Not all airlines use bankruptcy as tool to shed contracts

[Redbone]

Tell us crybaby...your analogy for NUMBER one airline in the world?

It was YOU...their master of crybaby...who needed to change it from the NORM. From revenue...

AF/KLM...

Let's change it to "margin".....how embarrassing....
Educate WALL SREET ...we WILL be here and ready!

FACTS are sooooo difficult to deal with.
The ULTIMATE crybaby with no serious answers...

Let me get this straight. A skilled person whom has a value in the same manner as pilot? Where you going without a pilot?

Where you going with out a plumber?. I hope you are not an airline employee., cause we are letting the wrong kind of scum slip through.

Love your whine......

It was YOU...their master of crybaby...who needed to change it from the NORM. From revenue...

AF/KLM...'

Please show us where ATW refers to "margin"

I don't know where you live but, nurses, pilots, plummers...even garbage men/women have the SAME importance.

Pompous A$$.

 

[Bear96]

You'll figure it out when you need us and we are on strike.

Doubt it. I rarely travel anymore. Strike all you want. Won't affect me a bit.

I'll challenge your pompous A$$ anytime or place intellectually. I do what I do for pleasure, demean these people and I promise... I WILL, put you in your place intellectually.

I'm not sure what you mean. You want me to be afraid of your vast "intellect" but you can't even define "working class"? Yeah, I'm scared.

Please allow me to show you what IQ lurks behind the working class.

But aren't I "working class" too? I don't have a million dollars in the bank.

No need to show your IQ this post says it all. what is a MESA?

Now that's embarassing.



Good catch, Mikey. Wish I saw it before it was edited.

 

[Bear96]

Let me get this straight. A skilled person whom has a value in the same manner as pilot? Where you going without a pilot?

Where you going with out a plumber?. I hope you are not an airline employee., cause we are letting the wrong kind of scum slip through.

Love your whine......

Redbone,

Here's your chance for that intellectual debate you were itching for.

ModerAAtor was the first one brave enough to step forward with a definition of "working class." (And a pretty good one, too, I thought.) Yet all you can do is tear it apart.

Why don't you post YOUR definition of working class for us to evaluate? After all, you can use the chance to dazzle us with your intellectual ability, and make ModerAAtor look less intelligent than you because no doubt a gifted "MESA" ( ) member such as yourself will come up with a better answer than anyone else, right? Instead of tearing others' ideas down (or mindlessly echoing them when you agree with them, for example by reposting the lengthy post from the F/A testimony), let's hear some of your own profound ideas. After all, someone as smart and articulate as you must be bursting with them.

So let's hear it! Since you think ModerAAtor is wrong, enlighten us as to what "working class" is!

And ModerAAtor, thanks for the response. I suppose your definition -- looking at job type -- makes more sense than just looking at annual salary. However, I am still interested in hearing a definition from those who are trying to create class warfare by using the term, to make sure we are all on the same page.

I am still puzzled by Redbone's criticism of ModerAAtor's definition; I am not sure what s/he is getting at. "A skilled person whom has a value in the same manner as pilot?" :blink: What??? I guess Redbone's advanced writing, syntax and grammar skills are just above my intellectual abilities to comprehend. Poor ignorant me. (Redbone, are you saying pilots are or aren't working class? I can't tell.)

 

[eolesen]

Redbonehead can only refute what he can find in Wikipedia or on Google.

 

[FA Mikey]

Challenge me on MENSA?

I shall CHALLENGE you intellectually or embarrass you...You have picked the challenge that I will end.

I look forward to your "brilliance"

You have picked the wrong cookie.

Stick to the intellect...I WiLL put you out of business(BIG MOUTH)
I am loving this.

Yes,
good luck,
LOL,
Cookie I thought you were a MESA?
ok,
Good luck,
you are something that is for sure.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes, AA has done a very good job at running a business - but having the industry's highest labor CASM is not sustainable - and it is keeping AA from growing until it is settled.

If AA has the highest labor costs while paying less than many others then they are not doing a good job of running the business.

