Schnurman: American Airlines pilots need a reality check

[Bob Owens]

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.

You left out the fact that management never took a 25% paycut. Their 1.5% raises were on top of a paycheck that wasnt cut, maybe frozen for a few years(as ours was for most of the 90s) but they werent cut by 25%.

 

[wcs]

15, 20, 30 years of bad pay, bad benefits, incompetent management, bad union representation, bad working conditions etc. would be too much for me.

I never said it's been bad the entire time. My personal experience has been favorable for much of my career, but I resent having made recent sacrifices that are misapplied by management. I resent being lied to by upper management and I'll complain about it.

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).

That would be a poor interpretation of what I said. I said that you acquire greater benefits as
you acquire seniority. Senority may be an imperfect system but it prevents favoritism and cronyism

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.

Let's remember that there was little negotiating in the current CBAs. Carty went from asking Labor to give up 3% raises that were to become effective in the Spring of '03 to threatening
bankruptcy in a span of three months. Then the Labor group leadership struggled to meet management's demands while answering a flood of questions from the membership in what I recall to be a two month period. So have some tolerance when you hear complaints.

I do not understand the so-called loyalty to a company that apparently treats employees so badly.

That's why the loyalty doesn't exist anymore

 

[aamechntx]

FYI
Many employees have been with AA for almost two decades. We have seen three CEOs come and go. We have watched middle management changed more frequently than a newborn's diaper. I have had both union and non union jobs. I heard as much bickering and complaining at non union shops as I have heard here. There are a couple of differences though. First, most other companies aren't listed on a forum to discuss such things. Second, turn over is much higher in non union shops.
We have every right to question what management does with our company, I am a shareholder. So when I am asked to give up pay and benefits while management gets increases you better believe that I will not be quiet. Please give me an example, outside of this industry, where frontline workers sacrificed so much while upper management raped and diluted share value to get theirs. I have had my pay frozen, but never was I asked to give up pay our benefits. Only in this industry can someone take a pay cut at both ends of their career.

 

[eolesen]

You left out the fact that management never took a 25% paycut. Their 1.5% raises were on top of a paycheck that wasnt cut, maybe frozen for a few years(as ours was for most of the 90s) but they werent cut by 25%.

Really? Managers didn't see raises in 2000, 2001, or 2002. My 2003 pay cut was 17% of salary.

If you assume the same 1.5% raises for the time we didn't get anything (2000 to 2003), then I took a 21.5% cut; if you assume a 3% raise for those three years, then I took a 26% paycut.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Really? Managers didn't see raises in 2000, 2001, or 2002. My 2003 pay cut was 17% of salary.

If you assume the same 1.5% raises for the time we didn't get anything (2000 to 2003), then I took a 21.5% cut; if you assume a 3% raise for those three years, then I took a 26% paycut.

Don't try to confuse Bob with facts / numbers

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

There's an agenda here, and that is to distort things 100% in favor of the union negotiators. It's convenient to forget management pay cuts and four years without variable comp payouts, but it's not accurate.

Do the unions have a case to make for increased compensation? Of course. Is their case against management pay as strong as they try to make it sound? Not even close.

 

[AA32]

There's an agenda here, and that is to distort things 100% in favor of the union negotiators. It's convenient to forget management pay cuts and four years without variable comp payouts, but it's not accurate.

Do the unions have a case to make for increased compensation? Of course. Is their case against management pay as strong as they try to make it sound? Not even close.

Couldn't have said it better...

 

[Bagbelt]

It would not be as accute if there wasn't such an explosion of supervisors over the years. In the late 80"s early 90"s there would have been a shift super with crew chiefs doing even office work. Then, however, Fsc. was an attractive enough job that half the guys had college degrees. Now they employ twice the people to do the same job with half a dozen managers to try to bring it together. Paying a crew at $25 an hour that allways shows up and doesn't miss anything is alot cheaper than paying 6-8 people that aren't keeping those cabins clean and leave the mail and 4 or 5 bags sitting on the ground that cost $80 a piece to repatriate.

