Profit sharing

[Bob Owens]

I spoke with Sharon Levine within weeks of the BK filing. Her mind was made up on what our fate was before the fight began. She had a mindset that was prerecorded and had no desire to fight on our behalf other than the  lip service  gig at a few hearings.
 
We watched the company poor through cash at the maintenance base on stupid ass projects prior to the BK filing and couldnt understand why since the company was struggling with high fuel costs. I told a manager that it looked like they were getting ready to file for BK. His comment was that the company prided itself to much on the fact that they were the last legacy to not file and wouldnt because of that. I answered back that the company would do it to get out of retiree med n to get out from under the pensions. Then the corporate world would high five Horton for how bad he screwed his employees. The manager didnt think that would happen.  
Your right when you say file with 5 billion in profits. Hell why not file next month before the 2015 profits role in and make people question why they filed. Thats why they filed when they did in 2011. Their window was closing and the industry was coming back regardless of the merger.
Its flat disgusting the way the twu zealots try and discredit its members for having a voice and speaking out.
 
Every time I here one of them defend giving up profit sharing since it hasnt paid off over the years makes me wonder if they think we are really that stupid not realize that all the parameters are different concerning profit sharing going forward. Jim Little nor any one individual should have been in a position to make that call on his or their own.   

Why would Sharon Levine want to make filing for BK unappealing? She makes her living that way and the money that pays her comes from the company. 
 
Let the good times roll!!!! As  long as companies can screw over their workers she will be very wealthy. She gets nothing extra by winning, and if she won enough fewer companies would file. 

 

[scorpion 2]

Why would Sharon Levine want to make filing for BK unappealing? She makes her living that way and the money that pays her comes from the company. 
 
Let the good times roll!!!! As  long as companies can screw over their workers she will be very wealthy. She gets nothing extra by winning, and if she won enough fewer companies would file. 

Its mind blowing that the union would allow the company to pay their legal expenses when by proxy the members are paying for everything,,,,,, regardless of a company intervention on covering the tab.  The line guys need to keep the faith::; Tulsa is not the enemy as a lot of guys think;,    we at Tulsa have been manipulated for years by the twu international and their games of coercing the local leadership.  Why do you think so many local officers from 514 have been elevated to the international level over the years.       

 

[NYer]

I have an idea.   Instead of back dooring the twu's agenda so that the membership (((who supposedly ARE THE UNION)))   have no voice,   lets try a democratic vote sometime. Nothing like having a bunch of lackys deciding your fate and then adding insult to injury you pay them to do it. DFR suits are very hard to prove but it doesnt mean that they arent valid or lack substance. My hats off to these guys for standing up for what they believe in.    

 
Uh-huh. You lose a lawsuit but it doesn't mean you lost. Copy.

 

[NYer]

NYer and Sharon Levine made out real well.
 
  They cant wait for the next one. "Hey if you can file with $5 billion in the bank why not file with $5billion in profits", Where does it say that a company earning billions in profits cant enjoy the benefits of a bankruptcy filing??? No doubt Mark Richard has all his rehersed panic inducing speaches memorized for the next round. 

 
Oh. Sorry. I thought bankruptcy was about debt, not cash on hand.
 
I guess if we would have waited a little longer they could have burned through that cash. That seems to be your preferred mode for us to have to go through a bankruptcy. It must mean little that in order to go through a bankruptcy with no cash means you'd have to borrow to pay the bills while you're in the process. As a matter of fact, the lenders in that situation would even be able to dictate what happens with your contract and the "First Day Orders" usually make drastic cuts in pay and benefits.
 
On second thought, Bob. Your way sounds better. Burn through the cash, we get immediate pay cuts but at least we showed them something...That would make it easier to get them closer to a liquidation which is also your idea of progress.

 

[NYer]

The assertions that Unions should be democratic and serve the membership was wrong I guess. 
 
So its your opinion that every Court decision is correct and those who lost were wrong? Hmm, even our court system allows for appeals and for judgements to be overturned.
 
Didn't the court once rule that African Americans are property?
 
Didn't the court once rule that it was OK to exclude Jews from membership and employment?
 
Didn't the court once rule that Unions were illegal?
 
According to you the court is always right. Like I said, if you want Jokes hire Mark Richard, if you want good legal advice-don't. 

 
I like the way you criticize the lawyers and the process, which in your opinion are completely wrong. You guys have lawsuits flying all over the place but they usually lose. That means your lawyers are even worse than those you criticize. How ironic.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Oh. Sorry. I thought bankruptcy was about debt, not cash on hand.
 
I guess if we would have waited a little longer they could have burned through that cash. That seems to be your preferred mode for us to have to go through a bankruptcy. It must mean little that in order to go through a bankruptcy with no cash means you'd have to borrow to pay the bills while you're in the process. As a matter of fact, the lenders in that situation would even be able to dictate what happens with your contract and the "First Day Orders" usually make drastic cuts in pay and benefits.
 
On second thought, Bob. Your way sounds better. Burn through the cash, we get immediate pay cuts but at least we showed them something...That would make it easier to get them closer to a liquidation which is also your idea of progress.

Spin away AA  would have been showing profits by 2012. They actually started accumulating more cash long before our concessions went into affect, if not for the cost of bankruptcy they would have shown a profit while in bankruptcy. They never claimed that their prior business plan wasn't profitable, they claimed it wasn't profitable enough to give investors a competitive return. 
 
