New Vote o Video from Local Presidents

[Overspeed]

GROSS OVERKILL!!!!!!


Thats how Tom Roth described AAs ask from the mechanics while under oath.

Yes. That's true Bob yet like he said in the video he is very pessimistic about the judge ruling in our favor. Yell all you want Bob. The video speaks for itself. Levine and Roth both experienced and educated experts contradict your assessment of BK. You are an A&P not an attorney, economist, or any other type of expert.

 

[Overspeed]

Updated Q&A on twubkfacts.org states that 1167 only applies to railroads, not airlines. The agreement can be abrogated per 1113c like 700UW stated.

 

[Rogallo]

Everyone here is a expert..????

 

[Bob Owens]

65% of the work will stay in-house under the TA. With that much work in-house he has LOTS of protection. It's called seniority. Heard about it?

Wrong, thats not what it says. Read the language again. 65% of "maintenance spend", including parts and materials, provided they keep Taesl, then it could go up to whatever they deem "appropriate". Lets say they go for 10%, now only 55% of the maintenance spend needs to be kept "in house".

So even if they keep Taesl if the part costs $100,000 they can outsource $35,000 worth of labor no?? So if they buy a new brake they can outsource the labor to install it. If parts and materials cost more than labor then the amount of labor that can be outsourced is way more than 1996 seniority.

With new types of aircraft coming into the fleet won't AA have to buy new parts? Since its spend, not work there really isnt much of a limit.

 

[Bob Owens]

Updated Q&A on twubkfacts.org states that 1167 only applies to railroads, not airlines. The agreement can be abrogated per 1113c like 700UW stated.

Another victory for the labor movement?????

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes. That's true Bob yet like he said in the video he is very pessimistic about the judge ruling in our favor. Yell all you want Bob. The video speaks for itself. Levine and Roth both experienced and educated experts contradict your assessment of BK. You are an A&P not an attorney, economist, or any other type of expert.

We dont have to be lawyers or economists to determine that an offer that ties us up for six years at the very deep bottom of the industry is unacceptable under any circumstance.

I wonder what they would say if they were being told to accept this?

Probably the same thing we are.

Let the Judge rule, then we will have to do what we need to do. 700 says they did such a great job at USAIR that after many years with the company he quit. I'd rather that they take it from me than just hand it over. The only selling point you have is that you are saying that less heads will be cut, but there is no langauge supporting that claim, in fact the 35% outsourcing, not including parts and materails, would allow them to outsource 4000 jobs, if the spend stayed the same. When we get the new planes even more jobs can be eliminated, not outsourced, just eliminated, so the cap doesnt even come into play. there is nothing in this language that would prevent them from cutting over 5000 jobs by 2018 and you know it. Your only selling point is fear. You are like the Indians with wolf pelts trying to scare the buffalo off a cliff. Hopefully they turn away and run right over you. You are saying that you are saving jobs while getting them to agree to langauge that eliminates job security and allows outsourcing based on spend.

Now we know why you hide behind an alias. Probably for the same reason you wont make a video yourself and get Sharon and Tom to do it.

 

[Overspeed]

Wrong, thats not what it says. Read the language again. 65% of "maintenance spend", including parts and materials, provided they keep Taesl, then it could go up to whatever they deem "appropriate". Lets say they go for 10%, now only 55% of the maintenance spend needs to be kept "in house".

So even if they keep Taesl if the part costs $100,000 they can outsource $35,000 worth of labor no?? So if they buy a new brake they can outsource the labor to install it. If parts and materials cost more than labor then the amount of labor that can be outsourced is way more than 1996 seniority.

With new types of aircraft coming into the fleet won't AA have to buy new parts? Since its spend, not work there really isnt much of a limit.

Excuse me, maintenance spend. Either way, Blackman has protection.

While the mix of parts and labor can be moved either way, the fact remains that substantial labor will be required in-house. The future is variable as you have stated. The new aircraft, especially the 787, will have an evolving maintenance program but we do know this. If the 787 requires less work in then it outsourcing 35% of less is less in-house and outsourced work. The same holds true for new aircraft that have known maintenance programs. If the planes are new and require less work on the overhaul side then you can only outsource up to 35% of that work. Since new aircraft usually don't hit their first heavy until 6 to 7 years we aren't outsourcing work we don't have already.

Your arguments are not well thought out. Blackman will be fine as will many thousands that are currently working here now. If you vote no then you will get more protection. The 3/22 term sheet does not change that. But you can dream Bob.

Face it, the Levine and Roth videos explain it like it is and completely contradicts your arguments.

 

[Overspeed]

APFA is telling there members that the the LBO they have is an improvement. They don't agree with Bob's assessment of BK 1113c process either. They feel abrogation is inevitable as well.