What is at issue here is that you make it sound like the Republicans screwed us AT AMERICAN AIRLINES! How their actions affect Americans is one thing, but we were screwed by AA management and the TWU. Plain and simple.

OUR CONCESSIONS WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE TWU/AA LOVE FEST.
I am not arguing the Republicans' pro corporation stance, but do you really believe our industry leading concessionary debacle would have been any different under a different congress and administration?

I've blamed both parties but the fact is that the Republican party as a whole are more hostile to the economic interests of working people than their Democratic counterparts.

 

[Bob Owens]

Doubt it. I rarely travel anymore. Strike all you want. Won't affect me a bit.

So I guess you dont consume things any more either, you forget that the bottom half of the plane carries your mail and lots of other stuff.

Its also very smug of you to make a statement like that when you know the courts will block any actions that we take to defend our interests.

What does the term "working class" mean to you? Give us your definition.

FMs definition comes close but the fact is that today many with college degrees would also qualify as working class in that they have the same economic intrests concerns and struggles. I would not attempt to define it by any specific income amount, since after all $50k in Oklahoma is different than $50k in NYC. More important than a number would be the situation, working class people sell their labor,and individually have little impact on what the rate offered for that labor is . So working class could easily include people whose job requires a college degree.

 

[Hopeful]

If AA has the highest labor costs while paying less than many others then they are not doing a good job of running the business.
I've blamed both parties but the fact is that the Republican party as a whole are more hostile to the economic interests of working people than their Democratic counterparts.

Yes, but, again, in the case of US getting screwed, had more to do with the TWU/AA love fest than who controls Congress.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes, but, again, in the case of US getting screwed, had more to do with the TWU/AA love fest than who controls Congress.

While there is no denying that the TWU is directly to blame for what happened to us there is more to the story. There is plenty more blame to spread around.Laws were put in place to protect workers from corrupt people like Jim Little and organizations like AA.

The US has a law on the books called the LMRDA. Who is responsible for enforcement of that law? The government, thats who. So when American Airlines makes illegal payments to the TWU like they have been, and continue to make and not report those payments who is responsible for upholding the law?

Its not as if this is a new law, its been on the books since 1959.

The fact is that I notified the DOL,which is under control of the Republican run White House and even went to see a Republican Congressman about this issue. So far everyone agrees that the payments are illegal and the fact that they went unreported is another crime, yet for nearly three years they have done nothing.Would it have been different under a Democratic regime? I dont know. This I do know, since I made my complaint the DOL has decided to enforce reporting requirements by unions, but not of companies paying money to unions.Why not both?

We are kind of screwed because on the one side American Airlines must very happy with the return that these illegal payments have given-$3 million a year for $600 million in pay cuts plus at least another $600 million saved through reduced headcounts, plus another $500 million in productivity increases. Thats $1.7 billion in return for a $3million a year investment!

How likely is it that the Republicans are going to act against AA?

How likely is it that the Democrats are going to act against the AFL-CIO affiliated TWU?

One thing is clear, the objective of the Republicans is to lower our wages. Elizabeth Dole directly attacked airline workers in the eighties claiming that we were over paid, at the time she was a Republican appointed cabinent member representing the Repiblican President, under the current Republican regime I personally witnessed a representative of the current Bush administration attack airline workers wages and say that the administration would do everything in their power to lower our wages so the airlines could provide cheap travel and high profits. I have never seen anything like that from the Democrats.We have to look through all the smoke and see what the results are,for us its lower wages, and if those results look like what someone said they wanted to achieve then you can safely suspect that they had a hand in it.

 

[Bear96]

What does the term "working class" mean to you? Give us your definition.

I really don't know what it means. That is why I don't use the term. It is also why I was asking those that do use the term what they mean by it. I have a job and work hard (and therefore am "working") . . . I am far from rich (wich I gather to be an essential element to be in this "working class" of which you speak) . . . sounds like 90% of the population.

If 90% of the population is "working class," it's not a very meaningful term to use to try to make a point or rally the troops around to start a class war.

