Schnurman: American Airlines pilots need a reality check

[FWAAA]

Show me one year where the executives at AA did NOT receive PUPS or some other form of bonus pay.....

Here's four years in a row: AMR paid no variable comp at all for any executives in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. PUP payouts in April 2006, PSP payouts in April 2007 and 2008 and probably again this month.

 

[Hopeful]

Here's four years in a row: AMR paid no variable comp at all for any executives in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. PUP payouts in April 2006, PSP payouts in April 2007 and 2008 and probably again this month.

To clarify...I meant DURING the time from 2003 when we all took concessions....And as I recall, the PUP was a 5 year program where they got their first payout in 2004. Now tell me they didn't get raises restored and more.....Post some documents and show me where they did NOT get everything they gave back and then some...

The fact that you're a lawyer does not make your explanation the end all..

The bottom line is they are still getting THEIRS...while the rest of us should bend over backwards and kiss their butts for a $50 AIP payout....

And since it's ALL EQUITY and doesn't cost the company a dime...HOW ABOUT A FEW THOUSAND SHARES FOR EACH EMPLOYEE?


Did I tell you that part of the 2003 concession raping, the company took LONGEVITY pay from us which WAS A PENNY PER YEAR OF SERVICE FOR UP TO 15 YEARS AND $.15 MAX\???????????????????????

AND YOU ARE DEFENDING THESE GREEDY ARROGANT SUITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T COMPARE TO THEIR PEERS????????????????


Typical Wall Street greed mentality...

 

[FWAAA]

To clarify...I meant DURING the time from 2003 when we all took concessions....And as I recall, the PUP was a 5 year program where they got their first payout in 2004.

Your recollection is faulty. No PUP, PSP or other bonus payments to any execs in 2002-2005. The first PUP payout in several years happened in April 2006. In 2007 and 2008, the lucky 800-some execs got PSP payouts.

 

[Hopeful]

Your recollection is faulty. No PUP, PSP or other bonus payments to any execs in 2002-2005. The first PUP payout in several years happened in April 2006. In 2007 and 2008, the lucky 800-some execs got PSP payouts.

Not the way I recall it....

But I bet they got annual raises since then...Did I tell you my annual raise was $.44 cents per hour for 5 years?


And save your breath about the TWU negotiating anything better...Even if they were capable, we would now be hearing how greedy and unrealistic we are and paying a very high PR price like the UAW is experiencing now.

Give me a proportionate plan like the execs get....not a few shares,

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I also know that despite the fact that this industry has reported losses for the majority of the last 25 years it has continued to expand for most of those 25 years. In other words profits really dont matter.

If we wait for the industry to make profits before we ask for a raise we would have been be making minimum wage for the last 75 years, in fact our executives built their bonuses not around profits but on beeing "less unprofitable".

So why should we allow whether or not the company is going to make money determine what we charge for our labor? If this industry is so critical that we arent allowed to strike then profitability doesnt matter.


Well stated Bob


I want mine

 

[eolesen]

But I bet they got annual raises since then...Did I tell you my annual raise was $.44 cents per hour for 5 years?

Give me a proportionate plan like the execs get....not a few shares,

Just because you don't recall it doesn't mean it isn't factual. Annual "raises" for management were on the order of 1.5% in 2004 thru 2006, which is probably not too far off from your $0.44 raise. I wouldn't consider 1.5% a snapback by any measure.

The PUP plan existed for a long time before it paid out. That's because AMR's stock performance sucked relative to the peer group for a long time... I could go back thru the SEC filings to find out when it started, but it's a moot point. The only "bonuses" paid out in 1998 thru 2000 were profit sharing and management incentive.

 

[Hopeful]

The only "bonuses" paid out in 1998 thru 2000 were profit sharing and management incentive.

Management "incentive." What a laugh......If they don't get their "incentive," they threaten to leave, and because AA cannot afford to let it's "key" talent leave, they get "accomodated."

Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to get on our hands and knees and be grateful for the $50 AIP payout........YIPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.


The bottom line is this.....I GOT 449 SHARES OF STOCK FOR A $20,000 A YEAR PAYCUT TOTALLING $120,000....THE STOCK HAS TO HIT $267 FOR ME TO COME NEAR WHAT I GAVE BACK.......
So defend all these executives as much as you want......I'm glad the country is seeing all the Wall Street greed being exposed....The very same greed you defend.