Dear APFA Member, July 26, 2012

These are extraordinary and unprecedented times for our union and our company. Never before, in decades of collective bargaining, has our union been in such a challenging position. As you know, APFA’s negotiating team worked tirelessly over the past several weeks to hammer out a contract with American Airlines management under Section 1113 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy law gives the Debtor a tremendous amount of power and leverage in negotiations. It is designed to allow the bankrupt company to extract as much as possible from its unions.

Last week, our team secured a Last Best and Final Offer (“LBFO&rdquo from the Company. Given that the bar for negotiations was set by the Section 1113 Term Sheet of March 22[sup]nd[/sup] (“Term Sheet&rdquo, this LBFO is a vast improvement. Voting to accept or reject the LBFO is open until August 19[sup]th[/sup], 10am Central Time, for members in good standing. Below are the facts you should have in order to make an informed decision:

Key LBFO Points:

LBFO contains approximately 34 percent less in concessions than American’s Term Sheet. The Company moved from its original ask of $230 million annually to one of $168 million.

LBFO includes an Early Out Program with a $40,000 payment. Term Sheet has no such option.

LBFO includes signing bonus of $1,500. Term Sheet has no signing bonus.

LBFO includes a wage increase at date of signing of 3 percent. Term Sheet includes no increase.

LBFO improves on TAFB. Term Sheet includes no improvements.

LBFO provides for an adjustment to industry average pay rates 36 months after date of signing. Term Sheet provides no adjustment.

LBFO includes Critical Coverage Pay Premium at 150 percent. Term Sheet has no Critical Coverage Pay Premium.

LBFO retains G Time without change. Term Sheet reduces G Time.

LBFO includes Sequence Pay Protection. Term Sheet does not include Sequence Pay Protection.

LBFO includes bankruptcy claim for 3 percent equity of post-emergence Company. Term Sheet does not include an equity claim.

As you can see, our negotiating team made significant progress during the negotiations, despite American’s legal advantages. Although far from the deal we were close to reaching prior to bankruptcy, the Company’s LBFO is far better than the Term Sheet. Should we reject the LBFO, the Court will likely grant the Company’s Section 1113 motion. Management knows that should this happen, they will have legal permission to put in place the more concessionary Term Sheet (whether the Company will be allowed to impose even worse concessions than in the Term Sheet is an open legal issue). There is a remote possibility that the Court will not grant the Company’s motion, but even then the judge would likely only ask American to make minor adjustments to the Term Sheet. Our legal team can say with certainty that should the Court issue a ruling on the Section 1113 motion, whether it be to grant or deny it, our contract would be far more concessionary than this offer.

Additionally, should the Company impose the Term Sheet, it will include no wage increases, no defined contribution plan to replace our current pension plan, and no profit sharing. Although each of these items is in the Term Sheet, they are contingent upon reaching a consensual agreement.

Although no carrier has emerged from bankruptcy without labor agreements, there is no legal barrier preventing it. If we reject the LBFO, and the Court allows American to impose the Term Sheet, the flight attendant costs in American’s business plan would be $84 million less than the US Airways plan. That would give American a serious advantage over US Airways, and one that they will exploit when convincing creditors their standalone plan is stronger.

In the event that we vote to reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s Section 1113 motion, and the Company imposes its Term Sheet, our subsequent negotiations would be governed by the Railway Labor Act. Unfortunately, at that point the Company will already have such advantageous terms that there will be little to no incentive for it to negotiate any changes. We are all very familiar with American’s stall tactics, having seen them first hand from 2008 until the bankruptcy filing. I have no doubt that management would make as little progress as possible during National Mediation Board negotiations. Instead, I would expect American to drag out each subsequent contract negotiation for as long as possible, preferring instead to keep the awful provisions of the Term Sheet in place. Furthermore, the NMB has not triggered a cooling off period for a major airline in over eleven years, and is even less likely to do so during a Presidential election season. Our attorneys and I do not believe the RLA bargaining process is a viable option for us at this time.

Make no mistake, our singular focus continues to be achieving a merger with US Airways and I am confident in our ability to do that. The momentum has shifted to our side. Analysts, public officials, and the media are all calling for a merger in bankruptcy. Approving this LBFO is a step in that process. Our colleagues at APA and TWU are in the same situation. Their leadership and I agree that the best path forward is to approve new contracts and allow American’s management to complete their standalone plan. This will allow the US Airways team to develop and present their merger plan, which they are eager to do. In fact, US Airways CEO Doug Parker has said publically that approving new labor contracts is the fastest way towards achieving a merger.

The tremendous pain and frustration we have all endured makes this vote a tough one. Indeed, the disrespect and aggravation the negotiators and I felt is part of what made achieving this offer so difficult. Though still unpleasant and very concessionary, the LBFO represents an enormous effort on the part of our negotiating team and its terms are far better than those we were handed on March 22. Please consider the offer carefully before casting your vote. As always, APFA’s resources are available to answer any questions you may have.

