how scared is AA? Well they are changing the raises now

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
On 4/10/2003 10:08:12 AM air_guy wrote:

Well I guess there is no way to get a positive reaction here. If there are no tweaks to the agreements that is signal of bad faith. If they do, the company is scared ... If getting back pre 9/11 credit rating seems impossible how come people think the company is asking for too much.... I don''t understand the logic.....

----------------​

There is no logic here anymore. Only emotion.

 

[FA Mikey]

We do have analyst''s, and accountants that ran the numbers for us. We have AA''s own numbers for many of the very same things. Only what was cost 30 million will only save them 6.

This the boat road I didn''t want to chose. AA is rough and plays to win. I will not stand for extortion. That''s exactly what they did to all three groups.

 

[FA Mikey]

The other problem is that the language intent is changing to be, so far off the other end of the spectrum that what was agreed to, that is shows they are not bring fair or decent.

I am too willing to sacrifice to save the company. I haven''t met a f/a yet that wasn''t. But when we see and hear how the company values us and our contribution. They lose us.

Its now to the point that I cannot even get 8 hours rest behind the door. What kind of crap is that.

 

[WXGuesser]

Hopefully someone in management will then extend the "deadline" since they cannot seem to get contractual language to the rank and file. I think it is possible we may see that extension of the "deadline" by later today.

I can understand the anger and frustration of my other union brethren with this contract. I think that even with the possibility of additional raises, this T/A will likely be defeated by all groups, as it seems there are enough people who believe "we will get a better deal in front of a judge".

I hope to all the Gods in all the Heavens that you are right about that. Otherwise you will be condemning a lot of people to a lot of financial and emotional pain and suffering if the company gets anywhere close to what they say they want in bankruptcy.

Good luck to all.

 

[AA80Driver]

----------------
On 4/10/2003 10:18:12 AM eolesen wrote:


There is no logic here anymore. Only emotion.

----------------​

Agreed. However, if you try to follow logic in this ratification process it may lead you down the same road as emotion would.

With four days to go, there is still no finalized contractual language on which to make a decision and careful review of what exist spawns more questions than answers. I''m willing to make sacrifices to keep this company out of BK, but I''m not voting for a contract that I can''t read nor am I going to give the company a blank check. This timeline and process is Carty''s creation and the sense of urgency he created to push the concessions through also may be his downfall. I don''t think they allowed adequate time to draft contractual language and educate the membership.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
On 4/10/2003 11:24:37 AM FA Mikey wrote:

There is only better hope for fair negotiations in the court room. AA was unwilling and unbending in extracting from us everything they could not get previously.

----------------​

Do you really believe that it will be any easier in court?

Perry Flint's editorial in the March issue of Air Transport World has a quote which says it best:

Excerpted from March 2003 Air Transport World, © Penton Publications

So far, they [unions] have met management calls for permanent cost reductions since 9/11 with delay and diversionary tactics and, when necessary, outright rejection. After all, why cave in if a turnaround is just around the next corner?

And they may be correct. Perhaps what we have here is an extended dislocation, not vast structural change. But if they are wrong -- and we believe they are -- then time rapidly is running out for the kind of self-help measures that will give them any say over their future compensation.

US Airways' employees may have agreed to concessions in time to save their airline, but they delayed long enough to endanger part of their pensions. Under the threat of a court order, United's unions accepted interim pay cuts that should keep their carrier aloft -- for awhile -- but they too were too late to save most of the equity they purchased
in 1994 thru wage and benefit reductions.

Now it is American Airlines' turn. Chairman and CEO Don Carty is doing everything he can to persuade his workgroups that AA needs $1.8 billion in yearly labor savings to survive. Out of bankruptcy, everything is negotiable, but once the carrier enters Chapter 11, Carty will hold the high hand.
​

Flint goes on to end his editorial:

That's the problem with revolutions. Usually you don't recognize that you're in one until it is far too late to do much about it.
​

I also suggest you read very carefully the presentation on S.1113 which is available on the TWU website... This will not be any more a walk in the park than the current process has been.

 

[FA Mikey]

There is only better hope for fair negotiations in the court room. AA was unwilling and unbending in extracting from us everything they could not get previously.

Underfly, Get in early get your pay docked. Which would be tolerable if it wasnt for the fact the AA pads the flight times. F/A''s stand to lose a lot on this.

Eight hours free of duty, not behind the door. Is ridiculous.

 

[FA Mikey]

This looks to be the only chance we have at getting AA to negotiate in good faith. What they did a week ago was disgusting. There was no give and take. Our team went in absolutely ready and willing to provide AA with 340 million dollars in relief. The company had its agenda set. The assigned a ridiculous value to every part of our agreement then went cutting away.

