It's official!

[swamt]

So the unions at AA already made 5 year deals with DP and gang "just in case we can't get an agreement reached?!" Not a very bright move by the unions imo.

Which is what I said along time ago.
Also, now I believe the F/A's are now under contract from Jan 2015 to Jan 2020.  2 more years longer than the current one was at which was 2018 I do believe.  This isn't rocket science people.  They also knew that the years were NOT nego in arbitration.  It is still beyond me why the F/A's did not vote their contract in, and I now think (being an outsider) that the book face folks are the ones to blame.  Bye-bye 81 million in pay for the F/A's, period...

 

[Bob Owens]

As usual the pilots get it.
 
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2014/12/14/in-american-pilot-contract-talks-us-airways-pilots-remain-skeptics/?partner=yahootix&hl=1&noRedirect=1
 
 
NYer, or should I call you Mark Richards, despite your claims here, you are aware that management and the Unions are equals in negotiations, everything is negotiable, including the legnth of the term of the agreement. Its pro-management union imposters like you that would have workers believe that the company can dictate how much, how long and how everything is to be, basically you are saying Unions are powerless. If things are as you say then why bother having a Union? 

 

[robbedagain]

according to justplanenews with some links including dallas morning news   the arb ruled and the FAs get the 5 yr deal  but no PS    the contract is worth 112 a yr...  

 

[AANOTOK]

As usual the pilots get it.
 
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2014/12/14/in-american-pilot-contract-talks-us-airways-pilots-remain-skeptics/?partner=yahootix&hl=1&noRedirect=1
 
 
NYer, or should I call you Mark Richards, despite your claims here, you are aware that management and the Unions are equals in negotiations, everything is negotiable, including the legnth of the term of the agreement. Its pro-management union imposters like you that would have workers believe that the company can dictate how much, how long and how everything is to be, basically you are saying Unions are powerless. If things are as you say then why bother having a Union? 

Bob, why is it that everyone around these parts feel the F/A's screwed up by voting this T/A down except you??

 

[NYer]

As usual the pilots get it.
 
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2014/12/14/in-american-pilot-contract-talks-us-airways-pilots-remain-skeptics/?partner=yahootix&hl=1&noRedirect=1
 
 
NYer, or should I call you Mark Richards, despite your claims here, you are aware that management and the Unions are equals in negotiations, everything is negotiable, including the legnth of the term of the agreement. Its pro-management union imposters like you that would have workers believe that the company can dictate how much, how long and how everything is to be, basically you are saying Unions are powerless. If things are as you say then why bother having a Union? 

 
You are consistent, have to give you that. The way you contribute and just happen to leave out certain facts that don't coincide with your diatribe.
 
The terms of the 6 years in the BK negotiations were not negotiable, it was part of the Plan of Reorganization (POR). The merger was within the BK and it needed the approval of the creditors which wanted cost assurances as applied in the POR. In order for the creditors to agree to the merger the time line of the CBA needed to coincide with the POR and any terms of the JCBA would follow accordingly. If that was not accepted, the merger would not have been accepted and we would be in a worse position.
 
You continually try to put words in other people's mouth and have then try to defend themselves on those accusations, but for some of us that tactic doesn't work. I guess in your world it is better to try and gain support by bringing others down rather than debate your position.

 

[Overspeed]

AANOTOK,
I don't think Bob understands that because of the arbitration agreement they are locked in to that continued negotiations are not possible like most contract negotiations. Also, LG agreed already with the company's financial models which undermines the APFA's ability to argue that AA's valuations are wrong. So yes it looks like the FAs are screwed. LG already put out a letter where she asks Parker to meet ASAP following the arbitration decision to get the $82M back.

 

[swamt]

So after thoughts here.  What was ALL the differences between TA and arb decision?  The way I see it nothing is different except for the 81 or 82 million, whatever it is.  So the hard 40hrs-stays, no PS-stays, 5 yrs contract-stays, LG has stated she would ask for me-too clauses and ALL of the me-too clauses were shot down by arb, which the ones that stands out the most to me are the medical and PS.  You guys watch how the pilots will get both, this is why AA does not want the me-too clauses.  To me not one more thing was gained at all in binding arb, is this correct?  Not one item?  So it's the exact same agreement minus the higher pay that totaled up to 82 million?  All this was known before voting on the TA, and was agreed to, in writing, by both parties?  Who, in their right mind, really thought they would come out with the full pay offer, the PS added, the medical me-too clauses etc... when it was ALL agreed to what would happen if it goes to binding arb?  Of course the arb said no to the added item LG wanted to try and get added, because none of it was agreed to by both sides to renegotiate during binding arb.  Now all the F/A's are stuck with the same agreement with much lower pay?  
I have read where LG is now going to ask for the 82 million back from Parker, but I do not see this happening.  This 82 mil will be used elsewhere for other groups to get agreements in place, therefore, the 82 million is basically already gone in the co eyes.  It will also help the company get contracts faster now that they will not have to worry about the me-too clauses.  
I guess my question here is; what is it exactly that the TA and binding arb differ???  Besides the 82 million I don't remember any differences... 

