swamt said:
Trust me I know it was a richer offer than what they had. But you did not answer the question at hand. Was the original offer "industry leading?" I totally understand that it was richer than what they had. However, was it really "industry leading?"
My opinion on whether the TA was "industry-leading" is irrelevant - not unlike your opinion or Bob Owens' opinion. Might as well ask which President is the "best President our country has ever had" type questions. "Tastes Great! Less Filling!"
Regardless of whether it was "industry-leading," it was worth more than their current contract and it was worth more than their new contract will be worth. That's all that matters, since it was clear that there would be no second chances at negotiating something better than the TA should the TA be rejected. Their choices were A: a bunch more money or B: slightly more money ($82 million a year less than choice A).
In any event, 700UW thinks it's industry-leading. Laura Glading says it's "industry-leading." Several respected actual AA flight attendants who post here say it was "industry-leading." Who are we (you, me or Bob Owens) to argue with them? Hell, Bob Owens is so ignorant of the Flight Attendant TA that he had not read the TA or been to the APFA website to learn about it before pontificating about it here after the TA was rejected. The AA FAs were not far from the top of the industry when AA entered Ch 11 and they weren't far from the top after AA exited Ch 11. Bob Owens' constituents have been at or near the bottom of the industry for a very long time.
700UW said:
It was only voted down by 16 voters and yes it was industry leading.
swamt said:
I have to assume NOT as the NO voters have spoken when LG was touting and promoting that it was. And on a second note, I too agree with Bob O. that until the offer contract brings them up to or above where they were prior to all the concessions being granted, it is still a concessional agreement. AA is posting never seen before RECORD profits, and NOW is the time to get back what was givin up for AA to become profitable once again. Until that is done it is still concessionary to what they were getting prior to BK, period
Every employee at AA, US, DL and UA works under a concessionary contract to this day, as all took large concessions before, during and after their respective bankruptcies. Among the older major airlines, your employer stands alone as having never (at least not yet) demanded and obtained wage and benefit concessions.
As to being made whole for the 2003 concessions and the 2012 bankruptcy concessions - "restore and more" is never going to happen. I'm not saying that workgroups can never negotiate significant increases over what they have now - but if we take the high-water positions of the former pre-bankruptcy, pre-concession contracts and adjust for inflation since that high-water mark, it's very unlikely that the new contracts will exceed those figures. And as for recouping the lost income during the concessionary decade - that ain't happening either.
If the "no" voters rejected the TA because they disagreed with Laura Glading that the TA was "industry-leading," then they're guilty of doing what unionized workgroups do far too often: they made an emotional decision instead of basing their decision on the numbers. In part, that's why management runs roughshod over unionized groups far too often. Crandall, Carty, Arpey and Horton made financial decisions, not emotional ones. Right or wrong - they teach that at business schools. When you let your emotions get in the way, you generally make less advantageous decisions, costing you money. CEOs generally stick to the finances, and not emotions.
One big exception to that general rule: Arpey and his emotional/moral/philosophical objection to bankruptcy. Between May, 2003, and November, 2011, while he was CEO, he occasionally mentioned bankruptcy and it was clear from his comments that he was opposed to it. That was his big exception to the general rule of "ignoring emotions and sticking with the numbers." He rationalized his objection by arguing that avoiding Ch 11 and not terminating the pensions in 2003 would payoff for AA in the long run with happier employees. He missed that prediction by a mile, however.
