TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

[NYer]

Show us where you found your equation for filing for Chapter-11. The fact is there isn't one, and Sharon Levine stated as much. The court operates upon the assumption that the stigma of having filed for reorganization is enough of a motive to prevent corporations from filing unless their very survival is at risk. Thats same assumption once applied to individuals however after many many abuses the court abandoned that assumption but still upholds it with corporations. 
 
If anything, with a justified, legitimate filing, the determining factor is cash flow and the ability to service debt within the agreed schedule, not simply the amount of Debt. 
 
Making stuff up and lying again, just like Mark Richard did during negotiations. Funny how you sound just like him.

Making things up? You're the one trying to argue that they shouldn't be able to file for BK because they had money and filing had no real criteria while at the the same time you've been saying for years they can't file and it's just a scare tactic. Arguing both sides is not usually beneficial to your credibility, but that ship has sailed and your counter argument is calling people names.

 

[Bob Owens]

Making things up? You're the one trying to argue that they shouldn't be able to file for BK because they had money and filing had no real criteria while at the the same time you've been saying for years they can't file and it's just a scare tactic. Arguing both sides is not usually beneficial to your credibility, but that ship has sailed and your counter argument is calling people names.

Show me where I said that they cant file and its just a scare tactic? Thats the spin that you and Mark Richard ran around spouting. After NWA filed in 2005 with a billion in cash it was clear that the courts would allow any company to file.
 
What I said was BK was a scare tactic of Videtich in negotiations and that if AA filed it would not be because we were asking for too much. We were at the bottom of the industry, and we were the only people at AA that were at the bottom of the industry. I also said that BK is there to remove onerous contracts, however the Union chose not to drive hard on that argument, like the Union at Pinnicle did. At Pinnicle the Judge refused to grant the application for abrogation.
 
So go ahead and keep making stuff up. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Actually you are wrong, I never reccomened the PMUS TA and I actually spoke out against it.
 
Keep up the misinformation Bob.
 
You had the same lawyer we did, you were the one running around saying Chapter 11 is a threat, they are not going to do it.
 
Your track record is stellar.
 
The laws are the laws, would you like it to like 1983 when you had zero protections in Chapter 11 if you were covered under a CBA?

Well you have since spent a lot of time defending it.
 
 
Yes we had the same lawyer as you, maybe thats why we both are at the bottom of the industry. 
 
How would you know what I was running around saying? If I wrote it then why haven't you cited it? I've seen where you pull up things from years ago, why not put out some proof? 
 
What "protections" do you have? At least in 1983 we had the right to strike upon abrogation. All 1113 required was that they meet with the Unions, all the other provisions have pretty much  been ruled away. 
 
Go ahead, keep pretending to be a Union man and defend what they do in BK. 

 

[NYer]

 
 
 
So why isn't it on the Supreme Courts docket? Why just drop it? Is that what we should expect with the "fighting Machinists". Oh yes, thats right, they are only willing to fight other Unions. --The Supreme Court does not hear every case that petitions to do so. They select their cases and therefore the ability to heard in the Supreme Court is not in the hands of the petitioner. That would make your inference of the case not going to that level because it is not being fought for, erroneous. 
 
Besides there are two ways this can be addressed, one is to have it go to the Supreme Court, and the other is to put the AFL-CIO and our COPE dollars to work and have the politicians clarify the intent of the RLA and correct the Courts erroneous assumption. I've seen articles from legal journals criticizing the decision but have not seen one defending it. So why isn't labor pushing against this? --There have been several unions and other creditors that have fought this, and they've lost their cases. There have been over 160 airline BK cases with the AMR case being the last. You make it seem these issues have been visited before. The only observation one can make from your comments is that you haven't take the time to learn the history of this issue and would rather make up arguments that don't have merit or have been proven to not have merit. The answer is simple, your theories are wrong, have been for years.
 
