Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

[MCI transplant]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 12:05:57 AM Buck wrote:

KCFlyer:

I tire of your what ifs posting scheme. Since you have stated that you are not an employee of American or a member of the TWU or any other union, then you really have no idea about what is happening today nor what has happened in the past that has brought us to this point. This baiting is not going anywhere.

----------------​

It seems he''s catching a few fish here!!!!

 

[Checking it Out]

----------------
On 7/7/2003 9:48:43 PM RV4 wrote:


I already told you!

I CAN accept a majorty rule decision. IF the vote is CREDIBLE! Can we now dispense with the hyptheticals and get back to reality?


And it''s not "my way or the highway", look at this...


---------------------
Dave, by your own admission that the Majority Rules! Since 1962 amfa has been organizing at AA in 1963 the majority by your own terms turned amfa down and in the last 10 years amfa has failed to get cards signed! By the majority standards the members do not want this organization but you still can''t except this! Just think this was all on a promise you made to an Individual! It''s not because you believe!

amfa will fail again and will receive less percentage than they did last time!

When will you believe your own words and go with the Majority or will you keep lying on this Board and to yourself?

TWU SOLIDARITY!

​

 

[Bob Owens]

CIO;
I would not be so boastful. They already have 40% of the cards they need. (How many did they get last time?)They only really need 10% plus one more, or around 1582 more cards. The count from Line Maint is 79%. Line maint could provide around 1000 more, that would mean that they would only need 582 more, thats not much.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 12:05:57 AM Buck wrote:

KCFlyer:

I tire of your what ifs posting scheme. Since you have stated that you are not an employee of American or a member of the TWU or any other union, then you really have no idea about what is happening today nor what has happened in the past that has brought us to this point. This baiting is not going anywhere.

----------------​

I am sorry...I won''t post any more "what if''s". My purpose wasn''t to bait - but since the biggest proponent for changing your union representation (which, IMHO will have absolutely zero impact on improving the financial situation or American Airlines - you know them, they are the ones who actually issue the paycheck) is extemely reluctant to admit that there are indeed some situations where the AMFA might actually be worse than what you''ve got (it''s called the "downside" of an issue), I had to post "what if''s" of what I believe to be situations that aren''t that far fetched. You''ve got a guy spending a lot of time "working" for the AMFA -- doing a job so well that one has to wonder if he isn''t being compensated by the AMFA, thus making his position somewhat "compromised". Bottom line, there are people who will never be satisfied.

So I''ll pull this line from the water. Best of luck in your organizing efforts. If you feel that the mechanics would be better off in bankruptcy, then by all means, fight all the way to the courthouse steps. But as I mentioned in an earlier post....the courts and the creditors have watched two big airlines go the Chapter 11 route, and so far, it doesn''t appear to be working all that well. So I wouldn''t be so sure that the judge and creditors will just say "screw it" and sent AA to Chapter 7. Heaven help you all if that happens.

 

[Bob Owens]

So far two major carriers have gone BK.

Both are still here and operating with around the same percentage of market share as they had before.

Both still have more benifits than we do and we did not go BK.

If those carriers did not go C-7 why do you feel that there is a good chance that AA would?

Would the elimination of AA help or hurt competition?

Would the bankrupt carriers be in a position where they could expand and keep the "essential sevice" that AA provides to hundreds of communities?

Would the creditors and the courts feel that those bankrupt carriers would give the the best deal for their assetts, just months after reneging on the deals that those airlines had with the creditors that it did business with?

 

[Hopeful]

Kcflyer might not have an understanding of what mechanics have been facing in the airline industry with unions who represent many different classifications and essentially cater to the masses.

Over the years, beginning in 1983, the TWU gave away mechanics work, not to outside contractors, but to fellow NON-MECHANIC TWUers. The TWU along with the IAM have brainwashed the membership with the "WE ALL PAY THE SAME FOR A LOAF OF BREAD" philosophy.

KCFLYER may not be aware that the non-mechanic workgroups have always voted on how we get compensated in both salary and license premiums at contract time. If the agreement called for a 15% pay increase for all members but the mechanics were going to get a one dollar license increase, they would use their mega votes to shoot the contract down because to them the the mechanics were getting a 20% raise and that was unfair. So after the contract was rejected, there was no license increase to appease them.

KCFLYER is not aware that the TWU is a BUS DRIVERS UNION who have fought hard for the unskilled and rightfully so. But the leadership has alyways looked down their noses at the mechanics telling us we are worth no more than the baggage handler or cabin cleaner.