 

[NYer]

So after thoughts here.  What was ALL the differences between TA and arb decision?  The way I see it nothing is different except for the 81 or 82 million, whatever it is.  So the hard 40hrs-stays, no PS-stays, 5 yrs contract-stays, LG has stated she would ask for me-too clauses and ALL of the me-too clauses were shot down by arb, which the ones that stands out the most to me are the medical and PS.  You guys watch how the pilots will get both, this is why AA does not want the me-too clauses.  To me not one more thing was gained at all in binding arb, is this correct?  Not one item?  So it's the exact same agreement minus the higher pay that totaled up to 82 million?  All this was known before voting on the TA, and was agreed to, in writing, by both parties?  Who, in their right mind, really thought they would come out with the full pay offer, the PS added, the medical me-too clauses etc... when it was ALL agreed to what would happen if it goes to binding arb?  Of course the arb said no to the added item LG wanted to try and get added, because none of it was agreed to by both sides to renegotiate during binding arb.  Now all the F/A's are stuck with the same agreement with much lower pay?  
I have read where LG is now going to ask for the 82 million back from Parker, but I do not see this happening.  This 82 mil will be used elsewhere for other groups to get agreements in place, therefore, the 82 million is basically already gone in the co eyes.  It will also help the company get contracts faster now that they will not have to worry about the me-too clauses.  
I guess my question here is; what is it exactly that the TA and binding arb differ???  Besides the 82 million I don't remember any differences... 

 
The pilots will get neither.
 
There were some differences because the TA that was agreed to on September 19th didn't have certain items, like the Hard 40, which came after. Unless they agreed to keep the agreement about the Hard 40 during their talks leading up to the arbitration, it seems that was lost and that was a big issue with the flight attendants. The APFA decided to take the changes in the form of compensation rather than other cuts which would equal the $81M needed.
 
Why did flight attendants vote no...the loudest no vote convinced many of their colleagues that is better to send a message than to accept a subpar, in their view, TA. Others shared that they believed enhancement would be forthcoming because they sent a loud message, they simply didn't believe what was shared with them by their leaders and the leaders of other flight attendant unions that also supported the TA.

 

[texflyer]

Any word on how the "no" voters are spinning this? I read some blub somewhere the "no" voters were stating the case was not presented  to the arbitrator correctly and it was rushed.

 

[jimntx]

Texflyer, of course they will find some excuse that does not involve blame or culpability on their part.  But, then that's the American (as in United States of America) way of acting these days...nothing bad is ever my fault.  Someone else must be found to blame.
 
See here http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57970-possible-restoration-of-lost-wages-for-flight-attendants/ for good news.  I started a new thread.

 

[southwind]

Delta will earn, on average, 26% more than their AA counterparts.
Delta employees will receive a PS payout valued at more than 1 BILLION dollars or about 2 months pay.

American CEO Doug Parker is opposed to profit sharing .
"It's not the right way to pay employees.
So much is tied to profits like Ebola, fuel prices and a bunch of things we can't control....( all things other airlines faced)...

Employees are payed a fair wage and after that " ALL" profits go to share holders.
It's not the right way to pay employees that don't have that much of an impact on daily profits" Parker stated!

Sounds like the IAM and other unions are doing a fine job representing theirs dues owers at AA!

