You seem to forget that we gave 25% outside of BK and AA is not just looking for what they got, even though we had already given AA things that the others didnt get (Holidays, vacation, Sick Time etc) but they are looking for everything the others got and much much more. They arent looking to compete, they are looking to anihalate.
No, I haven't forgotten that AA employees gave back some of their pay and benefits in 2003.
Problem is, AA did not reduce its labor costs by anywhere near the same percentage as other airlines that extracted multiple rounds of concessions in bankruptcy. Take UA, for example.
In 2002, UA had labor costs of $7.03 billion. In 2005, after UA's multiple rounds of concessions, UA's total labor costs were $4.03 billion, for a reduction of 43%. That reduction was more than TWICE the percentage of labor cost reduction experienced at AMR.
In 2002, AMR had total labor costs of $8.4 billion. In 2004, after the 2003 concessions had kicked in, AMR's total labor costs were $6.7 billion, for a labor cost reduction of almost exactly 20%. UA cut labor costs by 43% and AMR cut its labor costs by 20%.
You have spent years posting on this site your continued denial that other airline employees suffered far deeper concessions, job losses and cuts, despite occasional posts from UA, US, NW and DL employees that they suffered more than the typical AA employee.
You personally may have suffered a 25% reduction in 2003 but the reality is that AMR's labor costs came down by just 20% by 2004 and, thanks to the annual 1.5% increases, labor costs slowly climbed each year after that despite continued headcount reductions. Adding to AA's higher labor costs were the steadily increasing health care costs that added to AA's labor costs year after year.
UA's maintenance materials and outside repairs line item did go from $560 million in 2002 to a whopping $881 million in 2005, reflecting the much higher outsourcing of overhaul. Even taking that into account, the UA reduction (netting the labor cost cuts and the increased expense for M&R) was 39%, still almost twice the cost cuts at AMR. In addition to huge paycuts and benefit reductions for all UA employees, UA closed two overhaul bases while in bankruptcy, IND and OAK, and outsourced its heavy airframe overhaul. I doubt all the UA savings were attributed to IND and OAK, but that's one thing UA did that AA did not.
The other airlines performed similar liposuction to their labor costs while they were in Ch 11. Unfortunately, AA's labor cost efforts were more like a combination of Slim-Fast and Special K. And AA didn't shed the pounds quite like the others.