As I have said before, AMFA may not get us anything more than the TWU, but with mechanics as the clear majority, we would not have to fear having our basic rights and compensation stripped to pad the pockets of the unskilled.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 6:51:24 AM Bob Owens wrote:


So far two major carriers have gone BK.

Both are still here and operating with around the same percentage of market share as they had before.

It would be great if market share paid the bills. The trouble is, it doesn''t...profits do. And so far, both major airlines that went into bankruptcy are not showing any increased profits....only continued losses. At what point will courts and creditors say enough is enough - it''s time to cut our losses here - reduce capacity in the aviation system - and perhaps return the OTHER two major airlines that we are losing money on to maybe...just maybe, begin to show a profit.

Both still have more benifits than we do and we did not go BK.

They are still losing money...what do you suppose the next step will be, especially since they have several years to go before they can "restructure" under bankruptcy again.

If those carriers did not go C-7 why do you feel that there is a good chance that AA would?

As I said, the creditors might feel that Chapter 11 isn''t benefiting THEM with the other carriers that tried it - perhaps they will feel that it''s better to cut their losses and get what they can in liquidation rather than restructure the existing debt and provide the bankrupt company with even MORE debt.


Would the elimination of AA help or hurt competition?

Well, the arguments I''ve read this past year is that there is far too much capacity in the US Aviation system. Reducing that capacity by a significant amount should help the competition.

Would the bankrupt carriers be in a position where they could expand and keep the "essential sevice" that AA provides to hundreds of communities?

Yes. If there is sufficient demand in those communities served by AA, the void will be filled.

Would the creditors and the courts feel that those bankrupt carriers would give the the best deal for their assetts, just months after reneging on the deals that those airlines had with the creditors that it did business with?

As I said - UAL and U now have 7 years to figure out what ways to trim costs and return to profitability - they can''t "restructure" again. Since the creditors now have even more debt that they provided in a "reorganization", they will want to do whatever it takes to insure that the money they have at stake isn''t lost. And I don''t feel that it''s out of the question for a court and creditors to say "enough" when/if AA heads to the bankruptcy court - the "sacrifice" of one company may be what is needed to pull the others through. Please note - this is not what I am hoping for - I''m only saying that it''s a possiblity of what might happen to the next major airline to head into bankruptcy.


----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 8:25:54 AM KCFlyer wrote:

It would be great if market share paid the bills. The trouble is, it doesn''t...profits do.

Profits are whats left AFTER the bills are paid. So if you prepay your bills there may not be any profits but that does not mean that the bills are not being paid.

And so far, both major airlines that went into bankruptcy are not showing any increased profits....only continued losses.

Showing losses is easy, especially when the government lets you write off $988 million in "Goodwill".

At what point will courts and creditors say enough is enough - it''s time to cut our losses here - reduce capacity in the aviation system - and perhaps return the OTHER two major airlines that we are losing money on to maybe...just maybe, begin to show a profit.

Capacity has been reduced, and with load factors in the 80% range that arguement no longer is relevant.


As I said, the creditors might feel that Chapter 11 isn''t benefiting THEM with the other carriers that tried it - perhaps they will feel that it''s better to cut their losses and get what they can in liquidation rather than restructure the existing debt and provide the bankrupt company with even MORE debt.

What is AA''s stock now at?
$11/share.
Thats over 10 times UAL.




​

 

[KCFlyer]

Bob - Believe what you want. I tend to believe that the courts, creditors and country are tired of seeing airlines marching into bankruptcy court. Do you have any idea what AA stock would trade for in bankruptcy? You''ve got to take the "mechanics blinders" off and recognize that there is more to AA''s problems that which union represents the mechanics. IMHO, my scenario isn''t that far fetched. Hopefully I''m wrong. But imagine what life will be like if I''m right.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 9:52:13 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Bob - Believe what you want. I tend to believe that the courts, creditors and country are tired of seeing airlines marching into bankruptcy court. Do you have any idea what AA stock would trade for in bankruptcy? You've got to take the "mechanics blinders" off and recognize that there is more to AA's problems that which union represents the mechanics. IMHO, my scenario isn't that far fetched. Hopefully I'm wrong. But imagine what life will be like if I'm right.

----------------​

Your hopes will come true, you are wrong.

Who brought up representation?

The fact is that what we are seeing now is a common occurrance, it happened with the RailRoads, the auto industry and others. Some industries should not be unregulated, remember the S&L crisis, the rolling blackouts in California, the LTCM Crisis? All of these are examples of greed run amok, and all left the common man who likely saw no benifit with the tab. Arent we still paying off the S&L scam?

If certain industries are considered "essential" then there needs to be oversight and sometimes regulation. The fact is this industry prospered under regulation, it made huge advances in safety, speed and affordability.

