TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement

[Bob Owens]

17.5% Bob, not 25%. Fuzzy math?

AA could have demanded a 1113e if they had waited. An 1113e is if the Company is in dire financial times which AA was not. Instead they were in a position to fund their reorg plan without DIP financing.
.

Compensation is more than the hourly wage. I figured that you were talking all concessions when you claimed that UAL got a 20% cut when it was a 14% wage cut. As I've cited on numerous occasions, the cut in Holidays, Vaction, sick time and other concessions added nearly 10% on top of the pay cut, less for many on the bases(more for those who downgraded) because of the Holidays. for the line who typically worked all the Holidays the concession came out to the loss of 100hrs pay, for the Bases they had to work 40 more hours.

And we are not in BK because it is just a threat.

Still waiting for you to produce that post where you claim I said that.

 

[TWU informer]

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.

The 2010 T/A is gone, is not part of the pertinent disucssion now, but you cling to it like you owned it. Maybe you did now that I think about it. I may have your true identity in my head now. Oh my!

And so what you are saying is working under draconian terms for 6 years in better than for just several years?

I mean you just convinced me that voting NO is the better option.

Several years of crap, is better for myself than for sure 6 years of crap.

I believe it is just a liekly that AA imposes this exact T/A on us and we negotiate from this postition.

 

[Raptorman49]

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.

Interesting theory, I'm sure you believe that AA will be making record profits once they exit bankruptcy now that they have wrote off all their debts froze the pension, Retiree medical etc. I'm thinking it Probably would be hard not to negotiate with us in good faith while making all that money & the executives getting huge bonuses.

 

[Overspeed]

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

Yes and no. After talking with UA AMTs I hear the A320 is not far off the 737 on LC and HC. That said it could be 24 months before the first LC. The MD80s leaving is already causing a dip because of the parking of aircraft before the LC/HC is due. I don't think there is much of a market for MD80s, especially 300 of them.

I personally don't like the term "saving jobs" because either way - 3/22 term sheet or TA - we are losing jobs. The difference is the amount of job loss. The 3/22 deal is over 4,000 jobs while the TA is around 2,500 either way it sucks. We are in the crappy position of picking our poison. Voting no will not prevent any of the jobs being lost so what we are really looking at is pay and benefits IMO. Can we get better pay and benefits by voting no and risking abrogation? IMO in the next two to three years I am saying no we will not get better pay and benefits than what is in the TA. Why do I say that?

I am firmly convinced that the judge will abrogate the CBAs if we vote no. Lane has said in open court that he will not rewrite the CBAs but abrogate only. What AA does after that is up to them. What I think will happen is AA will impose the 3/22 term sheet and operate under all other conditions of the existing CBAs that were untouched. The TWU did after all did TA many articles up to this point and has stated they will honor those parts although they don't have to. The TWU will then have to try to litigate any changes that AA implements that we feel are improper or not necessary which will take time. Meanwhile the TWU will try to open negotiations through the NMB. Given that we are still in BK the NMB will probably not be very aggressive on a negotiating timeline. With AA set to exit BK late 2012 or early 2013 we should probably start talking around mid 2013. Given AA's propensity to stall I expect we will be talking for months maybe years before our first TA or the NMB grants an impasse. After all, we will be negotiating with the New AA.

But wait, here comes the merger back door slider! If AA enters in to merger talks with other airlines like US, Frontier, jetBlue, or AS we could be stalled even longer. Negotiations may not stop however a short term bridge agreement will be written like UA and CO and we will then sit down with the merged airline management team.

All that said voting no will not get anyone a quick pay day. If we vote yes at least we know we are getting money in our pockets now and an early out for those that want to leave.

 

[Overspeed]

Interesting theory, I'm sure you believe that AA will be making record profits once they exit bankruptcy now that they have wrote off all their debts froze the pension, Retiree medical etc. I'm thinking it Probably would be hard not to negotiate with us in good faith while making all that money & the executives getting huge bonuses.

I don't think the NMB understands what "good faith" means. Are you really going to put your faith in the process we have negotiated under since 2007 to give us a better result in the future? Really?

The situation basically sucks.

 

[Vortilon]

I have talked to more than a few of the guys who voted yes on the last offer, and they won't be voting yes on this one. This offer will be voted down as well.