Actually you may be right, "Did nothing" was not correct, "Doing anything about it now" would be correct. IIRC the IAM did take part in a move by several Pilots groups to try and correct this a few years back, surprised you didn't bring that up, or maybe you were unaware of it, but then simply dropped it. The pilots groups are ready and willing to try again under a more realistic argument but they get no support from the AFL-CIO or any of the AFL-CIO affiliated unions, even ALPA. Basically the IAM went through the motions and presented a flawed argument. Then having failed, simply dropped it. This way they can say they tried. Instead of asking for equal protection under the law they asked for special protections. I suspect that the smaller Pilots Unions allowed the IAM to push them towards this flawed argument. The IAM doing so in a deliberate attempt to sabotage it to try and get airline workers behind a move for broader bankruptcy reform. Do I have proof? No, just a suspicion. The Pilots had Capt. Sully testify, had they made the right argument, and AFL-CIO support they may have gotten somewhere. --Uh-huh. The AFL-CIO, the IAM and all other unions in the country have not been able to make the argument Bob believes is a winner. So they are ALL wrong, while one guy in New York has all the answers? That the premise to this story. EVERYONE is wrong, except Bob. You'd make a fortune as a legal adviser to the poor dumb unions all across the country.
 
Go ahead keep repeating what your masters tell you. Bankruptcy is about your ability to service debt, not the amount of debt. If the amount of debt becomes so large that you cant service it then you are bankrupt but just having more debt than assets doesn't make you bankrupt if you have the cash flow to service the debt. If I'm earning $100k a year and have $1million in debt that doesn't automatically make me bankrupt, in fact depending on the terms of the debt as an individual I probably would not qualify for bankruptcy, but if I'm making $50k a year and owe $20,000 due immediately I may be able to qualify for bankruptcy if the creditor demands payment. So its not the amount of debt, its the ability to service the debt. 
 
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/do-i-have-enough-debt-to-file-for-bankruptcy.html
 
Now go ahead both you an NYEr and start back peddling. Start saying that the amount is a factor, which I dont deny, but AA had no cash flow problems and the $5 billion in the bank ensured that they wouldn't.  They had no creditors pounding on their door demanding payments now, nor where they at risk of violating any covenants, in fact they had just secured loans to cover the largest aircraft order in history. --I readily admit your simple explanations are effective for those that just want to be told what to think or are looking for an excuse to be upset. However, your attempt to continuously oversimplify the process is very scary since going with your alternative is very dangerous and harmful for Labor. That $5B in the bank is not free and clear money, much of that was from debt taken on their airplanes, engines and landing slots. If they were to run down all that cash, then file for BK, as is your preference, then those planes, engines and landing slots could be lost. They would file BK, they'd need DIP financing by which those Lenders would dictate you us what our contract would be until a new one is negotiated or imposed.
 
By repeating the $5B in cash (it was actually $4.1B), it appeases your base but it also pushes away more and more people that are starting to see the rhetoric for what it is...rhetoric.
 
So you and NYer can go ahead and support the company's fraud, their theft of our pensions, retiree medical and workrules under false pretenses as they post billions in profits but do at least come clean and admit that neither of you are truly a friend of labor like you try and sell yourselves as. You may be too stupid to realize what you are doing by NYer knows exactly what he is doing. Not sure which is worse. --You can call me all the names you want, big deal. This much is true, I will continue to be on these pages exposing your false prophecies as they each crumble under the light of the reality we live in. You want to portray things in a manner that makes the most disgruntled, misinformed members come to your side and stroke your ego, so be it, but there will be a counter balance all along that path. Let the members decide which way they want to go.
 
 


Maybe I'm not a lawyer but at least I know the difference between "Your" and "you're" and where did I say that they couldn't file because they had $5billion? 


 

 

[xUT]

No cash flow problems?
 
You are certainly living in your own fantasy world.
 
You are clueless on balance sheets, bankruptcy and history.
 
I like the pic of you and gary.
 

Pathetic!
Is that what they taught you at Winpisinger union school?
The more I read your bull####, the more I am anti-union.
Pretty hard for me as I walked both the IAM/EAL picket line and AMFA/NWA picket line (as well as union volunteering).... 😛
 
B) xUT

 

[700UW]

I walked the EA picket line with my Uncle, he was an inspector at EA for 29 years.
 
So you think its ok for Bob to post lies and misinformation?
 
This is the guy who trumpeted AA will not file Chapter 11 its all a threat.
 
How did that turn out?

