I see you're tune is changing again. I've said all along that AA makes up figures, (like the $3.5 billion loss in 2003) to achieve what they want with labor. Now you seem to feel the same way.
$500 million? Just a number, on the one hand they claim that they saved $500 million and just a few weeks back they announced that their labor costs were unexpectedly higher. So which is it, did they cut costs or simply transfer them?
When they send C-check cards out to the line, pay OT as a result, do they still credit Tulsa with the manhours for the card or for the C-check accomplishment? If they moved out the C-check work so they could bring in third party work can they really count that as additional income for the base when they havent been accomplishing what they are there for? The fact is its misleading which is what we have come to expect from AA management.
By making the announcement about costs going up they covered themselves with the SEC, yet they still get to spin things for the consumption of the workforce. Why? Because its a psycological game they are playing. The workforce is demoralized and less productive-the debacle in Austin is a prime example-(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/02/04/INGFLNSJ6M1.DTL)and they want to make them feel that despite the lower pay everybody else is happy in the hopes that people will simply accept poverty with a smile on their face for the customers.
By the way Local 100 has zero effect on what happens in the ATD. Jim Little, the head of the TWU comes from AA management, not from Local 100. Besides most of us wish we were more like Local 100, "thugs" or not.
) 