So we get people like you pushing through uncompetitive contracts so the airlines can give their investors competitive returns. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
I like the way you criticize the lawyers and the process, which in your opinion are completely wrong. You guys have lawsuits flying all over the place but they usually lose. That means your lawyers are even worse than those you criticize. How ironic.

So I guess in your view "Citizens United" is correct and we should just accept it right? Just because you lose doesn't mean you shouldn't fight. I'd rather land a few blows and lose than do nothing an lose. 

 

[NYer]

So I guess in your view "Citizens United" is correct and we should just accept it right? Just because you lose doesn't mean you shouldn't fight. I'd rather land a few blows and lose than do nothing an lose. 

 
Then you must be very content. You're been fighting and taking body blows to your theories of how to achieve a satisfactory return.
 
BTW--Your "vote no" theory took another blow with the Envoy pilots. They voted no, they had planes go to other regionals and now they overwhelmingly accepted a 10-year CBA, with more concessions...but at least they get to fly the rest of the planes not already allocated to those other regionals.
 
I must admit, you're due to get one right. The odds are certainly in your favor now.

 

[scorpion 2]

 
Uh-huh. You lose a lawsuit but it doesn't mean you lost. Copy.

What it does mean is that you fought. You may have been right but it didnt go your way. 
 
If you never swim upstream then you will always go down.

 

[NYer]

What it does mean is that you fought. You may have been right but it didnt go your way. 
 
If you never swim upstream then you will always go down.

 
If you always fight you could miss an opportunity when it shows itself. Being on the side of NO continuously hasn't worked for quite some time in this industry.
 
The purpose of fighting is to make a positive gain, not to fight just for the sake of fighting...nothing is gained in that mindset. It is predictable and can be exploited.
 
It's amazing how it escapes our group, one that fights for everything, that we are also the only group in AA that finds ourselves at the bottom of the wage scales.
 
In order to explain that we have leadership like Bob that tells us that's the fault of Arpey, Horton, Parker, Judge Lane, Sharon Levine, Mark Richards, John Donnelly, Jim Little, Don Videtich, Bobby Gless, the NMB, the NMB Mediators, other unions, most leadership in 514, Fleet Service Clerks, most lawyers, other maintenance Presidents, other title groups, newspaper columnists, ect., ect.

 

[MetalMover]

 
Oh. Sorry. I thought bankruptcy was about debt, not cash on hand.
 
I guess if we would have waited a little longer they could have burned through that cash. That seems to be your preferred mode for us to have to go through a bankruptcy. It must mean little that in order to go through a bankruptcy with no cash means you'd have to borrow to pay the bills while you're in the process. As a matter of fact, the lenders in that situation would even be able to dictate what happens with your contract and the "First Day Orders" usually make drastic cuts in pay and benefits.
 
On second thought, Bob. Your way sounds better. Burn through the cash, we get immediate pay cuts but at least we showed them something...That would make it easier to get them closer to a liquidation which is also your idea of progress.

And they just paid you for all your sacrifice by NOT giving you the 4%.
Why don't you get your tin cup and set up shop like a Salvation Army Santa begging for 4%.

 

[NYer]

And they just paid you for all your sacrifice by NOT giving you the 4%.
Why don't you get your tin cup and set up shop like a Salvation Army Santa begging for 4%.

 
 
If we ever get a JCBA, at least I know that will be included.
 
If you think ahead, you might see that getting later might just be in our better long term advantage...but since it seems the closed-mindness is so powerful you haven't really seen that yet.
 
It'll come.

 

[scorpion 2]

 
If you always fight you could miss an opportunity when it shows itself. Being on the side of NO continuously hasn't worked for quite some time in this industry.
 
The purpose of fighting is to make a positive gain, not to fight just for the sake of fighting...nothing is gained in that mindset. It is predictable and can be exploited.
 
It's amazing how it escapes our group, one that fights for everything, that we are also the only group in AA that finds ourselves at the bottom of the wage scales.
 
In order to explain that we have leadership like Bob that tells us that's the fault of Arpey, Horton, Parker, Judge Lane, Sharon Levine, Mark Richards, John Donnelly, Jim Little, Don Videtich, Bobby Gless, the NMB, the NMB Mediators, other unions, most leadership in 514, Fleet Service Clerks, most lawyers, other maintenance Presidents, other title groups, newspaper columnists, ect., ect.

What has been predictable and exploited is the way the twu has sold fear to Tulsa.  Bob is one man with one vote unless your dealing with international positions then he is one man with NO vote. Your blasting him for speaking up comes across as a company man or an unelected international guy but definitely not a union man fed up.   

 

[NYer]

What has been predictable and exploited is the way the twu has sold fear to Tulsa.  Bob is one man with one vote unless your dealing with international positions then he is one man with NO vote. Your blasting him for speaking up comes across as a company man or an unelected international guy but definitely not a union man fed up.   

 
I stand corrected. The definition of a union man is to follow Bob. Copy.
 
We are all free to express ourselves without being labeled, as long as it is the approved version from Bob.

 

[scorpion 2]

 
I stand corrected. The definition of a union man is to follow Bob. Copy.
 
We are all free to express ourselves without being labeled, as long as it is the approved version from Bob.

Well you have a right to your opinion but I didnt realize you held Bob in such high regard.