New Vote o Video from Local Presidents

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you are snapping out now.

You compare only smaller things but not the big things. UA has no outsourcing cap in their contract and currently outsource all of AO. So when you compare UA AO mechanics to AA AO mechanics ours make $33 and theirs make...zero. Those wages and benefits they don't pay AO because it is outsourced to Korea and China helps pay for that $16K (dubious at best) is funded by all that outsourcing. And isn't that what you really want? To offload TUL who you complain "holds you back" in JFK.

All UA AO outsourced...that's a fact.

Really? I look at how our concessions will affect the whole industry as the basis to vote NO while you point to the "chance" that a YES vote may save 2000 jobs. Which picture is bigger?

The UAL restriction on outsourcing is more restrictive than what LBOII proposes and you know it. Since they can only outsource NBs domestically it limits their ability to achieve substantial cost savings and is driving work back in house at UAL. So as they are bringing work back in house with a package that on average is worth $8/hr more than what we are getting AA can outsource our OH , NBs as well, overseas. Then AA can do like Delta and have the planes cleaned up by line maint. This would shift more cost to line maint and allow the company to outsource even more OH.

 

[Bob Owens]

You keep spewing that crap but even the company restructuring website seems to differ and claim only the proposals made can be changed. Not the complete contract like you keep fear mongering here.


What Happens When the Judge's Decision Is Made?
If the court permits the employer to terminate the CBA, the company's proposed contract changes are implemented. The company may implement only those proposals made during the 1113 negotiations - it cannot make changes outside of those proposals.

• The duty to bargain continues and the parties return to negotiations for a new agreement.
• A union is permitted to strike only if released from bargaining by the NMB.

If the Judge rules that the company's 1113 proposal is not both fair and equitable and reasonably necessary for the company's reorganization, the current CBA remains in force.

Thats pretty much the opinion of lawyers that I've spoken to who were not hired by the International. Sad but the ones hired by them said the opposite. Who are they working for?

If the Judge grants the motion based upon the motion put fwd by the Company then that is what they are supposed to impose, nothing more. Otherwise how could the court could justify placing any restrictions on labors response to those changes. Once again, Bankruptcy was not put in place to allow debtors to impose onerous terms on any creditor, sure creditors can lose assetts that they placed at risk by not demanding payment at the time of exchange, and the law allows them to charge interst in exchange for exposing themselves to such risk but the court would not compell any creditor to adhere to onerous terms going forward. When the court tells Exxon that they have to sell fuel to AA at $1/gallon when everyone else is paying $3 then they can tell mechanics that they have to sell AA their labor at $70,000 when everyone else is paying $90,000. I know, workers can quit, but shareholders can sell their stock so the fact that individuals can escape the onerous terms does not justify inposing onreous terms on creditors whether its a corporation made up of shareholders or members of a collective bargaining agreement.

(Atten Gillespie, the preceeding was my opinion and interpretation as a mechanic of the law, it was not written by Lee Seham nor have I consulted with Mr Lee Seham in the formation of the preceeding statement, the lawyers referenced were not from Seham's firm or to the best of my knowledge associated with him or his firm, so let me put that in a format that you may, or may not, be able to comprehend; LEE SEHAM DID NOT WRITE THIS OR ANY OTHER POST THAT I'VE ATTACHED MY NAME TO.)

 

[Bob Owens]

You are all over the page paper tiger. Believing in your own bullshet and now believing in the companies too? Wow....lmao

Hmm, aren't you the one saying that we will save jobs by getting rid of system protection and agreeing to outsource 35% of the spend? Even the company says "may save jobs".

 

[Bob Owens]

Rcvd from DFW AMT 9:07 PM

APFA vice president endorses American Airlines’ last, best and final offer to flight attendants



By tmaxon
tmaxon@dallasnews.com

10:35 am on August 1, 2012 |
August 1, 2012

Dear Fellow Flight Attendants,

My initial reaction to the Company’s Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) was, “Oh, hell no!” and at first I thought I could never endorse this for membership ratification. But after careful study of the potential harm and future devastation which would occur if the offer were rejected, and the clear improvements to the 1113 term sheet, my position changed. Among the key points for me was the scheduling provisions which will be lost forever with a vote to reject. The more I read and understood the offer and the realities we face as a union, the easier my YES vote became to make and recommend.