 

[Overspeed]

Bob,
I can't see where anyone on this board has ever said they supported the company filing BK. AMR's BK filing was many in a long line of BK's that have been used to restructure debt and union contracts. The point is that some realized it was a very real possibility and warned others that many companies have filed BK, especially airlines. When a constant succession of companies does it with only small differences in how employees were screwed it is wise to pay attention and adjust strategies. AMFA did take on NWA and they didn't win. I believe the point Don was making was not that we should take whatever we can get but get the best deal we can get because every indicator was that AMR was going to file. So instead of entering BK at a better wage rate than we did we kept sliding backwards while the vote no coalition made videos, worked behind the scenes to unseat Little, and then step in to the leadership role. Meanwhile all of the members continue to suffer while 591 files lawsuit after lawsuit trying to hold off the Association and get AMFA on the ballot.

 

[xUT]

I walked the EA picket line with my Uncle, he was an inspector at EA for 29 years.
 
So you think its ok for Bob to post lies and misinformation?
 
This is the guy who trumpeted AA will not file Chapter 11 its all a threat.
 
How did that turn out?

Is that your justification for childish behavior?
 
Fact is Bob was right but 'unionists' that kow tow to their international masters do not want to work hard to change the BK laws.
 
Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese don't speak to me about the lies and misinformation that the iam has spewed` over the years. View attachment 10651
 
UA INDY was gutted under the iam watch yet the iam blames AMFA.
Don't talk to me about lies and deceptions.
I Lived it!
 
That's why I voted your a$$es out because you lie and deceive.
Too bad my constituents are not savvy enough to see it.
 
I see when I called you out for the false promise of a $4K retirement for the DAL FA's you skipped a retort.
Why? Because it is not defensible!
It's A$$holes like you that boil my blood as you obfuscate facts and reality.
 
In your arrogant demeanor you do more harm than good.
 
UGH!

 

[Bob Owens]

--There have been several unions and other creditors that have fought this, and they've lost their cases. There have been over 160 airline BK cases with the AMR case being the last. You make it seem these issues have been visited before. The only observation one can make from your comments is that you haven't take the time to learn the history of this issue and would rather make up arguments that don't have merit or have been proven to not have merit. The answer is simple, your theories are wrong, have been for years.

 Spin away, what cases are you referring to? I was talking about putting our COPE dollars to work clarifying the RLA as far as 1167, what are you talking about?

--Uh-huh. The AFL-CIO, the IAM and all other unions in the country have not been able to make the argument Bob believes is a winner. So they are ALL wrong, while one guy in New York has all the answers? That the premise to this story. EVERYONE is wrong, except Bob. You'd make a fortune as a legal adviser to the poor dumb unions all across the country.

 More spin, make an arguement aghainst stuff that wasnt said because you have no argument against what was said. The AFL-CIO has not even tried to correct the errors of the AFA/NWA decision, that was the point, they have made no effort at all to correct something that the legal firm that the TWU wrote about as being a flawed decision that will not stand the test of time.

--I readily admit your simple explanations are effective for those that just want to be told what to think or are looking for an excuse to be upset. However, your attempt to continuously oversimplify the process is very scary since going with your alternative is very dangerous and harmful for Labor. That $5B in the bank is not free and clear money, much of that was from debt taken on their airplanes, engines and landing slots. If they were to run down all that cash, then file for BK, as is your preference, then those planes, engines and landing slots could be lost. They would file BK, they'd need DIP financing by which those Lenders would dictate you us what our contract would be until a new one is negotiated or imposed.

So are you saying that we shouldnt be upset? That we should just accept this as something thats inevitable and we are powerless to do anything about it? If so then why have a Union? Where did I say I'd prefer that AA spent the $5 billion? I stated that AA was not in danger of liquidating and had plenty of money on hand, and last time I looked $5 billion was a lot of money, the fact is that in BK the company went from $5 billion to $10 billion, and most of the gain took place prior to any of our concessions kicking in despite the costs of BK. Doesnt C-11 say that the terms must be onerous and necessary for the reorganization? You imply that the $5billion and the fact they didnt need DIP financing is why we didnt get pay cuts, well first of all we did take pay cuts, now if you were refering to wage cuts show me a case in BK where wage custs were forced on any Union where they were already at the bottom of the industry and explain how such a request would meet the criteria of onerous and necissary.

 
  --You can call me all the names you want, big deal. This much is true, I will continue to be on these pages exposing your false prophecies as they each crumble under the light of the reality we live in. You want to portray things in a manner that makes the most disgruntled, misinformed members come to your side and stroke your ego, so be it, but there will be a counter balance all along that path. Let the members decide which way they want to go.

