TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement

[Bob Owens]

Yes I do. Now they are getting a COST SAVINGS CONTRACT. Do you know what that means?

Yes, It Means VOTE NO!!!

 

[iluvaa]

Personal in the sense that if it falls in this category
Posts by members that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law will be removed or edited. If a post or part of a post is removed or edited for one of these reasons, the member's warning level will be increased and a one word/short phrase reason will be listed in the warning system with no personal remarks from the moderator.

I suggest you send it in a personal message so that it stays between you & him or as the rule suggests, your posting privileges will go away .... Your choice. B)

Im just getting tired of you telling everyone how to act and what they should and shouldnt do on here. so stop being a little ####

 

[Raptorman49]

Yeah, I forgot you're the rational one. I mean who wouldn't want to hang out with a guy like you...... right? As far as posting on this BB, talk to me when you've got a little more time on it...1 month pffffft

Really I didn't know the posters on here hung out together, so when is the next BBQ ? How will we know who is who at the BBQ ?? do we wear name tags with our alias on them ? seeing as were from all over the country where would this BBQ be held ? gotta have plenty of notice for traveling purposes.
I realize I am new & that this stuff isn't new but have also noticed that Bob, Chuck, Ken, AC tyker, Raptorman and many others. have no problem being professional & not insulting others so it can be done .... let's just be mature & not let emotions get the best of us it's childish & not honorable from behind a keyboard.

Use the personal message feature !!

 

[TWU informer]

Once Again.....the topic of thread

TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement

 

[Raptorman49]

Yes I know who AirCon is. A data source that is supplied with information from other management types. Do you have other data that shows different? The pay rates in the TA are consistent with what I have read in their contracts. Your losing it Bob.

The ARSA is a group that is focused on increasing of outsourcing of maintenance work. The ARSA wants the ban on new MRO licenses lifted by the FAA. Why? So they can take more work from airline MROs and drive the existing ones out of business. Why is that important? Well you were pushing AMFA back in 2004 you stated with glee that AMFA was coming and we would get a great deal soon. Now Ken is accepting money from the ARSA who wants to take work from places like TUL, AFW, and DWH and have it sent to fellow ARSA members MROs. MROs like TIMCO, AAR, ATS, AMECO, HAECO, and SAESL to name a few. Interesting that AMFA organizers would align themselves with a group (ARSA) who wants to put airline overhaul shops out of business. Wait a second, AMFA has been instrumental in the destruction of overhaul jobs while getting line AMT pay scales up.

Bob, by urging people to vote no so more overhaul jobs are placed at risk and standing shoulder to shoulder with AMFA organizer Ken (who aligns himself with the ARSA who wants airline MROs out of business) you are furthering your personal agenda of getting line AMTs more money at the cost of overhaul.

That's pretty crappy Bob and Ken. I hope that blood money spends well.

I'm in Overhaul & I don't feel like voting NO is putting our jobs at risk, it's an AA scam to get concessions, as we already discussed the base will get smaller as we get new planes ... it is what it is, no reason to give up pay & benefits with the jobs.

 

[Overspeed]

You still divert away from the question of how many heads will be in Tulsa to enjoy the Industry Averaged Wage Adjustment in 36 months. You admit you cannot answer, but keep posting rhetoric to defend the fact that we have no job security. You keep counting on Tulsa to deliver the yes vote, yet you are adovcating complete decimation of the overhaul base.

You claim the number of projected headcount reduction is 2500 and then ignore the new aircraft and attrition that will take place after that. Thus the claim that we are saving jobs is nothing more than a false claim. Just as the claim that was made in 2003 that we were saving 10,000 jobs and three maintenance bases with the massive voluntary TWU concession the preceded this TWU concession event. When in fact the M&R headcount has dropped by over 6,000 heads since 2003, and soon two maintenance bases will be gone. So did we get what we paid for from the 2003 concessions for job program? NO

Just as the headcount in Tulsa will be reduced far more than the initial RIF. I predict there will be way less than 2000 M&R heads in Tulsa by the time the Industry Averaged Wage Adjustment comes. And those job losses will come from initial RIF, Atttrition, and outsourced work.

Saving jobs with a YES vote my ass. That is complete and utter in denial thinking.

