Look out AA, the unions are mad!

[BayEngineer]

No, I am not pro-compAAny!

No, you are not...

If I was at any way involved with AA, I would be working very hard right now to determine your identity and terminate you immediately.

Your maturity on these boards is an embarrassment to American Airlines, it is an embarrassment to your profession and it is an embarrassment to your industry.

I would like to think that you are nothing but an adolescent playing games- unfortunately, I have had business experiences with other employees that AA who possess similar maturity. The situation got so bad last year, that my multinational software firm ended its policy of using AA exclusively for business travel because of the flurry of employee complaints about dealing with AA staff.

It's a shame too, because I've also had the pleasure of dealing with many very good, devoted, and friendly AA employees, and its is a shame that they should suffer due to your kinds' attitude and immaturity.

I hope for the sake of your proud company that you find yourself unemployed very soon.

 

[AMFAMAN]

No, you are not...

If I was at any way involved with AA, I would be working very hard right now to determine your identity and terminate you immediately.

Your maturity on these boards is an embarrassment to American Airlines, it is an embarrassment to your profession and it is an embarrassment to your industry.

So I take it that you are anti Freedom of Speech and pro Corporate greed. Are you closely related to President Bush?

 

[BayEngineer]

So I take it that you are anti Freedom of Speech and pro Corporate greed. Are you closely related to President Bush?

I don't particularly have an affinity for anyone who uses Ad Hominem attacks or tired appeals to cliche rhetoric to argue their point.

The current administration is particularly prone to the latter.

However, was I an employee of American Airlines, I would be deeply offended by our dearest friend B.O.B- much as the Fundamentalist Right shudders when they hear Fred Phelps open his mouth, or the Progressive Left cringe every time PETA makes a press release... May I suggest if your goal is inducing sympathy to your cause, temporing B.O.B's inane and insulting ramblings might be in your best interest.

Now, if you would honestly like to discuss the condition of labor in the United States, I welcome it - but may I suggest you'll gain substantial credibility by leaving the rhetorical catchphrases at the door. I think you might even find that being a high-skilled laborer myself (software engineer), I am far more sympathetic than you might think.

 

[TWU informer]

I don't particularly have an affinity for anyone who uses Ad Hominem attacks or tired appeals to cliche rhetoric to argue their point.

But you would hunt B.O.B. down and terminate him?

That is what you said!

And that appears to be anti- Free Speech to me also.

You can disagree with B.O.B., but when you hunt him down and terminate him, that is more than disagreement.

 

[BayEngineer]

But you would hunt B.O.B. down and terminate him? That is what you said!

If I worked for AA- yes, I would... Simply put- that level of entitlement (everyone _owes_ me) and immaturity (all who disagree with me are dumb) is not what I want to wake up every morning and go to work with, in any industry.

that appears to be anti- Free Speech to me also.

You're confusing Free Speech and Freedom From Responsibility. Our Friend B.O.B. will not find himself thrown in jail for anything he has said on here (And I would be the first to raise arms if he did).

That said, that doesn't free him from taking responsibility for his drivel, or the resentment it might bring the company and cause he claims to support...

 

[eolesen]

Point of order...

Freedom of speech just means that the government can't restrain you from saying anything you want whenever you want. It doesn't prevent your employer from firing you for saying anything you want wherever you want....

There are rules of conduct which could be applied here, and every employee agreed to these when they joined the company:

21) Do not make false or slanderous statements about the company, its employees, or patrons.

24) Consider the welfare of the company and your fellow employees. Perform no act that is detrimental to either.

That said, I don't think anyone would really waste their time trying to enforce either rule on an anonymous chatroom.

 

[B.O.B.]

No, you are not...

If I was at any way involved with AA, I would be working very hard right now to determine your identity and terminate you immediately.

Your maturity on these boards is an embarrassment to American Airlines, it is an embarrassment to your profession and it is an embarrassment to your industry.