More important than a number would be the situation, working class people sell their labor,and individually have little impact on what the rate offered for that labor is.

I think for any job it is accurate to say an individual worker has little impact on the rate offered for the labor. The wages for all jobs are ultimately determined by supply and demand -- i.e., the number of qualified workers available for a position compared to the number of openings as a whole. If there are lots of qualified people chasing a relatively few positions, wages will go down. So your definition too seems to include 90% of the population.

 

[Bob Owens]

I really don't know what it means. That is why I don't use the term. It is also why I was asking those that do use the term what they mean by it. I have a job and work hard (and therefore am "working") . . . I am far from rich (wich I gather to be an essential element to be in this "working class" of which you speak) . . . sounds like 90% of the population.

If 90% of the population is "working class," it's not a very meaningful term to use to try to make a point or rally the troops around to start a class war.

Why not?

Like I said"I look for the day when working class people, both conservative and liberal realize that they have more in common than they realize and that neither party looks to serve their common interests but exploits their differences so they can exploit them economically."

So yea 90%-your figure, would be considerd working class.

I think for any job it is accurate to say an individual worker has little impact on the rate offered for the labor. The wages for all jobs are ultimately determined by supply and demand -- i.e., the number of qualified workers available for a position compared to the number of openings as a whole.

Supply and demand are "a factor" but not the sole factor. When you have power you can maniplulate the system. For instance the government intercedes and tilts the scales in favor of capital. If airline workers had complete freedom to withhold their services we could most certainly get more than we are getting, but the courts do not allow us to exploit the limited supply of airline labor and act collectively. NWA is an example of where the court imposed concessions and prevented the flight attendants from striking. Obviously there is more to what is going on in this industry than your textbook definitions cover.

While your theory may be textbook its not reality because it attempts to oversimplify a very complex situation.

Your application of the theory only applies to hiring and replacement through attrition of individual workers and ignores the reality of unions which make the workgroup effectively a single supplier of labor to the single employer.Unions are just as fair in theory as corporations. To say that its unfair for workers to act collectively when they have to "compete" in the contest to set wages and determine supply and demand with collectives of capital is pure hypocrisy.

NWA admitted that they could not replace the flight attendant group and ordered the supplier of flight attendant labor(the AFA)to continue to supply labor at terms under which they did not agree to. No "supply and demand" equilibrium there when the supplier is compulsed by the government to supply.Can NWA replace individuals if they leave over time, maybe, could they replace the entire workgroup if they left at once-no, at least thats what they said in court.

The lame retort of "Oh well if the flight attendant doesnt like it they can quit as individuals" holds no water. The fact is the flight attendants have just as much right to act collectively as capital does. The equivelent example would be if the court ordered Exxon to give fuel to NWA, because they were mismanaged, fuel at 50 cents a gallon. If the stockholders of Exxon didnt like it they could sell their stock but Exxon as an entity could not stop suppling fuel.Now if the courts did that you and your kind would be screaming about the injustice of such an act and the rights of private property. Well how likely is it that the answer that 'you would have the right to either dispose of that property at a loss or hold onto it as it continues to diminish in value', like the Flight attendants of NWA are being told they are free to do with their careers, would be acceptable?

 

[Bear96]

Why not?

Like I said"I look for the day when working class people, both conservative and liberal realize that they have more in common than they realize and that neither party looks to serve their common interests but exploits their differences so they can exploit them economically."

So yea 90%-your figure, would be considerd working class.

OK, now I'm really confused. In previous posts when I was accused of "being against the working class," the implication was that I was not in "the working class." Now I am "working class"?

If airline workers had complete freedom to withhold their services we could most certainly get more than we are getting,

True. If individual airline workers would withhold their services in the airline industry by seeking employment elsewhere, the resulting shortage of workers would drive wages up. But airline workers aren't willing to do that; they mysteriously come to work every day by the thousands to work for wages they claim they cannot "survive" on. Makes no sense to me.

NWA is an example of where the court imposed concessions and prevented the flight attendants from striking.

