Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

----------------
On 5/4/2003 8:48:45 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Okay RV4 - i"m a common liar. But can you show me ONE coworker who can honestly say that they enjoy working beside you. Geesh.


I will go one better I would work by RV4 any day of the week, rather than stand by and allow this company to bust the union with the unions own consent. KCFlyer, you have no concept of what unionism is or what it should mean. At least RV4 takes a stand unlike you who just sits on the side lines and snipes and easily just allows our class and craft to be decimated, with thiese give back. Agin I would work with RV4 and let him watch my back reather than you.
 
As for the seat cost you need to do two things you can go to this web site and pull up the 10K filings.

www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

In our case its not the overall ASM thats important its the Maint. cost per ASM.

SWA breaks it down for you the last time I checked it was .057 per ASM
AA you need to do the math we figured it out to be .064 per ASM.

In looking at these numbers two facts need to be kept in mind. SWA flys one fleet type AA seven and that is not including the break down in those fleet types.

AA also removed seats from each aircraft for the MORE ROOM IN COACH program. this further would drive up the cost per ASM for maint. since there are less seats available.

Hope this helps out feel free to check out the numbers, they were from last years 10K as AA withheld it own.

The reason I utilized SWA they are the Co. that AA hold up to us for comparison.
 
Word has come out that HR is currently in a state of shock with the realization that many people are bumping out rather than take the 38% pay cut offered up by the company and the twu. The slugs that have been on the docks for a while are also starting to sweat it out because they are coming to the realization that they will actually have to do some work and they will have to readjust their attitude from " I put my time in already I dont need to work hard" to " Oh crap how do I access the manual and you mean I have to do some work now to keep my job!!!". I for one look foreward to going to the line since I had already foresaw this scenario I became line qualified during the last layoff and prepared for this eventuality. The rest of you who didnt prepare, you can have your little pitty partys in your new osm shop. For those of you trying to bump out good luck studying for the line test I hear the company is going to do its best to fail you so as to minimize disruptions in the system.
 
----------------
On 5/7/2003 7:59:02 PM MADAMT wrote:


. KCFlyer, you have no concept of what unionism is or what it should mean. At least RV4 takes a stand unlike you who just sits on the side lines and snipes and easily just allows our class and craft to be decimated, with thiese give back. Agin I would work with RV4 and let him watch my back reather than you.

----------------

You''re more than welcome to work next to RV4 - I''d get tired of all the bitching after a week or so, even if I agreed with the guy. But you are wrong about what the unionism thing means (at least in this case). By "allowing your class and craft to be decimated", you are basically saying that unionism should stand firm to protect the wages and benefits of it''s members. Now, if doing that means that the membership is reduced by 50% or so, that''s fine and good. And if that means that the company itself becomes smaller, impacting union brothers and sisters who belong to a different union...then so be it...The class and craft must be protected after all. I believe that the other 50+% who "gave so others could live" would tend to think that the job of the union was to protect it''s members jobs, and only the most die hards would thank their union for protecting the class and craft while they are sitting on the sidewalk in the unemployment line. Indeed, why is it that in the auto industry, the big buzzwords a few years back were "job security". Did that not come at a price? Is the UAW a weak union?

But...I''m not a union guy. If I feel that I''m getting the shaft from my employer, I can leave (and have left) and usually make more starting the very day that I begin my new job. The "golden handcuffs" of true unionism make it difficult indeed for one to make a change...after all, despite the givebacks, can you name me an airline you can go to work for tommorow where you''ll make as much on day one as you do now...even after givebacks?

​
 
First of to assume that what RV4 states on these pages is what carries over to everyday life on a constant basis is a big presumption.
Secondly, Unionism is to protect the wages and benefits of the members, if that means reducing the work force then so be it, what the union should do in that case is when they are recalled back to work they are brought to industry standards rapidly, ie. 2.5 years to top pay with only a 20% split between bottom and top pay. Right now they are being RIFd and when they come back its to wages and benefits that have been wiped out.
I don''t need to go to another airline to make these wages I can go to the local truck repair shop and work on them and make almost as much.

