Still Want To Vote No?

[AA-MRO.COM]

As for how you vote - vote the way your conscience guides you - I would never be so presumptuous as to tell anyone how to vote. I merely want to see facts posted - and never made-up numbers masquerading as facts.

OK if you wont I will

VOTE HELL NO

 

[Overspeed]

The abrogation is not a true abrogation, the term sheet modifies your CBA, watch and see.

Our Int'l Pres is stating that if the LBO is voted down that the Company is going to impose the term sheet, if the judge consents, and that the rest of the CBA that is unaltered will be honored and remain in force. That is until a new CBA is agreed upon.

Question for you, at US were any of the jobs that were lost during the BK process regained back in to the US fold?

 

[Overspeed]

Working on it. Should be out tomorrow.

I can't wait for the cool Tom n' Jerry sound effects.

 

[Overspeed]

The work has to be done. Why do you think they backed off on the number? Because they knew they could not dump 4500 workers and still run their operation. They had no intentions on getting rid of 4500 mechanics right away anyway. But what they have in there is even better for them, they got the ability to pretty much get rid of all of us. This is not 2005. There is not excess capacity anymore, not in seats, not in workers who posess the skills or willingness to work in this industry, not in places to send the work, It would take time to find places to do all that work, and they would pay a premium,, thats to our advantage, by giving them six years to do it we are signing our own death warrants.

AAR has added more dock space within the last month at the former NWA facility, Aveos has just closed down their Canadian operations, and PEMCO just filed BK. All of these places have capacity and headcount. Kansas City is advertising the base is available and their are plenty of ex-TWA AMTs that are ready to go back to work.

I thought we weren't supposed to fear BK Bob? This looks pretty bad either way you cut it. AA will have the language to outsource at higher levels than ever before. The crappy TWU scope language you deride constantly managed to keep approximately 10% of the work going out while every other airline's agreement negotiated or forced through in BK has permitted work to outsourced at unprecedented levels. Even if AA does not outsource now the fact remains work will be outsourced eventually. By going to BK the Pandora's Box of outsourcing has been opened but that is probably what you wanted all along. Now you can go in and make the argument that you agree with them, outsourcing is cheaper and now that AA has that ability you can get your geo pay and high line premium. Nice Bob, it really is all about you.

 

[Buck]

OK so AAR has added dock space. What part of American's fleet are they going to work on?

 

[787nightmare]

And they still need LOTS of mechanics...apparently more now than ever.
Good luck with that...

 

[Buck]

And they still need LOTS of mechanics...apparently more now than ever.
Good luck with that...

I know of quite a few mechanics that, once the LBO is put into place, yes put into place, are finished with aviation and will be looking for different work. Salary yes, however if the wages are lower,there are benefits and a future

 

[Hopeful]

I know of quite a few mechanics that, once the LBO is put into place, yes put into place, are finished with aviation and will be looking for different work. Salary yes, however if the wages are lower,there are benefits and a future

Can't say I blame them. But many people are going to find out that the grass isn't always greener.
I see my kids applying for jobs that have medical no better than mine, no pension, no 401k match better than ours.

What is happening to us at AA has happened and IS happening to many an industry, not just aviation.

But I applaud and encourage anyone seeking to leave aviation, there is NO benefit to working for an airline anymore. It used to be a proud moment when you told someone you worked for an airline. Now they look at you pathetically.

 

[Overspeed]

OK, let me get it all straight. Our attorney, in a memorandum which she signed her name to, has told us two things – (1) That it is very likely that the Bankruptcy Court will reject the contracts of all three unions if there is not a consensual agreement and (2) if our agreement is rejected the Company will impose the pre- hearing “ask”, not the LBO and that the Court will not prohibit it from doing so. However, Bob is now assuring us, based on his legal knowledge and law license, that the judge can’t possibly reject our contracts and that if even if he does he will only allow American to impose the LBO. I don’t have much trouble deciding whose advice I will follow on those issues.