 

[Bob Owens]

Oh Bob, there you go again distorting. UA asked for the 1113e when they filed asking for huge pay cuts and across the board cuts to pension and retiree medical. The pay cuts were reduced from approximately 20% to 10% when they emerged. And UA has just after eight years passed us on pay. If abrogation is such a good deal why didn't they get raises? Because the TWU screwed them? Hardly, their union was too busy letting all their AO work get outsourced to China and Korea. What stuff did they give up that we already did? It wasn't jobs because while UA shuttered IND and all of SFO AO we still had people making $33/hour while their AO guys made...wait...they don't have any AO guys!

When UAL went into BK their mechanics were paid more than we were. They may have even been higher paid than Southwest at the time. We are dead last in pay. There is more to pay than the wage, and that was the position you took for many years citing the value of our pension and Medical. Our pension will be gone and our Medical will be the most expensive in the industry, especially if they dont offer an early out.

Did UAL get abrogated? No. but when they negotiated their deal in BK AA was the largest carrier out there and we had given 25% of our compensation back to the company outside of BK. so yes we screwed them, what arguement could they put forward when the biggest carrier in the country was able to get their workers to give up 25% of their compensation and they were the highest paid in the industry at a BK carrier?

UAL doesnt have any AO? Tell that to the guys in SFO. By the way UAL got language that kept the narrow bodies in the US, we dont, the company can ship the work anywhere, like our and UALs widebodies.

"Better than six?" In six years we will have lost close to double the jobs lost under the TA. As long as its not you Bob right? Way to go! Show that solidarity stand with you on the no vote but sorry to see you go. "Thanks for your support TUL on the geo pay for JFK! Chuck and I thank you."

Bob, plenty of M&R people left negotiations early, didn't show up, or showed up only when you needed them to vote no. You know the negotiations process and you manipulate it yourself. No you are mad you didn't have the votes. Go figure. You are only happy when you can run the club house.

With each stroke of the key the picture of who you really are becomes clearer. This isnt the first time you have cited details of the negotiations. By the way yes Sam did bring up the Geo pay, too little too late but I appreciate the gesture and we supported the bases for the six months that we were locked up on the 1/7th rule.

Bob, I hope WN does well but to be 100% honest, their wage increase were driven by their unusual hedging advantage and explosive growth.

in real terms they did not see an increase in wages, they kept pace with inflation. In 2001 they made less than us, the fact that they are now at $45/hr simply shows how far behind we have gone.

 

[toroshark]

As new Aricraft Arrive and your scope clause allows 35% outsource there will not be anyone left in overhaul to make that pay. This is the same trap the 28% outsource cap had a Northwest. You witnessed that event happen, and to this day you blame AMFA for it, and now you advocate voting yes on the same idea and same plan except it is a 7% worse on the cap of outsourcing work.There is NO SCOPE in %'s with new aricraft coming. Scope must in the form of Job Security protection in hard headcount numbers. Why are you all blind to what is about to happen? Your tulsa base headcount is going to get decimated over the 3-4 years and you have already watched the exact same thing happen at another airline.

In essence you have allowed outsource of massive amounts of work in exchange for POTENTIAL pay increases that might be a raise in 36 months which completely in the hands of other carriers, one of which might not even exist in 36 months (USAir), which is what you are always bashing AMFA about.

Tell me exaclty how many heads will be in Tulsa making that Industry Averaged wage rate and awaiting the early opener?
Tell us HOW MANY HEADS?

You are correct Informer. The real job protection is the system protection we have in place. All the BS formulas and percentages are just a way for the greedy bean counters to eliminate OUR jobs. Does anybody really think that AA wont do whatever they want with those numbers and tell the ineffectual union to grieve it? Hurry up and slam me now Overspeed. Or should I say bend-overspeed?

 

[TWU informer]

Yes and no. After talking with UA AMTs I hear the A320 is not far off the 737 on LC and HC. That said it could be 24 months before the first LC. The MD80s leaving is already causing a dip because of the parking of aircraft before the LC/HC is due. I don't think there is much of a market for MD80s, especially 300 of them.

I personally don't like the term "saving jobs" because either way - 3/22 term sheet or TA - we are losing jobs. The difference is the amount of job loss. The 3/22 deal is over 4,000 jobs while the TA is around 2,500 either way it sucks. We are in the crappy position of picking our poison. Voting no will not prevent any of the jobs being lost so what we are really looking at is pay and benefits IMO. Can we get better pay and benefits by voting no and risking abrogation? IMO in the next two to three years I am saying no we will not get better pay and benefits than what is in the TA. Why do I say that?