I want more than anything to see a merger with USAirways take place during bankruptcy. It is the best plan for the flight attendants and our company. According to USAirways’ CEO Doug Parker, the fastest way to accomplish a merger is by approving this offer. Having said that, the LBFO represents the best insurance policy available to us in the event that we do not achieve a merger. The absolute worst case scenario will be realized if we reject this offer and Horton keeps control of the Company. We simply cannot afford that.
In virtually all previous airline bankruptcies, labor groups secured agreements similar to our LBFO and as you will read below there is an important reason for this. If we deliver a NO vote, the judge has two options: rule in our favor on the Company’s Section 1113 motion, or grant the Company their motion and legal permission to abrogate our contract. History shows that Courts favor the bankrupt companies in these motions almost 100 percent of the time.

If American exits bankruptcy we will resume negotiations with management. But where will we start? Since the Court will likely allow the Company to gut our entire contract, will we be starting from scratch, using the Section 1113 term sheet from March 22, the LBFO, or our pre-bankruptcy numbers? The Company has said they want to stick with the March 22 term sheet, which as you remember was an insult to our profession. But, there is no law that says they can’t sink even lower than the term sheet and knowing their tactics and the money they’ve been shelling out to bankruptcy lawyers, management can probably can stretch this argument for at least a few years. Let me repeat that: if we reject the LBFO and the Court grants the Company’s 1113 motion, management may be able to impose a contract even worse than the March 22 term sheet. All they would need is a decent economic reason, like a sudden spike in oil prices, to make the argument that more cuts are needed. We’d fight it in court, but the system favors companies like American so heavily that we can’t afford the risk. There is a better option and it is the LBFO.

If we reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s motion, our contractual status will closely resemble our Agents’. If we reject the LBFO, and the Company exits bankruptcy, we will be without a contract, without an agreement, and living under implemented language.


More to the point, we all know how effectively management dragged their feet during negotiations for the four years leading up to bankruptcy. Count on this behavior continuing as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To make matters worse, although we were once at the top of the National Mediation Board’s priority list, we have now been bypassed by other airlines’ labor groups and their negotiations.

On the other hand, our colleagues at TWU have ratified an agreement similar to our LBFO and no matter what the Company cannot later alter it. Their deal may be concessionary and tough for them to swallow, but it is still a ratified agreement and like our LBFO, it is a whole lot better than the term sheet they were handed in March.

If we reject the LBFO, you and I are at the mercy of the Company. Based upon our history and management’s behavior and actions I say, “Oh, hell no!” to this option and will vote YES for the Last Best Final Offer.

In Unity,

Marcus Gluth
Flight Attendant, IMA
Vice President, APFA

Pretty sad when a Union official puts out more doom and gloom than the company. The company has admitted that they cant go beyond the term sheet but he says that they may. They fail to see the significance of even presenting a term sheet to the court and the original reasoning for passing 1113. If the company were to impose more than what the court considered in its ruling then they mislead the court, his ruling may have been different had he known what the company intended to impose and may have rejected the motion if they had done so. If the company were to do so Labors best response would be to engage in self help immediately and watch the courts scramble to assess blame. With a system thats running at max load factors it could not sustain having the number three carrier interrupt service. The Judge would most likely blast the company for misleading him as far as what they intended to do.

 

[1AA]

Thats pretty much the opinion of lawyers that I've spoken to who were not hired by the International. Sad but the ones hired by them said the opposite. Who are they working for?

The lawyers represent whoever pays their salary. In this case it will end up being the Company if this passes. We all know how the best interest of the members will be represented. The company, the TWU and the lawyers are all against us. And this is unionism?