But, Bob and TWU Informer have told us not to worry because even if the Judge doesn’t see the law the same way as he does and rejects the contract and imposes the “Ask”, we should deal with the pain because we can continue to negotiate and the Board will release us quickly and we can force the Company to cough up a great contract. The last strike I remember at a major passenger carrier was at NWA (unless you define Spirit Airlines and its five hundred pilots and three dozen mechanics as major) in 2005. I don’t remember NWA crawling back to AMFA asking to pay its members more money. I don’t remember many releases being granted to unions at bankrupt carriers but according to Bob things are different now. Then why has USAirways been in negotiations for a single contract between its east and west pilots for at least seven years and I haven’t heard about a contract or a release in sight?

But, that’s all ok because even if we can’t strike, there is a mechanic shortage and the Company will be forced to come crawling back to us begging us to take more money and improved conditions, if not now, three or four years from now…or maybe five or six, or longer. And in the meantime we don’t have to worry about the outsourcing of heavy maintenance or Title II because Bob has told us they won’t be able to find people qualified to do the work. Just like they couldn’t at NWA or UAL. I would love to believe the Owens fairy tale, but if it were to come true and the Company actually believes it needs us to pay more they can do it just as easily if we are covered by a consensual agreement as opposed to imposed terms and conditions. In the meantime, more guys will keep their jobs, we will keep more work, and people who want it will get some early out money.

But, then again, now I am reading that American will come crawling to us because they need consensual agreements to exit bankruptcy. And where exactly does it say that? I don’t recall any ruling by a judge saying he wouldn’t accept a reorganization plan without obtaining agreements from all the unions on the property. There have been 33 motions to reject over the past decade in 1113 proceedings and 33 were granted. Which one of those unions did better after the rejection? And which one of the guys demanding a no vote is going to volunteer to go to the street for one of the guys who would be able to stay on if we manage to a contract and avoid rejection.

One other thing you can bet on. If the International had not brought back the LBO and our contract was rejected and the “ask” imposed every person on this Board that is outraged over the fact that the TWU let us vote on this POS would be pounding his chest complaining that we weren’t allow to vote on the LBO.

 

[eolesen]

OK, let me get it all straight. Our attorney, in a memorandum which she signed her name to, has told us two things – (1) That it is very likely that the Bankruptcy Court will reject the contracts of all three unions if there is not a consensual agreement and (2) if our agreement is rejected the Company will impose the pre- hearing “ask”, not the LBO and that the Court will not prohibit it from doing so. However, Bob is now assuring us, based on his legal knowledge and law license, that the judge can’t possibly reject our contracts and that if even if he does he will only allow American to impose the LBO.

Pretty much sums it up from where I sit, although you left out the part where everything AA has offered is labeled as worse than the non-binding offer presented by a competitor who is already seeking even deeper cuts in pay & benefits than what the Ask is seeking...

We've seen time and time again how both the TWU rulers (sorry, can't call them leaders) and even the membership has allowed testosterone, emotion, and short-term gain win out over reason, logic, and now apparently, the advice of experienced legal counsel....

Vote however you wish, but basing a decision primarily on emotion and the face value of an issue usually ends badly.

 

[paul1]

e since you don't work for aa anymore, maybe should you really stay out of some as these threads, as they effect us working at aa currently vote no!!!!!

and there and many items on the 22 march term sheet with a asterick that will willn't get that is in the lbo.

the problem is this agreement isn't consensual. we need a consensual agreement to move forward, not some jim little scare tatic.

AA needs consensual agreements from eveyone to move beyond bk.

So many people are so feed up, over 9 years of lies and continue to blame the employees. Maybe if they never took all that money over the years and giving us nothinging.

 

[eolesen]

I'm not telling you which way to vote. Just cautioning you that ignoring your lawyer's advice is usually not a wise move.

 

[Mr Red]

We didn't come to work at AA to play the
TWU how low can we go for their saving jobs B/S.
This is not a Union,A unions job is to obtain the BEST wages, benefits and working
conditions possible.This place has turned into a groundhog day NIGHTMARE !!!
V O T E
N O !

 

[Frank Szabo]

I'm not telling you which way to vote. Just cautioning you that ignoring your lawyer's advice is usually not a wise move.

Not our lawyer but the lawyer for the international/little jimmy - attorneys work for those who write the checks, not the collateral damage.

 

[Duke787]

I'm not telling you which way to vote. Just cautioning you that ignoring your lawyer's advice is usually not a wise move.

The union lawyer told us we should vote for a consensual agreement, and according to our negotiators this is NOT a consensual agreement, she didn't say vote for anyhthing thrown at you.