All I hear from you and other anti-union pro company ilks, is how unreasonable we are to even ask for "restore." You and FWAAA tell uis how worthless our union is, but when we finally act like one, you call us out of line and unrealistic. make up your mind...
I never have in the past faulted ANYONE for what they earn....But what was taken from me was called "SHARED SACRIFICE" was a travesty while the executives have not shared, and however you decide to slice it. the executives got THEIRS back while the average employee is still in the hole...

Let the executives quit if they don't like it....you know just like our irreplaceable management team tell us...

Maybe instead of outsourcing jobs, we should start outsourcing executives...Wouldn't that save a bundle of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Hopeful]

QUOTE (eolesen @ Jan 27 2008, 05:17 PM)
No, the Voice of "Double Your Paycheck" spoke, and I listened. And I don't regret that one bit. Especially the part where my family's stability depends on whatever some dumba$$ union thinks.



No, you're not anti-union all.

 

[eolesen]

I'm not anti-union.

I'm anti-dumbass.

 

[Hackman]

I'm not anti-union.

I'm anti-dumbass.

You sure spend a lot of time here trying to prove your not.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The bottom line is this.....I GOT 449 SHARES OF STOCK FOR A $20,000 A YEAR PAYCUT TOTALLING $120,000....THE STOCK HAS TO HIT $267 FOR ME TO COME NEAR WHAT I GAVE BACK.......

I never have in the past faulted ANYONE for what they earn....But what was taken from me was called "SHARED SACRIFICE" was a travesty while the executives have not shared, and however you decide to slice it. the executives got THEIRS back while the average employee is still in the hole...

Let the executives quit if they don't like it....you know just like our irreplaceable management team tell us...

Reading these statements it seems to me that AA is a terrible company to work for (especially if you're an aircraft mechanic). So I'm going to ask: why not quit, leave the company and get a better job? Could it be that you know that you'll never be able to land a better job than your current AA job?

 

[Bagbelt]

I left along with many others I know and have a much better job. The current economic enviorment won't last forever. And when things do bounce back and the guys' are still making what they were in the late 90's what will be the excuse then?

 

[wcs]

So I'm going to ask: why not quit, leave the company and get a better job? Could it be that you know that you'll never be able to land a better job than your current AA job?

I've always wondered why so often when the workers complain about how management handles things the response is "why don't you just quit if you don't like it". My question would be "why can't we improve things", "why can't we question rewards for poor performance and poor decisions". Many members of the airline labor force have invested 15,20,30 years and more in the industry or even a particular airline. They have seen previous bad decisions recycled and new comer management rewarded for repeating history. But they don't quit because they have so much invested over time. So much of your pay, vacation and other benefits are base on seniority. That's why they stay. It also used to be from a sense of loyalty, but with how their being treated today think that may no longer be true.
But when they stick around for whatever reason why shouldn't they be able to question repeated failure when they see it coming? And not be asked to just quit

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I've always wondered why so often when the workers complain about how management handles things the response is "why don't you just quit if you don't like it". My question would be "why can't we improve things", "why can't we question rewards for poor performance and poor decisions". Many members of the airline labor force have invested 15,20,30 years and more in the industry or even a particular airline.

It would be just common sense if things were so bad for so long to move on. Especially if the claims of more rewarding jobs outside the airlines are true. 15, 20, 30 years of bad pay, bad benefits, incompetent management, bad union representation, bad working conditions etc. would be too much for me.

But they don't quit because they have so much invested over time. So much of your pay, vacation and other benefits are base on seniority. That's why they stay.

One could interpret this as saying that unions promote laziness. One is rewarded for sticking with a crAApy company for 15, 20, 30 years, but then enjoying the rewards of the seniority system (instead of being rewarded on merit of your performance as in any non-unionized company).

I am not a big fan of collectivism, it isn't my cup of tea. On one hand I don't have a problem with unions negotiating and companies agreeing to a seniority-based system. However I don't have a tolerance for a company and/or employees complaining down the road about how their collective bargaining agreement is screwing them.

It also used to be from a sense of loyalty, but with how their being treated today think that may no longer be true.
But when they stick around for whatever reason why shouldn't they be able to question repeated failure when they see it coming? And not be asked to just quit

I do not understand the so-called loyalty to a company that apparently treats employees so badly. It seems to me more of a case of being in an abusive relationship but not wanting to get out of it. Just not common sense to stick around, hence I have to ask why people don't leave.

 

[Bagbelt]

Most non-union co.'s don't have much in the way of benefits for the people on the floor. Unions achieved these but has slowly bled them away under the threat of bankruptcy etc. Real wages adjusted for inflation have been declining for 35 years. The economy has tanked finally because when the illusion of wealth through stock and housing bubbles went, few have the disposable income to actually buy anything.