 

[Bob Owens]

So after thoughts here.  What was ALL the differences between TA and arb decision?  The way I see it nothing is different except for the 81 or 82 million, whatever it is.  So the hard 40hrs-stays, no PS-stays, 5 yrs contract-stays, LG has stated she would ask for me-too clauses and ALL of the me-too clauses were shot down by arb, which the ones that stands out the most to me are the medical and PS.  You guys watch how the pilots will get both, this is why AA does not want the me-too clauses.  To me not one more thing was gained at all in binding arb, is this correct?  Not one item?  So it's the exact same agreement minus the higher pay that totaled up to 82 million?  All this was known before voting on the TA, and was agreed to, in writing, by both parties?  Who, in their right mind, really thought they would come out with the full pay offer, the PS added, the medical me-too clauses etc... when it was ALL agreed to what would happen if it goes to binding arb?  Of course the arb said no to the added item LG wanted to try and get added, because none of it was agreed to by both sides to renegotiate during binding arb.  Now all the F/A's are stuck with the same agreement with much lower pay?  
I have read where LG is now going to ask for the 82 million back from Parker, but I do not see this happening.  This 82 mil will be used elsewhere for other groups to get agreements in place, therefore, the 82 million is basically already gone in the co eyes.  It will also help the company get contracts faster now that they will not have to worry about the me-too clauses.  
I guess my question here is; what is it exactly that the TA and binding arb differ???  Besides the 82 million I don't remember any differences... 

I see it as a 50 :50 chance of happening, the award also includes a clause that ties changes to the  UAL agreement into the aggregate. I think Parker would rather see them locked in, even if its $82 million more than what he has now because the fact is that clause puts a big giant question mark on the aggregate.
 
 
The Aggregate affects the AA wage, the drop in fuel prices  created an unexpected surge in profits, one that Delta and UAL may not benefit from till next year, if it lasts that long, , now AA may be looking at $6.8 billion, this additional surge in profits will likley be short lived, they will still see huge profits just not as big. So the aggregate gets boosted up by the drop in fuel prices and changes to the UAL contract, followed by changes to Deltas rates so the effect of the increased aggregate could easily surpass the $83 million. Depends upon how Parker wants to play the unknown. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
One of the negotiations "tactics" was to believe that it was better for mechanics if the airline liquidated and that was a better outcome than a CBA within the BK process. In 2008, we needed to push back because it was "restore and more", vote no. In 2011, we needed to push back because they would never be allowed to file BK with $4B in cash, vote no. In 2012, we needed to push back because 6 years was unacceptable and it was better for the airline to liquidate because we'd do better by someone picking up the assets like Pan Am and Easter. (you didn't mention Northwest...hmmm). You thought it was a victory for the APA to vote no because they would never abrogate...well, abrogate they did. They came back with the same 17% cuts as before their abrogation. Today, the APFA needed to fight for less of a time line, even though we are still under the POR and the Creditors are still in charge.
 
The solution is to always say no. Doing that is what brings a better outcome.....That's not what recent history has shown us.

Now Mark you are certainly leaving a lot out.  Such as the fact there is a process to increase pressure on both sides to move, waiting year after year after year, when you are already at the bottom only puts pressure on the members and serves the company's interests. The mechanics voted down their TA and for the first time I'm aware in any airline sect 6 negotiations of the union did not proceed to the next step, release, then self help or PEB, with the expectation that negotiations continue in the interum.   Instead the International, with you as advisor,  went backwards to mediation. 

 

 
First off there was never any talk of AA liquidating,  that came from Mark Richards and Jim Little as a scare tactic. One of many inaccurate statements Mark Richards made to the Negotiating Committee.

 
Mark Richards told the committee that if we didn’t agree to the concessions that the court would most certainly abrogate and when they did we would have no contract, we would be at will employees, no just cause, no check off, nothing and the company could do whatever they wanted and we could not strike.

 
That was a lie. Court decisions on Airline contracts were clear that the reason why airline workers could not strike is because they did still have a contract, upon abrogation, they impose the terms already proposed by management, that becomes the contract and those terms did not include getting rid of Just Cause or Checkoff and its unlikely the court would consider such demands necessary for the plan.  The terms of the ask must meet the criteria that what they are asking for is necessary for the reorganization. The court admitted that if they were to wipe out the contract and have no contract, like everyone else in Bankruptcy, that we could strike.

 

 
My argument against agreeing to more concessions was that we were already at the bottom of the industry, that it didn’t make sense for us to agree to more concessions other than increased outsourcing and the pension because those were the only two things where we were not at the bottom of the industry. The law says that the debtor has to show that the terms were onerous to get the contract thrown out,  granted the courts have taken this with a grain of salt but how could they say our contract was onerous when we were at the bottom in pay, vacation, holidays, shift pay, overtime pay, training pay, health benefits, uniforms, sick time, etc etc?  Mark  Richard said none of that matters that its not negotiable and that we had to meet the company’s number.  (What Mark left out was it obviously was negotiable because the ask went from 20% to 17%) Once again that turned out to be a lie, because around the same time Mark was doing his best to bend us over for the company Pinnicle Airlines, whose pilots were also below industry standard refused to meet the company’s ask  in their Bankruptcy case and the Pinnicle sought to have the contract abrogated, and what happened? The Judge refused to abrogate based upon the fact that the company could not prove that a contract that was already below industry standard was onerous and what they were asking for was necessary. He told Pinnicle they had to adjust their ask. Despite the fact we were in the same position as the pilots at Pinnicle we never even tried to make the argument.