What you fail to realize is that many of us, myself included actually like, no let me rephrase that love Aviation. We elected to have this as a career. We did not fall into these jobs, we went out and activily attended college and tested to receive our A/P license, we have a passion and that passion runs deep.

And you are wrong I am in the northeast and to the most junior man he feels that this is unacceptable, he would rather have been laid off than accept the pay and benefit reductions. Part of Unionism is for the greater good, this lastest ploy is nothing more than union busting, the sad part the international happily went hand in hand with the company to accomplish this.

If its not about Mismanagement then how can South west Airlines pay their AMTs similar benefits and wages compared to what we used to make before the concessions? Yet they still make a profit, so why should it be brought onto the backs of AMTS to carry the burden for managements foibles?
 
----------------
On 5/7/2003 9:41:55 PM MADAMT wrote:


And you are wrong I am in the northeast and to the most junior man he feels that this is unacceptable, he would rather have been laid off than accept the pay and benefit reductions. Part of Unionism is for the greater good, this lastest ploy is nothing more than union busting, the sad part the international happily went hand in hand with the company to accomplish this.
----------------​

Except that this was not an option. Once again I must point out that this Ramp and Hanger Floor solution is really illogical. How does the company just lay people off without regard for how many flights they are running?
There''s a certain amount of people needed (give or take a few)for every flight flown. Shrink the airline you say? How? Park planes and keep paying the full lease? Stop using gates and terminals and keep paying the rent? How does this save any money? It just sends the CASM thru thru the roof. Unfortunatly for us their are no simple answers.
 
----------------
On 5/7/2003 9:41:55 PM MADAMT wrote:

If its not about Mismanagement then how can South west Airlines pay their AMTs similar benefits and wages compared to what we used to make before the concessions?  Yet they still make a profit, so why should it be brought onto the backs of AMTS to carry the burden for managements foibles?

----------------​

Mismanagment is a bit of a stretch. Most every outside analyst will tell you we''re in an industry Depression. Its NOT just AA suffering. Virtually ALL the majors are suffering INCLUDING SWA. They deserve our respect for pulling our a profit but they''re barely keeping their heads above water and disclosed they would have posted a loss if their fuel puchaces had not been hedged (an AA innovation mind you).

Heres what the landscape looks like out there:
US in and out of Chap11
UAL in Chap11!
AA brought to the brink of Chap11!
CO and NW right behind AA!
DL continues to burn millions a day!
ATA a low cost,low pay carrier struggles!
AWA another low cost,low pay carrier also struggles!
Alaska is the only other major besides SWA that looks like its going to be OK, but its a niche player not known for great pay!
Two non-majors are doing great, Airtran and Jetblue, But once again these are niche players with, once again, low pay for their employees! But Frontier, a LCC with Low pay for its employees in struggling like a major out west.

When stuff like this is going on we all want to point fingers and try and pin blame on someone or someones bad decisions but there are way to many bizzare things happening in our industry, economy and world to just say "its managements fault"! But I will agree with you on one thing. Its NOT OUR FAULT! We as AMT''s DID NOT CAUSE ALL THIS!! Neither did the other employees. Unfortunatly for us though we will pay the price!
 
----------------
On 5/7/2003 9:41:55 PM MADAMT wrote:

If its not about Mismanagement then how can South west Airlines pay their AMTs similar benefits and wages compared to what we used to make before the concessions?  Yet they still make a profit, so why should it be brought onto the backs of AMTS to carry the burden for managements foibles?

----------------​
It''s been posted again and again but I''ll post it at least one more time.

WN makes a profit even though its employees are highly paid because its employees do a lot more work every day for the high pay than do the employees at AA or UA or CO or DL or US or any other major. And it''s about time that AA''s employees followed their example.

If you and all your co-workers had worked harder all these years, then AA would not have had to hire as many, and it would not be losing as much money (might not be profitable right now, but would definitely lose less).

I''ve said it before. Concessions suck.

But without them, AA dies a very swift death.