Dave, I have said this before. We had over 800 aircraft in 2003 we now have 600. In 1990 we had 575 and had only TUL so closing MCI and AFW is not really that hard to understand. Also in 1990 we had just over 8000 doing all that work in-house. Let's take those numbers to today.

10,000 people today with all the WB's outsourced will probably takes us down to about 6,500 to 7,000. That's a guess not an exact. Will that decimate TUL? No. Voting no and watching AA increase the percentage higher, that will decimate TUL.

Again, I am not counting in anything. I believe continuing to vote no will result in more job loss plain and simple.

 

[Bob Owens]

Two 747SP's? AA was supposed to buy tooling, equipment, and parts for two airplanes? How many 727s went outside and there was a work swap for that deal. The 757s that went to TIMCO is being arbitrated, let's see what happens Bob.

Yes, just like the 47 767s getting outsourced to a vendor in San Diego and the 74 757s being outsourced to a vendor in Boston starting next month. How did the last outsourcing grievance with the engines go?

So let's vote no, judge abrogates, and AA implements the 3/22 term sheet and 4,000 jobs are lost while we try to get the NMB to set a date for negotiations. Great plan Bob, great plan.

Dont you mean "if" the Judge abrogates? You speak as if its a sure thing when its not.

4000 jobs, by when next month? They couldnt if they wanted to, "Capacity is Tight" AAR says they need 600 workers to do what they already have. If we vote this in we may end up with 4000 less jobs by 2017, that I'll agree with, of course there's the early opener, and with all those new planes with little work maybe we can do yet another pay vs heads deal? Drive the profession down even further.
We already saw their RIF plan, the number has already dropped by several hundred, and it will take till well into 2013 to get to the number they are shooting for. With the Early out, which they will give either way(do you think they want to lay off the cheapest workers and keep the most expensive ones who will likely be burning off their sick time for the nest year or so?) more than likely nobody will get riffed for very long.

 

[Raptorman49]

Im just getting tired of you telling everyone how to act and what they should and shouldnt do on here. so stop being a little ####

I'm tired of having to tell grown Men how to act so That's fine ill just keep hitting the report button till only the civil one's are left ..... works for me. B)

 

[Overspeed]

And now you are saying we should vote that all away. On the one hand you say that we should agree to work for over $16000 less than UAL because those low wages will save jobs, now you are saying we should have taken the other deakl because we would be making more money if we did, well if we were making more money then wouldnt that mean we would have to give up even more jobs now? If not please explain your math.

Mixing apples and oranges again.

The July 2010 TA was the deal you recommended we vote no against because we will get a better deal and BK was a threat. That deal is long gone.

Now we are in BK and saying we can still get that is building false hope. This is not normal negotiations, we are in BK. Now you say vote no, take a chance that the judge will be nice to us. Uh, no. He won't be nice to us but he will to the creditors.

UA makes more than us now eight years after BK. You are comparing to entirely different circumstances and that is where you lose the argument.

 

[iluvaa]

Dave, I have said this before. We had over 800 aircraft in 2003 we now have 600. In 1990 we had 575 and had only TUL so closing MCI and AFW is not really that hard to understand. Also in 1990 we had just over 8000 doing all that work in-house. Let's take those numbers to today.

10,000 people today with all the WB's outsourced will probably takes us down to about 6,500 to 7,000. That's a guess not an exact. Will that decimate TUL? No. Voting no and watching AA increase the percentage higher, that will decimate TUL.

Again, I am not counting in anything. I believe continuing to vote no will result in more job loss plain and simple.

If AA gets rid of MD80's and 757's and replaces them with brand new Airplanes that wont need heavies for many years you dont think that will reduce the headcount conciderably more.
So I think the point is we are not saving any jobs long term just delaying the losses for a short period of time but the consessions for those jobs are for ever

 

[Mr Red]

Bob,

When are you going to take responsibility for your inability to negotiate.

You have spent many years with AMFA/AMP tearing down AA and the TWU!!! Bob you DO NOT have a clue how to negotiate a contract.

Your unprofessional actions has done nothing to help the Mechanics and Related at AA. You and the few Kool-Aid drinkers have cost us tens of thousands of dollars!!! and done more damage to our profession than anyone here on this board!!!!!