 
Pilots, sure they gave 17% but 17% is a negotiable number. You keep saying these lies that this and that is not negotiable, that simply untrue, you said the 20% was not negotiable, then it became 17%. The pilots and company met the 17% by adjusting the values of the items that make up the ask. All the numbers are theoretical appoximations or assumptions to start with, one could argue that a concession is worth more or worth less (something else Mark Richards said we could not do but other groups did)  For instance, Mark Richards right hand man, the Economist John Donnelley, (who is now management at SWA) who sat through not only the BK but also was the Economist in 2003 for the TWU and gave us a cost out in 2010 for sick time that was much much higher than the total value he vetted back in 2003 even though our hourly wage was lower and we had 35% fewer workers. In other words when we lost it, sick time was given a much lower total value than when we asked for the same thing back even though both the hourly wage and the number of members was much lower.  IIRC getting back to twelve days of sick time would have cost us double to get back with 12000 workers at a lower hourly rate than we were given credit  for in 2003 when we were at a higher rate and had over 16000 workers. How was this possible? It wasn’t, the assumptions were changed and that changed the figure, so to say they still got 17% may on the face of it seem factual, but by rejecting the deal the pilots did get improvements, they just didn’t rub it in everyone’s faces and the company buried the additional cost in the assumptions because even the assumptions are negotiable. 

 
The pilots also went into BK well within industry standards, they were nowhere near the bottom like us.

 
The Creditors are now the shareholders and they are always in charge. So their status is no longer a creditor, they are owners. Owners of corporations do not determine each mangement decision on the day to day management of the company, not every contract is brought back to the shareholder/owners, they can fire managers for agreeing to bad contracts and poorly managing the company but they don't have the same decision making power in the business plan as a Creditors committee in Bankruptcy. 

 
Where did I say that all you have to do is ask and you will get it? I will say that if you don’t ask that you probably wont get it, but according to you we shouldn’t even ask because they might get mad.

 
BTW AA isn’t in BK anymore. So any deal cut in BK can be renegotiated as long as both parties agree. You would think that would be obvious enough with the fact that you were out there saying how we could get new deals with the JCBA. In their NPA the language was silent as far as the term. The creditors committee agreed to the NPA and the NPA opened the door.

 

All I can say is if you want to pay a lawyer to entertain you and crack jokes, hire Mark Richard, if you want a lawyer who is going to help the company get whatever they want and give you bad information, hire Mark Richard, but if you want a lawyer who is going to fight to make sure you get the best deal possible and give you sound legal advice, DO NOT HIRE MARK RICHARD.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
You are consistent, have to give you that. The way you contribute and just happen to leave out certain facts that don't coincide with your diatribe.
 
The terms of the 6 years in the BK negotiations were not negotiable, it was part of the Plan of Reorganization (POR). The merger was within the BK and it needed the approval of the creditors which wanted cost assurances as applied in the POR. In order for the creditors to agree to the merger the time line of the CBA needed to coincide with the POR and any terms of the JCBA would follow accordingly. If that was not accepted, the merger would not have been accepted and we would be in a worse position.
 
You continually try to put words in other people's mouth and have then try to defend themselves on those accusations, but for some of us that tactic doesn't work. I guess in your world it is better to try and gain support by bringing others down rather than debate your position.

Everything is negotiable. 

 

[AANOTOK]

Delta will earn, on average, 26% more than their AA counterparts.
Delta employees will receive a PS payout valued at more than 1 BILLION dollars or about 2 months pay.

American CEO Doug Parker is opposed to profit sharing .
"It's not the right way to pay employees.
So much is tied to profits like Ebola, fuel prices and a bunch of things we can't control....( all things other airlines faced)...

Employees are payed a fair wage and after that " ALL" profits go to share holders.
It's not the right way to pay employees that don't have that much of an impact on daily profits" Parker stated!

Sounds like the IAM and other unions are doing a fine job representing theirs dues owers at AA!

A little late to the dance there Wind...unless of course you have just been retained by WT!