I want AA''s employees to be the highest paid in the industry. I also want them to work harder (become more efficient).

Is it management''s fault that AA''s employees grew fat and happy on featherbedded contracts? Yes, since that''s the answer you''re looking for.

Regardless of whose fault it is - it''s time to take some cuts or everyone moves to the bottom of another carrier''s seniority list.
 
----------------
On 5/8/2003 8:02:54 AM AAmech wrote:






Except that this was not an option. Once again I must point out that this Ramp and HangEr Floor solution is ----------------​



AAMech you really surprise me. Being a AMT you of all people should know the difference between HangEr and HangAr.
People that are in the aircraft maintenance field should know the difference. Now all together....
HangAr
HangAr
HangAr
HangAr



Main Entry: hang·er
Pronunciation: ''ha[ng]-&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : one that hangs or causes to be hung or hanged
2 : something that hangs , overhangs, or is suspended: as a : a decorative strip of cloth b : a small sword formerly used by seamen c chiefly British : a small wood on steeply sloping land
3 : a device by which or to which something is hung or hangs : as a : a strap on a sword belt by which a sword or dagger can be suspended b : a loop by which a garment is hung up c : a device that fits inside or around a garment for hanging from a hook or rod

Main Entry: 1han·gar
Pronunciation: ''ha[ng]-&r, ''ha[ng]-g&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French
Date: 1852
: SHELTER, SHED; especially : a covered and usually enclosed area for housing and repairing aircraft
 
----------------
On 5/8/2003 11:33:16 AM AAmech wrote:

Whoops!!! I demand USaviation put a spell check on this BB!

----------------​

Would not have helped.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #72
----------------
On 5/7/2003 6:24:41 AM KCFlyer wrote:




RV4 - lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn't sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn't fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as "facts", and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he'd like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a "liar" or "uninformed".

----------------​
OK, let’s suppose.

Point one – Jobs being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood:

If any union member believes that the reduction in force language in a labor agreement is there for any reason other to dictate the rules in the event layoff occurs then they are fools. But let’s look at AMFA at NWA, the roles and facts appear totally different than that which TWU at AA has taken. AMFA signed a labor agreement with Northwest and is amendable in 2005, the members ratified that contract by 82.1% YES Margin. In that contract is a reduction in force procedure, job security, and force majeure provisions. AMFA refuses to volunteer to enter into “active engagementâ€￾ type meetings with NWA, so their management has invoked force majeure due to Iraq War and laid-off workers. Nobody is “sacrificingâ€￾ anybody, the management is within the labor agreement to do so. However, there are grievances filed, also within the labor agreement rights of the union members over a dispute as to the number of workers reduced compared to the fleet/schedule reductions. If anybody has been “sacrificedâ€￾, it has been the TWU member who had job security and now no longer has it, because the TWU illegally modified the agreement without a credible ratification. AA also had force majeure options but for some reason didn’t invoke them. Instead, the TWU propagated company fear and sold them and everyone’s pay/benefits out to save dues payers. This is not what was ratified in 2001. It appear the TWU was in the companies pocket the whole time. It appears the TWU and the other UNIONS are running American Airlines and this spells big trouble and failure.

Point Two - Vocal Member for Change and Digging for facts:

Competition leads to better service. I would not be opposed to change nor a member being vocal, nor do I expect anyone to “blindlyâ€￾ follow anything. I would research the facts and make a decision on facts. The scenario above is just one instance of facts that make one union much different than the other. As for that “arbitrationâ€￾ raise at Alaska which was agreed to and ratified by the membership, I know many co-workers who would love to have a two year agreement right now with a 5% raise. And we were told binding arbitration is bad. It doesn’t look near as bad as having a Union Dictator violate the members right to a credible vote.

Point Three – Being labeled a liar or uniformed:

KCFlyer, you are the one who claimed you could produce an instance where AMFA membership was denied a credible vote for or against a labor agreement ratification. You still have not provided us this fact. I find it most interesting that you admit that you are not even a union member, which would indicate an uniformed position to begin with, yet you are offended when the truth is told.