 

[Overspeed]

With a NO vote we continue to negotiate under section 6 of the RLA, however the company can impose the terms that it proposed to the court. If the company refused to meet we could demand to be released per the RLA. Nothing In BK law says we have to wait till after they exit. One the Judge rules 1113 is done, concluded and they have no say in the Section 6 process.

So here we are, petitioning for a release citing the fact that we have been negotiating for over 4 years, rejected one TA and two ultimatums that were put foprward in BK, the courts have abrogated. or not, and the company refuses to meet. On what grounds would the NMB stand in refusing to allow the process to advance to the next step? To do so would be unprecidented and could endanger continued participation in the process by Labor in Transporet. Remember that the NMB is just supposed to mediate between the parties, whether or not we actually get to self help is determined by the President who gets two options, allow self help or defer to a PEB. Nowhere in ther does it say they can defer indefinately.

Ok, let me get this straight. If we turn down the TA the judge will likely abrogate the contract and allow the Company to impose a much worse term sheet with less in pay and pension, 2,000 more furloughs, and more outsourcing. But, according to you that’s ok because we still have the right to negotiate under Section 6 and the NMB will soon release us if the Company doesn’t give us a better contract. Have you gotten that assurance from the NMB, Bob? A year ago you were complaining about how rotten and unfair Gibbons and Kane were. I am sure they are going to respond favorably to any suggestion you make. My betting is that it will be months before the NMB even convenes negotiations between the Company and us, particularly if the other two groups ratify. And when was the last time the NMB released a work group at a carrier in bankruptcy? There are sixty pending requests for releases from different unions to the NMB, none of which have been approved. If the March 22 term sheet is imposed we will be working under it for years and a number of mechanics who could have been working will be on the street…not you, of course.

The TWU, the APA, and the APFA have all put out same advice that it is uncertain whether we are covered by the RLA status quo if we work under imposed terms. This uncertainty is based on an AMFA made anti labor ruling out of New York in which the court said that unless there is an agreement between the parties there is no status quo. You say you have consulted with an unnamed lawyer who disagrees. Alright, we know who the lawyers for the AA unions are. Please provide us with a written signed opinion from a RLA attorney who will guarantee that he can get a status quo injunction if, down the road, AA piles more concessions on to its term sheet because we have no contract.

 

[comatose]

Ok, let me get this straight. If we turn down the TA the judge will likely abrogate the contract and allow the Company to impose a much worse term sheet with less in pay and pension, 2,000 more furloughs, and more outsourcing. But, according to you that’s ok because we still have the right to negotiate under Section 6 and the NMB will soon release us if the Company doesn’t give us a better contract. Have you gotten that assurance from the NMB, Bob? A year ago you were complaining about how rotten and unfair Gibbons and Kane were. I am sure they are going to respond favorably to any suggestion you make. My betting is that it will be months before the NMB even convenes negotiations between the Company and us, particularly if the other two groups ratify. And when was the last time the NMB released a work group at a carrier in bankruptcy? There are sixty pending requests for releases from different unions to the NMB, none of which have been approved. If the March 22 term sheet is imposed we will be working under it for years and a number of mechanics who could have been working will be on the street…not you, of course.

The TWU, the APA, and the APFA have all put out same advice that it is uncertain whether we are covered by the RLA status quo if we work under imposed terms. This uncertainty is based on an AMFA made anti labor ruling out of New York in which the court said that unless there is an agreement between the parties there is no status quo. You say you have consulted with an unnamed lawyer who disagrees. Alright, we know who the lawyers for the AA unions are. Please provide us with a written signed opinion from a RLA attorney who will guarantee that he can get a status quo injunction if, down the road, AA piles more concessions on to its term sheet because we have no contract.

Do you really believe your own BS?