Funny I don.t see Bobs name on any contract/manifesto negotiated by the TWU,thats made us the BOTTOM FEEDERS OF the
industry !

 

[Raptorman49]

Dave, I have said this before. We had over 800 aircraft in 2003 we now have 600. In 1990 we had 575 and had only TUL so closing MCI and AFW is not really that hard to understand. Also in 1990 we had just over 8000 doing all that work in-house. Let's take those numbers to today.

10,000 people today with all the WB's outsourced will probably takes us down to about 6,500 to 7,000. That's a guess not an exact. Will that decimate TUL? No. Voting no and watching AA increase the percentage higher, that will decimate TUL.

Again, I am not counting in anything. I believe continuing to vote no will result in more job loss plain and simple.

Tulsa will be fine .... no need to panic.

 

[Bob Owens]

Nope not ignorant. I would like to get a job security date as well and to be honest, that clause has not held up so well. I got a RIF notice back when the APA was going on strike and saw many job protected people get RIF'd due to the new French phrase I learned called Force Majeure during 2001. I believe all of us in the industry learned about that phrase union and non-union alike.

You need to read up on new maintenance programs my friend. The 787 and new A320 fleets are being sold to AA as a line maintenance aircraft. Both of those aircraft favor a phased LC on the line so it is very possible that we could see jobs shift from AO to Line over the coming years.

The maintenance spend is zero? Okay Dave. The first LC is due in 18 to 24 months so it's not zero is it? And if the new aircraft cost goes down so does the OSS cost. $2B OSS 35% is $700M and if it drops to $1B then the OSS 35% goes to $350M. AA would love that scenario but since we have been getting 737s like mad that hasn't happened. Why? Because something always comes up, AD's, mods, etc...

I don't fear a no vote in fact the opposite. We are coming the end game very soon either way and I will be actually quite relieved to see the theatrics and drama that has been playing out end. We will all finally know very soon what will become of all of us. .

Ah, so it finally comes out. Now I know what was meant when I was told that" one day we would see that the International does not hate the line". Sorry but I'm not willing to play that game.

Like I said, I will still be working the Line however not doing ER checks but on nights doing BC cards

Dont you mean you will be back on the line doing BC cards?

 

[Overspeed]

I'm in Overhaul & I don't feel like voting NO is putting our jobs at risk, it's an AA scam to get concessions, as we already discussed the base will get smaller as we get new planes ... it is what it is, no reason to give up pay & benefits with the jobs.

That's your choice. I feel otherwise and I can live with the outcome of the vote.

As you pointed out, the new fleet types would have driven lower demand for labor and facilities. IMO if we had accepted the July 2010 TA we would be opening talks very soon on our next CBA. We could have worked to a "soft landing" on fewer jobs and kept the work in-house and kept pay and benefits as you stated. I feel strongly that if we vote no our CBA will be abrogated and we will negotiate a new deal. Will it be more pay and benefits? Probably but it will be after several years of working under an abrogated CBA and draconian terms. AA will be stalling another two to three years while the NMB resists declaring an impasse.

Or maybe they will declare an impasse under Romney. Bain Capital may own a few MROs in China.

 

[TWU informer]

Dave, I have said this before. We had over 800 aircraft in 2003 we now have 600. In 1990 we had 575 and had only TUL so closing MCI and AFW is not really that hard to understand. Also in 1990 we had just over 8000 doing all that work in-house. Let's take those numbers to today.

Funny when fleet reductions happen at an AMFA represented carrier and headcount and bases are reduced, that is decimation and failed union representation. When it happens to TWU at AA, "is not really that hard to understand." Is that magical how that works?

10,000 people today with all the WB's outsourced will probably takes us down to about 6,500 to 7,000. That's a guess not an exact. Will that decimate TUL? No. Voting no and watching AA increase the percentage higher, that will decimate TUL.

Wouldn't a good Union with a real scope clause not be guessing and would have something exact for the members to vote on?
How the hell can you document our cost savings amount required in the bankruptcy proceedings if you are still guessing at headcount numbers within the T/A's time frame?

Again, I am not counting in anything. I believe continuing to vote no will result in more job loss plain and simple.

And you are just guessing then on this belief also?