The BK court will require good faith bargaining. American and each of its unions will have to show they have made an effort. To date AA has made none.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/10/2003 1:05:16 PM FWAAA wrote:

Who cares who's to blame? The reality is that AMR files for Chapter 11 protection on Tuesday, and the bloodletting begins all over again, just like has been happening at UAL and USAir.
----------------​

This is exactly the biggest problem AA faces. If we don't care "who's to blame" then ZERO accountability will be dealt.

ZERO accountability equals Bankrupt Airline.

That Judge will damn sure place some accountability into the Airline and then things will begin to turn for the better. Of course everyone will claim employee concessions changed the world, but that wont be fact. Until then, I think I see a monkey tail hanging from the back of your Dockers.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Mikey, go read the presentation on the TWU''s website. Your definition of good faith and what''s required under S.1113 are probably a bit different. There''s a lot less burden on the company than you think.

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 4/10/2003 12:59:21 PM RV4 wrote:


The problem is not the time it took to negoitate.

The problem is the DEMAND/THREAT to have the vote counted by the 15th.

I suppose you can spin that into a union problem also?

----------------​

Who cares who''s to blame? The reality is that AMR files for Chapter 11 protection on Tuesday, and the bloodletting begins all over again, just like has been happening at UAL and USAir.

Besides, you''ve said about 100 times that you don''t fear bankruptcy. Good thing - ''cause it''ll be here before you know it. Maybe AMR will agree to fewer cuts once it files. Maybe the court will punish AMR and reward the employees with rich pay raises.

And then again, maybe monkeys will fly out of my @$$.

Good luck.

 

[FA Mikey]

Eric, they seem to have taken a play from the RC handbook. Ultimatum, basically like the just before the strike in 93, AA says take it or else.

Why dont they understand we were and are willing to work to make this company survive. Its a two way street. All I saw was the AA bulldozer heading for us straight on.

I saw a lot of people like myself walk in to the meeting. Just wanting more info to support our position. Instead as the web cast went on as the Q and A continued. As more info was presented. Only 2 people left still as yes votes. Both were near retirement. This will be an OK deal for them. But not for me. I refused to be treated like I was in 93 and I refuse again today.

 

[RV4]

The problem is not the time it took to negoitate.

The problem is the DEMAND/THREAT to have the vote counted by the 15th.

I suppose you can spin that into a union problem also?

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Dave, the only time I can think of where a court held an airline management accountable was when Lifland removed Lorenzo and placed Marty Shugrue as trustee.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Mikey, I'd agree with you except that AA approached the unions over two months ago asking to negotiate, and provided both the dollar amount of the items that management sought to change back in February. The same holds true for all the unions.

Why did it take eight weeks to come up with a tentative agreement?

Again, I'll question the wisdom of holding out hope for a better deal in bankruptcy. Taken from the TWU's website:

What Does it Mean to “Meet at Reasonable Times†and “Confer in Good Faith?â€

The Company may not

– Issue a “take it or leave it proposal†See In re S. A. Mechanical, Inc., 51 B. R. 130 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1985); or

– Agree to meet only once or a few times when the Union indicates a willingness to negotiate further . See In re American Provision Co., 44 BR 907, 909- 910 (Bk. D. Minn 1984).

But, Court Will Consider Union’s Failure to Negotiate Prior to Bankruptcy Filing in Ruling on Application to Reject

“When it is clear a debtor needs relief, intransigence by the union, in the pre- petition negotiations, may also warrant rejection†In re Garafalo’ Finer Foods, Inc., 117 B. R. 363, 371 (Bk. N. D. Ill. 1990) Requirement to provide information and confer in good faith satisfied when “immediately before it filed for bankruptcy [company] opened its books to the [union] for examination and made information available to the [union] during the bargaining process that followed.†In re Appletree Markets, 155 B. R. 431, 438, 144 LRRM 2203 (S. D. Tex 1993), (finding that requirement to provide relevant information was satisfied when company opened books to union prior to filing for bankruptcy)

Also, Courts have held that it is Not Unreasonable -

- To give the union only ten hours to consider a proposal (In re Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., 981 F. 2d 85 (2 nd Cir.));

- To file an application to reject four days after it presented proposal (In re Century Brass Products, 55 B. R. 712- 716 (Bk. D. Conn 1985)); or

- To meet with the union only four times regarding the proposal (In re Kentucky Truck Sales) 52 B. R. 797, 801 (Bk. W. D. KY. 1985). The good faith conference requirement is satisfied if the Company has seriously attempted to negotiate reasonable modifications to the agreement prior to the hearing. See In re Kentucky Truck Sales, 52 B. R. 797, 801-02 (Bankr. W. D. Ky. 1985)
​