I would like to think that you are nothing but an adolescent playing games- unfortunately, I have had business experiences with other employees that AA who possess similar maturity. The situation got so bad last year, that my multinational software firm ended its policy of using AA exclusively for business travel because of the flurry of employee complaints about dealing with AA staff.

It's a shame too, because I've also had the pleasure of dealing with many very good, devoted, and friendly AA employees, and its is a shame that they should suffer due to your kinds' attitude and immaturity.

I hope for the sake of your proud company that you find yourself unemployed very soon.

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who in the blue hell are you?

I am a dedicated employee; however I will not stand for corporAAte greed! I am NOT pro-compAAny, I am PRO-UNION and PRO-SUPPORTING MY FELLOW UNION BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE APFA, APA AND TWU AT AA!

I take my job seriously and do it damn well! But, when I have to take a 15.6% paycut, changes to my work rules that are unbearable and 4000 plus of my fellow flight attendants on furlough, yes I will voice my opinion.

I'm so scared that you would hunt me down. I'm shaking in my boots.

You can disagree with B.O.B., but when you hunt him down and terminate him, that is more than disagreement.

I have one word for that...


NOD! With backpay!! 😉

 

[nbmcg01]

Point of order...

Freedom of speech just means that the government can't restrain you from saying anything you want whenever you want. It doesn't prevent your employer from firing you for saying anything you want wherever you want....

There are rules of conduct which could be applied here, and every employee agreed to these when they joined the company:

21) Do not make false or slanderous statements about the company, its employees, or patrons.

24) Consider the welfare of the company and your fellow employees. Perform no act that is detrimental to either.

That said, I don't think anyone would really waste their time trying to enforce either rule on an anonymous chatroom.

Another view of "shared sacrifice'...After 33 years of airline experience, I took a 100% pay cut. Credit was not given (or requested) for the 3000 f/as at top pay forced to the street by poor "negotiating". At an average of $40,000 per year in compensation, that comes out to $120,000,000, times how many years? And not one penny of credit? Not only did we lose our careers and benefits but AA lost quality, experienced, professionals. So if I question 44,000 shares of stock, I have a right..(especially as a stock holder) But then we can go on and on about the REAL value of the 2003 RPA. It is too bad that "fair value" is in the same league as "fair and equitable".

 

[Hopeful]

They did take pay cuts...each work group had their own deals. They also did without any raises or bonuses 2 years prior to when unions were asked for concessions.
Here's the correct breakdown of pay cuts in 2003 for management/non management/non union employees:

First $30,000 = 4%
Second $30,000 = 7%
Third $30,000 = 10%
Over $90,000 = 13.5%
Carty = 33% pay cut plus declined any bonus previous 2 years
Officers = 17%

Using your own example: Your supervisor making $70,000 per year was cut by 11% on the first $60,000 possibly 10% or less on the remaining $10,000. I'm not sure how you came up with 8.5%/$6,000 without the correct percentages.

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First $30000 at 4% = $1200
Second $30000 at 7% = $2100
Third $30000 at 10% which is just 10% of $10000 because he made $70000 a year = $1000
-----------------------------

= $4300 paycut!


YOU'RE CORRECT. I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE $6000.

By the way, WE DID NOT HAVE OUR OWN DEAL!

The company threatened us with bankruptcy while your hero Carty and his gang of 40 thieves were perserving their SERPS.....EVEN IF THE COMPANY FILED CHAPTER 11.


OH, DID I MENTION THAT SUPERVISOR IS UP TO $73000 THIS YEAR??????????

 

[Skymess]

The company has done well given today's economic situation they did not go into Bankruptcy. Wall Street obviously thinks they are doing well too 🙂

Well in relation to what? or to whom? If you want to compare us to Northwest or Delta than I guess we are. :blink:

The problem is our debt is outrageously high and we keep declaring losses each successive quarter.