I disagree with your overly-simplistic and misleading assessment of the NW court decision. The court did not say the F/As could never strike. It said the F/As could not strike yet (at that point in time), because they had not exhausted the administrative process.

Obviously there is more to what is going on in this industry than your textbook definitions cover. . . . While your theory may be textbook its not reality because it attempts to oversimplify a very complex situation.

How so? My textbook explanation is that if there are lots of people willing to do the work for little money, wages will not be very high. Isn't that exactly what is going on? The big picture really is simple when you think about it.

Your application of the theory only applies to hiring and replacement through attrition of individual workers and ignores the reality of unions which make the workgroup effectively a single supplier of labor to the single employer.

Unions supply the labor? So no one can get a job without being a union member? That's odd, considering the closed shop has been illegal in this country for decades now.

Unions are just as fair in theory as corporations.

Agreed. In fact, I dislike seeing workers squander the power they have under labor laws. Most of them are to preoccupied with the "my union is less worse than yours" or "my union sucks and is corrupt" nonsense, and with criticizing those who do step forward to be union leaders, to realize how much power the could have if they would use their collective power wisely.

To say that its unfair for workers to act collectively when they have to "compete" in the contest to set wages and determine supply and demand with collectives of capital is pure hypocrisy.

When did I say that?

No "supply and demand" equilibrium there when the supplier is compulsed by the government to supply.

No one can "compulse" an individual employee to supply his or her labor. If you don't think you are getting enough return for your labor, go elsewhere. If enough people did that, the craft they are abandoning would be forced to pay more money for workers' labor. But again, airline employees are strangely wedded to the aura and mystique and supposed "glamor" of air travel, and have made it quite clear they are willing to work for low wages. Too bad for them.

The lame retort of "Oh well if the flight attendant doesnt like it they can quit as individuals" holds no water. The fact is the flight attendants have just as much right to act collectively as capital does.

That's true.

Now let me ask you, what happens if Jim Cramer on Mad Money tonight says, "Corporation XYZ is undervalued at $8/share and is a great investment opportunity! Buy buy buy!" and first thing at the opening bell tomorrow tens of thousands of individual investors rush in to buy at $8/share? Oops! The price just went up! They won't get as much bang for their buck as they were hoping! That old supply and demand thing. Just like workers won't get as much bang for their hour of labor if lots of them are willing to do it for a low wage.

The equivelent example would be if the court ordered Exxon to give fuel to NWA, because they were mismanaged, fuel at 50 cents a gallon. If the stockholders of Exxon didnt like it they could sell their stock but Exxon as an entity could not stop suppling fuel.Now if the courts did that you and your kind would be screaming about the injustice of such an act and the rights of private property.

First, "me and my kind"? I'm working class, remember? (See the top of the post.)

Second, you have posted this erroneous example at least dozens -- if not hundreds -- of times over the past year or so, and it has been refuted and shown to be inaccurate many times by me and others. I don't feel like repeating myself yet again.

Well how likely is it that the answer that 'you would have the right to either dispose of that property at a loss or hold onto it as it continues to diminish in value', like the Flight attendants of NWA are being told they are free to do with their careers, would be acceptable?

I would advise NWA F/As, and any other airline employee who feels they are being treated unfairly, to do just what I did at UA when I saw the value of my labor diminish. After concessions, I decided it was no longer worth it. I made some tough decisions, went back to school for several years, gained a marketable skill, and am now in a new profession where I am currently earning 3X as much as I ever did at UA on my A-scale salary there (and which is in an entry-level position in this field).

 

[Bob Owens]

OK, now I'm really confused.

Second, you have posted this erroneous example at least dozens -- if not hundreds -- of times over the past year or so, and it has been refuted and shown to be inaccurate many times by me and others. I don't feel like repeating myself yet again.

You sir follow the logic of a Nazi, you insist on repeating a lie until you feel it is believed.

The comparasion is completely valid, labor has the right to act collectively just as Capital, or investors can act collectively. Once again you choose to ignore this fact and make false assertions. No need to repeat what you were never successful at saying in the first place.