 

[eolesen]

I don't disagree, Bagbelt, but you can't overlook what's changed over the years. 25 years ago, you could bypass checkpoint security with an AOA badge. Heck, there were some airports where we were able to park at the terminal... Not the hangar, but outside ops on the AOA...

Look at what we go thru now.

Lack of adequate supervision is how AA wound up with the hazmat mess at MIA in the early 90's. I forget just how many people were required to put compliance coordinators and the like in place system-wide.

When I started with AA in the late 80's, injury rates were relatively low, and so was lost time. As injuries and lost time went up, OSHA started poking their nose into things, and so did the workers comp insurance guys. Both started demanding more oversight. And they got it.

Training? Used to be a couple of guys would do that in their spare time. AA gets dinged for noncompliance, and *BAM!* we had full fledged training departments with their own CSMs.

If you took all the government agencies and outsiders out of the equation, and all the mandated reporting that goes along with them, AA could probably go back to 1988 staffing with no problem.

 

[Bob Owens]

Really? Managers didn't see raises in 2000, 2001, or 2002. My 2003 pay cut was 17% of salary.

If you assume the same 1.5% raises for the time we didn't get anything (2000 to 2003), then I took a 21.5% cut; if you assume a 3% raise for those three years, then I took a 26% paycut.

If you want to factor in inflation we've taken a 34% paycut. As far as management AA cut loose what they felt was dead wood and raised those who remained to Managers.

 

[Bob Owens]

It would not be as accute if there wasn't such an explosion of supervisors over the years. In the late 80"s early 90"s there would have been a shift super with crew chiefs doing even office work. Then, however, Fsc. was an attractive enough job that half the guys had college degrees. Now they employ twice the people to do the same job with half a dozen managers to try to bring it together. Paying a crew at $25 an hour that allways shows up and doesn't miss anything is alot cheaper than paying 6-8 people that aren't keeping those cabins clean and leave the mail and 4 or 5 bags sitting on the ground that cost $80 a piece to repatriate.

I think Eoleson missed the point you were making.

 

[eolesen]

Didn't miss it anymore than you did in ignoring the fact that guys like me took the same percentage cut you did.

The pay issue brought up by Bagbelt isn't in question at all. I don't have a problem paying someone $25/hr provided I actually get $25/hr worth of work in return. But I don't set your rates -- your negotiators and the company do.

For years, y'all hitched your wagon to what the other airlines had at contract time. If NWA got a raise, you expected one at contract time. If UAL got a bump, you demanded one, too. Works great on the way up.

Unfortunately for you, you were still hitched up them wages headed downward...

Maybe that's why the guys at SWA have been able to hold on to their rates -- they didn't use "me, too" arguments for the past 20 years.

BTW, the cost of a mishandling was in the $25-30 range when I left in '06. Can't imagine it tripled since then.

 

[AA32]

I think that we got away from the original point, which is that the demands by AA pilots are completly out of touch with reality given the current economic environment; I am hopeful that there'll be a resolution before it is too late because I don't feel that the alternative (Chapter 11/No job) is the best way to go in this environment.

 

[jersey777]

I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. I think that it is possible that AA settles with the APFA by this summer and that we get some but not all of what we lost in 2003. There will be just enough good things in the agreement which will make it narrowly pass. This then will set the bar for the APA. It would be very difficult for the company to offer anything more then they settled with the FA's.

I know this is a long shot but hey, our negotiations are making progress. They agreed on Artcle 34-Purser!

 

[frontline]

I think that we got away from the original point, which is that the demands by AA pilots are completly out of touch with reality given the current economic environment; I am hopeful that there'll be a resolution before it is too late because I don't feel that the alternative (Chapter 11/No job) is the best way to go in this environment.

I agree that Chapter 11 is NOT the way to go. Too much uncertainty about wages and retirement benefits. Hell I think PBGC is as broke as FDIC, so we may get anything, especially with China sick of buying US debt, how will they pay for it? Take it from our back pocket (taxes) and reshuffle it to our front with a reduce pension check?

The pilot negotiators are endangering all of us by pushing things to the brink. If they get their impasse wish things could really get ugly. We ALL want restore and more but by God, look around men! Get real!