As an employee I can honestly tell you that things are in the can in terms of how well we are treating our customers compared to how well we are treating management. As a frontline employee who has to deal with the cost cutting it is very frustrating and embarassing. Everyone is productive except management. Maybe we should unload some managers, have the remaining ones work harder, and put some stuff back into the operation using the money we saved eliminating the overstock of management.

But why actually try to make a profit one quarter when you can make money on stock options by beating your target loss estimation instead? 😛

 

[Researcher]

I'm fairly certain your supervisor did not get any raises since 2003 actually 2001. You didn't take into account that managers got no raises for 2 years prior to you being asked for concessions, meaning you got contract raises during that time. And yes, you did have your own deal the threat of bankruptcy didn't involve you alone (although I gather you think so.)Each work group, union or non union, had their own deal. The "40 thieves" as you put it didn't involve all 1000 managers who have had no raises since 2001, which BTW was cancelled. BTW, any compensation you may receive in April from your deal I assume will be rejected by you and returned to the coffers....right? Any raises negoiated in the original 2003 concessions will be returned and future ones will be cancelled also...right? How's your healthcare, company paying for it, not the managers, they have higher out-of-pocket and none after retirement I believe. If all things are considered it's pretty fair and equitable, a little cliche I've picked up from this board over the years....🙂

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First $30000 at 4% = $1200
Second $30000 at 7% = $2100
Third $30000 at 10% which is just 10% of $10000 because he made $70000 a year = $1000
-----------------------------

= $4300 paycut!
YOU'RE CORRECT. I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE $6000.

By the way, WE DID NOT HAVE OUR OWN DEAL!

The company threatened us with bankruptcy while your hero Carty and his gang of 40 thieves were perserving their SERPS.....EVEN IF THE COMPANY FILED CHAPTER 11.
OH, DID I MENTION THAT SUPERVISOR IS UP TO $73000 THIS YEAR??????????

 

[AMFAMAN]

Anyone else notice the increase in pro-CompAAny newbies on this board since "Hopeful" made the newspaper a few weeks back about the bonuses.

 

[B.O.B.]

Anyone else notice the increase in pro-CompAAny newbies on this board since "Hopeful" made the newspaper a few weeks back about the bonuses.

I count 2, just on this page alone.

 

[Researcher]

Not pro-company just pro-fairness. It's really a shame in doing my research I could not find in any news source just what kind of hit the management people took...talk about biased reporting, but I found plenty of whining unions and their members. One sided reporting doesn't impress me in the least, quoting the "working man" to gain an audience is not reporting.

The books were and have been opened since 2003 these union reps saw everything and agreed to everything to now claim ignorance is unfair. Unions always claiming unfair bargaining practices with companies are now doing the same thing. When all this went down in 2003 there was a comparison chart showing what each group gave up that included union and non union that was the time to speak up if it wasn't to your satisfaction not after you renegoiate the terms of concession get what you want and now complain. Maybe ya'll should rethink working for 2 companies: AA (work for pay)and your unions(pay to work)...

Anyone else notice the increase in pro-CompAAny newbies on this board since "Hopeful" made the newspaper a few weeks back about the bonuses.

 

[Bob Owens]

Not pro-company just pro-fairness. It's really a shame in doing my research I could not find in any news source just what kind of hit the management people took...talk about biased reporting, but I found plenty of whining unions and their members. One sided reporting doesn't impress me in the least, quoting the "working man" to gain an audience is not reporting.

The books were and have been opened since 2003 these union reps saw everything and agreed to everything to now claim ignorance is unfair. Unions always claiming unfair bargaining practices with companies are now doing the same thing. When all this went down in 2003 there was a comparison chart showing what each group gave up that included union and non union that was the time to speak up if it wasn't to your satisfaction not after you renegoiate the terms of concession get what you want and now complain. Maybe ya'll should rethink working for 2 companies: AA (work for pay)and your unions(pay to work)...

You are living in denail, you are pro-company.