You saying that you would advise any airline worker to accept what is going on or leave would be like if the scenario I described with Exxon occured and I said that the stockholders of Exxon who feel that they are being treted unfairly should use the money from the stock to start their own business and that they will probably make more that way than by investing in Exxon. Basically what the courts are doing is confiscating the labor of the AFA, it would be no different than confiscating the oil of Exxon.

 

[Bear96]

You sir follow the logic of a Nazi, you insist on repeating a lie until you feel it is believed.

The comparasion is completely valid, labor has the right to act collectively just as Capital, or investors can act collectively. Once again you choose to ignore this fact and make false assertions. No need to repeat what you were never successful at saying in the first place.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I have consistently agreed with you that labor has the right to act collectively. We don't disagree on that. Never have. Can't you read?

(And you of all people calling someone a Nazi for repeating the same thing over and over. How many of your posts in the last year have gone into the same faulty Exxon analogy?)

You saying that you would advise any airline worker to accept what is going on or leave would be like if the scenario I described with Exxon occured and I said that the stockholders of Exxon who feel that they are being treted unfairly should use the money from the stock to start their own business and that they will probably make more that way than by investing in Exxon.

If investors feel their investments are not paying off adequately, I certainly would advise them to find other uses for their money where they would obtain better ROI.

Basically what the courts are doing is confiscating the labor of the AFA, it would be no different than confiscating the oil of Exxon.

AFA has no inherent "labor" to provide. (Is AFA's headquarters a F/A training academy? No.) The individual F/As provide labor. AFA provides representation to its members, who provide labor to the airline, which provides air transportation.

The comprarison with Exxon would be to Exxon's shareholders' lawyers. Exxon's shareholders' lawyers do not provide oil. Exxon's shareholders' lawyers provide representation to Exxon's shareholders, who provide capital to Exxon, which drills and refines and sells oil.

Now, if the government were to confiscate Exxon's oil, I would certainly expect Exxon's individual investors to flee. Likewise, if you feel your employer is somehow "confiscating" your labor (a characterization with which I disagree), I would advise you to flee as well.

 

[Bob Owens]

What on Earth are you talking about?

I have consistently agreed with you that labor has the right to act collectively. We don't disagree on that. Never have. Can't you read?

(And you of all people calling someone a Nazi for repeating the same thing over and over. How many of your posts in the last year have gone into the same faulty Exxon analogy?)

The analogy is valid.

If investors feel their investments are not paying off adequately, I certainly would advise them to find other uses for their money where they would obtain better ROI.

Thats not the isue. The issue is does the government have the right to confiscate the property of the corporation by imposing a contract, for the use of another corporation.

AFA has no inherent "labor" to provide. (Is AFA's headquarters a F/A training academy? No.)

Wrong. The AFA holds the contract just like a corporation holds a contract.

The individual F/As provide labor. AFA provides representation to its members, who provide labor to the airline, which provides air transportation.

Under terms held by the AFA. That would be like saying that Exxon didnt bring the oil the individual driving the truck did.Who holds the contract?

The comprarison with Exxon would be to Exxon's shareholders' lawyers. Exxon's shareholders' lawyers do not provide oil. Exxon's shareholders' lawyers provide representation to Exxon's shareholders, who provide capital to Exxon, which drills and refines and sells oil.

Another strawman. The AFA was directed to comply with the terms of a contract that it did not agree to. That would be like diecting Exxon to sell oil for terms it did not agree to.

Now, if the government were to confiscate Exxon's oil, I would certainly expect Exxon's individual investors to flee.

Flee, or fight? Do you for one second believe that the courts would rule in favor of private property when it comes to corporations? Its a known fact that corporations own our government, why would you think that the Judicial would be different?

Didnt the US government protest Chavez's plans to sieze control of the phone company?

Likewise, if you feel your employer is somehow "confiscating" your labor (a characterization with which I disagree), I would advise you to flee as well.

Some flee, some fight. If you flee everytime sooner or later there will be nowhere left to run. If you fight you may have a chance.