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok, let me get this straight. If we turn down the TA the judge will likely abrogate the contract and allow the Company to impose a much worse term sheet with less in pay and pension, 2,000 more furloughs, and more outsourcing. But, according to you that’s ok because we still have the right to negotiate under Section 6 and the NMB will soon release us if the Company doesn’t give us a better contract. Have you gotten that assurance from the NMB, Bob? A year ago you were complaining about how rotten and unfair Gibbons and Kane were. I am sure they are going to respond favorably to any suggestion you make. My betting is that it will be months before the NMB even convenes negotiations between the Company and us, particularly if the other two groups ratify. And when was the last time the NMB released a work group at a carrier in bankruptcy? There are sixty pending requests for releases from different unions to the NMB, none of which have been approved. If the March 22 term sheet is imposed we will be working under it for years and a number of mechanics who could have been working will be on the street…not you, of course.

The TWU, the APA, and the APFA have all put out same advice that it is uncertain whether we are covered by the RLA status quo if we work under imposed terms. This uncertainty is based on an AMFA made anti labor ruling out of New York in which the court said that unless there is an agreement between the parties there is no status quo. You say you have consulted with an unnamed lawyer who disagrees. Alright, we know who the lawyers for the AA unions are. Please provide us with a written signed opinion from a RLA attorney who will guarantee that he can get a status quo injunction if, down the road, AA piles more concessions on to its term sheet because we have no contract.

Much worse?
Are we losing our pension either way?
Are we losing our Retiree Medical either way?
Will we be at the bottom of the industry for six years either way?
Can they cut 4000 or more heads either way?
Are the APA pilots at the very bottom of the industry? Are they 20% below United?
Are the APFA Flight Attendants at the very bottom of the industry? Are they 20% below United?

The question is whether or not the company under 1113 can impose terms that are different than those they presented to the court. Even the company says they cant, now why would they say that? Do you think they want people to vote no to see if the Judge will abrogate?

I'll get you a guarantee as soon as you get me one that says that the company will not eliminate 4000 jobs and that our total Compensation won't be bottom of the industry for the next six years if we vote YES.

I've repeatedly showed you how a YES vote would allow the company to outsource over 4000 and shed thousands more. you have yet to produce anything other than the companys claim that a Yes vote "may" save 2000 jobs. Still waiting for your explaination as to how a Yes vote will save 2000 jobs.

My position is that we would probably fare better in a PEB than the other groups because we are so far below industry standard.

 

[TWU informer]

It seems the idea from the YES voters is that some individuals might save their own job, yet the overall headcount will be slashed per the original numbers. This is the same thing we did in 2003. Some individuals had their jobs saved, but the union lost over 5000 jobs since we gave away those concessions.

The TWU in Tulsa has been standing side by side the Chamber of Commerce of Tulsa making a plea to "save the jobs" and the arguement is that the Tulsa economy depends on those jobs. Even the Politicians are being hoodwinked into a belief that this T/A would save jobs.

Simply not true.
There is a difference between an individual having a job, and overall headcount being reduced via attrition. The company uses the individual and the sympathy that others might have for that individual to get these type of agreements passed, but yet the Union, the Profession, and the Community of Tulsa still suffers job loss.

Is this that hard to understand?

Individual Jobs - A person gets to keep his/her job

Headcount Reduction - The job market, the local economy, and the community lose that economic monetary value of the job via attrition. The Seniority List still shrinks by thousands.

Those of us on the VOTE NO side see this difference, those on the VOTE YES side either don't see the difference or don't care about overall headcount loss as long as they still have a job. There is no future for the Tulsa job market in this T/A.....period. The Tulsa economy will suffer millions in losses regardless of the vote count on this T/A.

 

[Strake]

So why not vote yes and buy a little more time?

 

[TWU informer]

So why not vote yes and buy a little more time?

I dont want to buy any time! In this case "time" as you seem to believe in, is too expensive.

Voting yes doesn't buy time, it buys a TIME LOCK, as in 6 years of harsh concessions.

I want to buy job security, and a future.

Voting NO buys more negotiations, and less time lock.

 

[Rogallo]

So why not vote yes and buy a little more time?

For who?