I am firmly convinced that the judge will abrogate the CBAs if we vote no. Lane has said in open court that he will not rewrite the CBAs but abrogate only. What AA does after that is up to them. What I think will happen is AA will impose the 3/22 term sheet and operate under all other conditions of the existing CBAs that were untouched. The TWU did after all did TA many articles up to this point and has stated they will honor those parts although they don't have to. The TWU will then have to try to litigate any changes that AA implements that we feel are improper or not necessary which will take time. Meanwhile the TWU will try to open negotiations through the NMB. Given that we are still in BK the NMB will probably not be very aggressive on a negotiating timeline. With AA set to exit BK late 2012 or early 2013 we should probably start talking around mid 2013. Given AA's propensity to stall I expect we will be talking for months maybe years before our first TA or the NMB grants an impasse. After all, we will be negotiating with the New AA.

But wait, here comes the merger back door slider! If AA enters in to merger talks with other airlines like US, Frontier, jetBlue, or AS we could be stalled even longer. Negotiations may not stop however a short term bridge agreement will be written like UA and CO and we will then sit down with the merged airline management team.

All that said voting no will not get anyone a quick pay day. If we vote yes at least we know we are getting money in our pockets now and an early out for those that want to leave.

Here we are guessing again.

I am guessing that to maintain labor peace, that AA would impose this exact T/A and we would negotiate from this point.

They can do that , Brother!

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

And if they voted now 2/3rds would vote yes because in retrospect they would see how misled they were by the vote no coalition.

You truly are a mindless tool.

You say 2/3rds would vote yes now because in retrospect we were misled by the vote no coalition? I am physically laughing at your lack of intelligence and magnitude of ignorance. "Vote No Coalition"! Is that anything like john "I'm trying not to look at the telepromter" hewitt making a video that was as one sided Vote Yes as possible?

This t/a will fail by a larger percentage than the last one. If you are voting yes on this t/a that still has language to be written on AFTER you vote yes then by all means remain behind your alias. Having people know who you are would cause them to walk on the opposite side of the street than you.

Voting No because it is the intelligent thing to do.

Voting No because I refuse to hinder my craft and profession and cause other AMTs to negotiate from the lowered bar a yes vote would cause.

 

[Overspeed]

Still waiting for you to produce that post where you claim I said that.

I have posted all of your lies and bogus predictions before. Not going to do it again. You said time and time again that it was a "threat", "scam", "manufactured crisis", etc...


October 1, 2011

• “I think BK is a scam.”
• “We have no control over BK and we are not a big enough component in the equation where what we do would have any influence over that decision anyway. In other words they dont stand to gain much in BK from us.”

 

[Overspeed]

You truly are a mindless tool.

You say 2/3rds would vote yes now because in retrospect we were misled by the vote no coalition? I am physically laughing at your lack of intelligence and magnitude of ignorance. "Vote No Coalition"! Is that anything like john "I'm trying not to look at the telepromter" hewitt making a video that was as one sided Vote Yes as possible?

This t/a will fail by a larger percentage than the last one. If you are voting yes on this t/a that still has language to be written on AFTER you vote yes then by all means remain behind your alias. Having people know who you are would cause them to walk on the opposite side of the street than you.

Voting No because it is the intelligent thing to do.

Voting No because I refuse to hinder my craft and profession and cause other AMTs to negotiate from the lowered bar a yes vote would cause.

"Mindless tool?"

I'm not the one in bed with the ARSA. Give the money back Ken. Have some integrity.

 

[Overspeed]

Here we are guessing again.

I am guessing that to maintain labor peace, that AA would impose this exact T/A and we would negotiate from this point.

They can do that , Brother!

No I don't think AA will impose the TA. I stated I think they will impose the 3/22 deal. Labor peace? Haven't we been irate for nine years already?

 

[Overspeed]

You are correct Informer. The real job protection is the system protection we have in place. All the BS formulas and percentages are just a way for the greedy bean counters to eliminate OUR jobs. Does anybody really think that AA wont do whatever they want with those numbers and tell the ineffectual union to grieve it? Hurry up and slam me now Overspeed. Or should I say bend-overspeed?

Nah, I'm going to pass.

 

[TWU informer]

No I don't think AA will impose the TA. I stated I think they will impose the 3/22 deal. Labor peace? Haven't we been irate for nine years already?

I mean that I think they will impose this T/A to keep labor peace, and therefore we gain by voting NO.

Their business plan is evolving and the current plan includes this T/A being in place.

No reason why they could not impose this T/A and then stall negotiations for a few years.