with everything Owens has said but it still doesn''t matter. So I am going to do the right thing and make a very tough choice and vote yes. Besides another six months of stress about this crap would age us all at least six years anyway. Let it go, we are over a barrel "and thats the way it is."

----------------​

You should quit using the war as an excuse for destroying your profession. The company business plan is what has happened to American Airlines. This is about capacity and the mismanagement of it. Jim Little of the Air Transport Division has stated that the company is going Bankrupt in May anyway. Part of the fault is that the union could not forsee what the implementation of the B-scale would do to the industry. The B-scale provided for continuous employment and the less chance of layoffs. This continued through the 80''s and 90'' and now we are beginning to see the results. Prior to the B-scale, the industry was cyclical. As the economy flucuated so did the industry.Now with the economy very low, the union is attempting to keep as many employed as possible. This is one of it''s functions. However it is also a function to provide for wages and benefits. This T/A protects the number of employees, but at the cost of the wages and benefits. If this method takes the company into bankruptcy, then the question will be who does the mechanic want to represent them in this venue? A union that is more interested in the industrial union theory or one that provides for the mechanic? How the pilots in essentially up to representation they have chosen. I am not wholly concerned with their issues, unless they directly effect my craft.