 

[Overspeed]

Much worse?
Are we losing our pension either way?
Are we losing our Retiree Medical either way?
Will we be at the bottom of the industry for six years either way?
Can they cut 4000 or more heads either way?
Are the APA pilots at the very bottom of the industry? Are they 20% below United?
Are the APFA Flight Attendants at the very bottom of the industry? Are they 20% below United?

The question is whether or not the company under 1113 can impose terms that are different than those they presented to the court. Even the company says they cant, now why would they say that? Do you think they want people to vote no to see if the Judge will abrogate?

I'll get you a guarantee as soon as you get me one that says that the company will not eliminate 4000 jobs and that our total Compensation won't be bottom of the industry for the next six years if we vote YES.

I've repeatedly showed you how a YES vote would allow the company to outsource over 4000 and shed thousands more. you have yet to produce anything other than the companys claim that a Yes vote "may" save 2000 jobs. Still waiting for your explaination as to how a Yes vote will save 2000 jobs.

My position is that we would probably fare better in a PEB than the other groups because we are so far below industry standard.

Yes we are losing our pension, retiree medical, and bottom of the industry in pay. We are in the BK that you said back in 2010 that was scare tactic remember. Voting down another TA will not bring those items back. We would be at near top pay now had we voted in the May 2010 TA just like the MCTs are now. The MCTs at least listened to the TWU Int'l advice and voted in the deal because it put them in a better position in BK like you were told. Instead you actually believe the BS you create and spread such as BK being a scare tactic and now we are screwed out of all those things you mention plus working from a lower wage in court. Good advice Bob.

You have not justified your point about losing 4,000 jobs anyway. You have demonstrated nothing of the sort nor have you provided a professional analysis which does, much less explain how we will be in a better position to fight future lay offs if we are working under the term sheet. it is true that new aircraft will drive down the need for AO work the aircraft they are replacing will be hear well in to the sixth year of the TA. The new aircraft will be coming online and since they are new and will not require a HC for over six years, there will be little AO cost on the A320, 787, 777-300, and new 737NG and MAX for the first five years. Outsourcing 35% of the AO/EO maintenance spend that is near zero is virtually zero cost and no jobs. Do the math and think through the whole argument before you state your "fun facts."

Why? Because their experts align with our experts and say we will be screwed under abrogation. You say that we are behind UAL and the pilots are not. Well, the pilots at UAL, unlike the mechanics, had not agreed to a post bankruptcy contract. Now they have, although it is eight years after their final bankruptcy agreement. I do not know the terms of the contract, but I would predict that it will be comparable to the recent Delta contract. Have you read the APA and APFA presentations on their website? Do you know that per their information they are near the bottom on NB pilot wages? Well they are and with the new UA/ALPA TA they will fall further behind and lower on the scale yet the APA is recommending a yes vote on their TA.

As usual Bob, you didn’t answer my point. We will not get a release while the Company is in bankruptcy and it is unlikely we will get a release for several years after that. The NMB does not give releases easily and if it is controlled by Republicans after November they will not give them at all. No release, no PEB, much less a PEB recommendation that any of us will like. Following your plan we will likely still be in negotiations with the Company three years from now when the proposed agreement would give us the right to industry standard pay. During that time we will get less in pension and less in pay.

On your final point, all AA has said is that if the judge abrogates our agreement it intends to impose the term sheet until a new agreement is negotiated. On the one hand, you are willing to rely on this assurance (even though they have not agreed that this is their obligation under the RLA), but when the Company represents in bargaining that it will furlough 2,000 less mechanics under the proposed agreement we are supposed to rely on your calculations.

Bob, enjoy your time in China and maybe you can do some MRO benchmarking by taking a flight to AMECO Beijing.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

So why not vote yes and buy a little more time?

Because voting yes is the cowardly/twu thing to do. Buy more time to do what? "Fight like Hell?".

 

[Strake]

For who?

For those in OH. It's not too hard to understand the faster AO goes away the easier it will be for the AMFA to succeed in its raid attempt. Less people in OH means less push back.