Deregulation did not benifit either the travelling public or the employees. We pride ourselves as a nation built upon the principles of equality and fair treatment, do passengers feel they have been treated fairly when the person sitting next to them paid half of what they paid for basically the same seat on the same flight? Is the fare that a last minute business traveller pays less when adjusted for inflation than the same trip would have cost just prior to deregulation?

The only ones who made out were the money changers and managers who came in for a quick buck and left behind a huge mess. And the courts, the creditors and the government expect us to bear the burden of cleaning it up.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 4:28:13 PM Bob Owens wrote:


Your hopes will come true, you are wrong.

You know this?

Who brought up representation?

I''m sorry...I thought that way back on page 1 of this thread was a "thanks TWU" comment and a big old poster for AMFA. Sorry if I thought it was all about representation.

If certain industries are considered "essential" then there needs to be oversight and sometimes regulation. The fact is this industry prospered under regulation, it made huge advances in safety, speed and affordability.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the biggest thing I''ve heard as being a problem is that there is overcapactiy in this "essential" airline industry. Why regulate every airline to shrink down when the same thing could be accomplished by eliminating one? Sounds heartless, but the capacity reduction by the elimination of an airline the size of AA would maintain the "essential" service while at the same time benefiting the surviving airlines.

Deregulation did not benifit either the travelling public or the employees. We pride ourselves as a nation built upon the principles of equality and fair treatment, do passengers feel they have been treated fairly when the person sitting next to them paid half of what they paid for basically the same seat on the same flight?

Nope they sure don''t. On the other hand, why don''t we regulate the automakers...after all, two people can walk into a Chevy dealer to buy a pickup and one walks out paying several thousand less than the other guy, and getting a better interest rate to boot...do you consider that to be fair? But considering that under regulation airfares were determined by taking the costs and adding a "profit" to it. What would the unions say if the regulators said that the ticket will cost "X" dollars to fly from point A to point B" - either leaving the airline to better control costs or have the government determine you wage. Back in the good old days of regulation, it cost $500 to fly from Kansas City to St Louis. Today it costs $150. How has this not benefited the consumer? IMHO, airline employees would find things a whole lot worse off if the airlines were reregulated today.

The only ones who made out were the money changers and managers who came in for a quick buck and left behind a huge mess. And the courts, the creditors and the government expect us to bear the burden of cleaning it up.

Unfortunatly for you, as long as the government can point to Southwest, Airtran and JetBlue showing profits, they will question why it isn''t possible for the other airlines to do the same.


----------------​

 

[TDR1502C]

"But considering that under regulation airfares were determined by taking the costs and adding a "profit" to it. What would the unions say if the regulators said that the ticket will cost "X" dollars to fly from point A to point B" - either leaving the airline to better control costs or have the government determine you wage."

Kind of a revisionist view of history you have there KCFlyer, considering that under regulation American, Braniff, Eastern, Piedmont, Allegheny, Pan Am, United and TWA (among others) all posted losses from time to time, while providing stories in the trade publications on the need to reduce labor costs, furloughing of employees and CAB petitions from the airlines to reduce ticket costs to stir up sales. Excuse us if we''re a bit cynical, but these issues we live with in this industry have been going on for a long time, and you seem to be late to the party.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/10/2003 804 AM TDR1502C wrote:

"But considering that under regulation airfares were determined by taking the costs and adding a "profit" to it. What would the unions say if the regulators said that the ticket will cost "X" dollars to fly from point A to point B" - either leaving the airline to better control costs or have the government determine you wage."

Kind of a revisionist view of history you have there KCFlyer, considering that under regulation American, Braniff, Eastern, Piedmont, Allegheny, Pan Am, United and TWA (among others) all posted losses from time to time, while providing stories in the trade publications on the need to reduce labor costs, furloughing of employees and CAB petitions from the airlines to reduce ticket costs to stir up sales. Excuse us if we''re a bit cynical, but these issues we live with in this industry have been going on for a long time, and you seem to be late to the party.

----------------​

And....under a newly regulated system, most airlines would STILL post losses while STILL looking to reduce labor costs and STILL furloughing employees. So please explain to this latecomer just exactly HOW reregulating the airline industry is going to help things for consumers or employees, or how it would be ANY different that what is going on right now... It seems the only thing that might change is that rather than offering a $99 transcon flight (foolish) on their own, the airlines would have to petition a new iteration of the CAB to approve the fare before they implement them. Sounds like a winning proposal.

 

[TDR1502C]

Sounds ok with me. Keep working on "humble" in the meantime.

 

[TDR1502C]

Got any references on how the CAB operated, other than your bellybutton?