As I read your postings, I find that you claim to be an innocent bystander, a passenger, and nothing more. Yet you seem to have some working knowledge about AMFA when you bring up arbitration decisions at other airlines. You have been fanning the flames with rhetoric, and I suspect you are really much more than you claim. If fact, you sound very familiar to a well known past IAM Official who is now on the TWU Payroll.

Point Four – Something Worth Thinking About

The Bible says “Without a vision, people perishâ€￾.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #73
----------------
On 5/8/2003 8:02:54 AM AAmech wrote:


----------------
There's a certain amount of people needed (give or take a few)for every flight flown. Shrink the airline you say? How? Park planes and keep paying the full lease? Stop using gates and terminals and keep paying the rent? How does this save any money? It just sends the CASM thru thru the roof. Unfortunatly for us their are no simple answers.

----------------​
Uh, Try Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization! That's HOW!

Oh NO! Instead let's force AA to keep too many workers and surplus facilities open in exchange for a reversal of 50 years of negotiated pay/benefits. Then the disgruntled workforce will be very productive and the bottom line will then improve. Labor cost is the issue regardless of the fact that after 20 years of concession we are still facing these problems. It isn't the business model, it isn't management, it isn't fuel prices, it isn't over capacity in a capitalist sociecty. Oh no, it is LABOR cost and more workers making less will fix everything.

FOOLS!

AA is three steps closer to complete liquidation because of these agreements, and the union leaders think they saved the company.

Reminds me of Eastern and Pan American, the unions there brought back huge concessions and the disgruntled workforce failed to produce and respond and both airlines imploded on themselves.

Odds are, AA is the most likely to fail now! God help us all!
 
The fact about mismanagement is this, yes we are in the trough of a economic downturn, and yes all are suffering to some degree or another. But AA management has squandered what at the end of the nineties was the lasrgest war chest. They did this thru poor decisions, ie purchase TWA, MORE ROOM THRU COACH, so on and so forth. They continue to fly routes that are unprofitable for them.

And yes they need to down size, to a point that they can operate lean, yes you sit planes, yes give up slots, to the best of my recolection there are only 5 airports in the country that are slot controlled, so that not much in the overall scheme. You maximize your operations by quick turning the planes, metal don''t make money unless its in the air.

As far as working harder, thats AA fault, they run these schedules so that the average AMT on DAYS or AFT can only work on one or two trips, when you operate the aircraft in banks there is alot of down time between them. Nights they always have manned for the max not the mins or at least to the heavy side. AA dictitates the work work load and when its accomplished.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #75
All of the sudden things are better, "the clouds have parted", fares can be raised, and AA has cash.

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030508/american_airlines_ceo_1.html"]http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030508/american_airlines_ceo_1.html[/URL]

Are you kidding me?

According to Mr. Arpey, now that AA has extracted the largest concession is the history of organized labor, things are so much better, and the workers should just forget about the bitter pill, the financial burden placed on their families, and support the company as if nothing happened.

You know what Mr. Arpey? You can kiss may ass! I have principles. I am damn sure not a dependent of Amerikan Airlines!

You were invovled in all decisions of the recent past including the lies about bonuses and pensions. Our Union Leaders may appear satisifed that Carty is gone, but you best check things again with the supreme authority of these unions.Your battles have just begun with your employees, don't think for a minute that your arrival has corrected anything within your grasp, nor those that are out of your control.

You can have all the breakfast meetings and brain storming sessions you want, but words are not going to fix our loss of standard of living.


"Average fares have got to go up," Arpey said. "The industry has got to find a formula to get average fares up ... Last year, the worst year in our history, if we got another $25 to $30 for every passenger that rode on us, we wouldn't have lost money."

And they couldn't do this until we gave our lives away? OK, Mr. Arpey apparently wants to be the last and final CEO of AMR. I bet he gets this wish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Airlines, Facing Cost Pressure, Outsource Crucial
2 3
Replies
32
Views
5K
AMFAMAN
A
C
January 11 Airline News
Replies
4
Views
2K
cubfan02us
C

Latest posts

Back
Top