In Unity,


Laura Glading APFA President
817.540.0108 x8101
[email protected]

 

[NYer]

TWU leading the way for the DEAD LAST IN PAY BENEFITS AND WORK RULES FOR THE AMTs OF AA
Its time for them to go !!!!

Keep saying TWU, but aren't the Presidents the one's that negotiate these deals. Bob and others have been telling us since '08 to say NO...We have, but they still point fingers and blame others as to why we don't get anything better.

If we continue to say no, all that seems to happen is that we fall further behind. We can't move forward if we expect to get 20%, 30% or 40% raise. Since '08 all we've heard is to vote no so we can get the deal we deserve...When will that happen. Even Bob says there has been changes to the negotiating committee and the only carry overs are the Vote No guys.

 

[Bob Owens]

Excuse me, maintenance spend. Either way, Blackman has protection.

But the 2000 that you claim to be saving dont.

 

[Bob Owens]

APFA is telling there members that the the LBO they have is an improvement.

Maybe it is for them, what's their standing in the industry? Are they settling for $8/hr less than their peers at UAL? If we were ahead of everyone except Southwest, like some of our coworkers, I'd probably say we need to accept the deal as well.

 

[NYer]

uh, Yes. They all did. And some of them were second in the industry behind Southwest, not at the bottom like us.




Five out of the six A&Ps in the room voted against this. There was one A&P President, STL that voted for it, the other two Presidents were Fleet service Clerks, one is retired, none of the other were Presidents or A&Ps.

Did they have a right to be there? Because if they did, then you lost the vote. If they didn't, then where is the protest to that illegality. It seems you just seem to blame EVERYONE that doesn't agree with you or goes against you...The only thing that seems consistent is that your attacks seem to expand to larger groups of people.

There are other groups in the TWU, are they all at the bottom of the industry? No. Yet, they are also represented by the TWU, Sharon and Tom...The other interesting thing is that they are not represented by you and your cohorts. That seems to be an interesting fact.

I bought into the Vote No mantra for years, but it's getting old and it's not getting us anywhere. This time, it actually takes us backwards as we seem to lose everything you fear, but we get not monetary advances and that seems to be a consistent message from the APA and APFA...But I guess you don't like them either.

 

[Mr Red]

Updated Q&A on twubkfacts.org states that 1167 only applies to railroads, not airlines. The agreement can be abrogated per 1113c like 700UW stated.

Speed start bailing I told you its OVER !EVEN TULE IS DONE WITH THEM.
THE TWU IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AA AMTS BEING THE BOTTOM FEEDERS OF THE INDUSTRY
AND WE WON"T DRAG THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY DOWN WITH THIS AA/TWU MANIFESTO
DEAD LAST IN PAY,BENEFITS AND WORK RULES !!

 

[NYer]

As I've said before C-11 was put in place to relieve debtors of "onerous" contracts and allow a troubled debtor to reorganize, it was not put in place to allow debtors to impose onerous contracts.

Whats onerous about this offer?

Compensation, lowest in the industry by far. more than $8/hr less than median. Historically we have been within $1/hr with UAL and Delta, we would be $8/hr less under the proposed terms

Term-six years, none of our competitors are in contracts that will last this long. When USAIR, UAL and Delta went through C-11. AA, the largest carrier had just settled a five year concessionary deal outside of BK. United, USAIR, Delta, and Southwest all have agreements that are either amendable or will be within a year.

Benefits
Health, most expensive in the industry (21%) with No cap. UAL has a 7% cap based off 2003 rates.
Holidays worst in the industry in both frequency and rate, We receieve as much as 100 less hours pay for working the Holidays.
Vacation- for the first thirty years we have 1 week per year less than all our peers, after thirty years we have two weeks less per year than many of our peers.
Sick Time -worst in the industry at 5 days per year

Workrules
Straight time pay for training
Worst OT rules
Worst bidding rules
Worst seniority protections

Even Tom admitted that what the company was asking from us was 'Gross Overkill".

So you guarantee that if we vote no, we will be better off? And how long will we have to live under the abrogated contract before we recover all that will be lost?

 

[Mr Red]

Did they have a right to be there? Because if they did, then you lost the vote. If they didn't, then where is the protest to that illegality. It seems you just seem to blame EVERYONE that doesn't agree with you or goes against you...The only thing that seems consistent is that your attacks seem to expand to larger groups of people.

There are other groups in the TWU, are they all at the bottom of the industry? No. Yet, they are also represented by the TWU, Sharon and Tom...The other interesting thing is that they are not represented by you and your cohorts. That seems to be an interesting fact.

I bought into the Vote No mantra for years, but it's getting old and it's not getting us anywhere. This time, it actually takes us backwards as we seem to lose everything you fear, but we get not monetary advances and that seems to be a consistent message from the APA and APFA...But I guess you don't like them either.

GO WORK FOR AN MRO IF THATS WHAT YOU WANT !