Now playing the false victim card? Where did I call you a name? First off are you an aircraft mechanic? If not what is with the word "we"? Exposing false phopecies? Is that what you claim you are doing? More like erecting straw men and distorting the facts. Please cite one prophecy, let alone a false one. Again and again you make false accusations and arguments over statements that were not made, this post was full of them. Your favorite is the claim that I said BK was just a threat, implying that the company was making the threat and I was ignoring it, well the fact is not once during negotiations did the company ever say anythging about BK, the first time was Nov 29, 2011. The only one who brought up BK was Videtich, who then deliberately strung our negotiations along until they actually did file. After dragging out negotiations for three years he strung them along nearly 18 months after a rejected TA.
 

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob,
I can't see where anyone on this board has ever said they supported the company filing BK. AMR's BK filing was many in a long line of BK's that have been used to restructure debt and union contracts.

Ok, stop right there. AA had already restructured their Union contracts prior to BK, If you care to recall back then I stated let them go BK because its better to go in with a contract near the top  than to give concessions first and have them file and go for even more in BK. Little argued the opposite and said the court would treat us better if we gave concessions first. Ten years later Roth, the expert hired by the TWU said nearly verbatim what I'd said, he said "better to go in fat than go in skinny".
 

 The point is that some realized it was a very real possibility and warned others that many companies have filed BK, especially airlines. When a constant succession of companies does it with only small differences in how employees were screwed it is wise to pay attention and adjust strategies.
 

 
If thats the case then why did Don delay, delay, delay  try and push a zero cost contract then even after rejection continue to delay, delay, delay? 
 

AMFA did take on NWA and they didn't win.
 

 
Please, the NWA mechanics were told they had to accept concessions and vote away more than half their jobs. Are you claiming that the same offer would have passed here at AA? 
 

I believe the point Don was making was not that we should take whatever we can get but get the best deal we can get because every indicator was that AMR was going to file.
 

If Don believed it was imminent then why delay? The fact is the company never moved off a zero cost contract, and Don prevented us from moving forward with the process. 
 

So instead of entering BK at a better wage rate than we did we kept sliding backwards while the vote no coalition made videos, worked behind the scenes to unseat Little, and then step in to the leadership role.
 

You seem to be forgetting that it was a zero cost contract. For the last several years you have stated that you were willing to agree to concessions to save jobs in Tulsa, that we were right to give up all we did in 2003 to save Tulsa, now you seem to be saying the opposite. The only way you could have met the ask and kept that wage would be to cut more jobs in OH. Instead of Tulsa being 4600 they would be around 2000, so at that point it would make more sense to close it completely and ramp up DWH. The ask would have been the same whether we had shuffled things around in 2010 or not. 

 

[NYer]

 
Spin away, what cases are you referring to? I was talking about putting our COPE dollars to work clarifying the RLA as far as 1167, what are you talking about? --Seems like the guy that was in charge of COPE received a nice promotion via the Convention Delegates. I guess that wasn't really a priority.

 

 More spin, make an arguement aghainst stuff that wasnt said because you have no argument against what was said. The AFL-CIO has not even tried to correct the errors of the AFA/NWA decision, that was the point, they have made no effort at all to correct something that the legal firm that the TWU wrote about as being a flawed decision that will not stand the test of time. --They lost. It went to the highest court possible. Move on. You were wrong.....again.

So are you saying that we shouldnt be upset? That we should just accept this as something thats inevitable and we are powerless to do anything about it? If so then why have a Union? Where did I say I'd prefer that AA spent the $5 billion? I stated that AA was not in danger of liquidating and had plenty of money on hand, and last time I looked $5 billion was a lot of money, the fact is that in BK the company went from $5 billion to $10 billion, and most of the gain took place prior to any of our concessions kicking in despite the costs of BK. Doesnt C-11 say that the terms must be onerous and necessary for the reorganization? You imply that the $5billion and the fact they didnt need DIP financing is why we didnt get pay cuts, well first of all we did take pay cuts, now if you were refering to wage cuts show me a case in BK where wage custs were forced on any Union where they were already at the bottom of the industry and explain how such a request would meet the criteria of onerous and necissary. --My dear Bob, I think you're confusing even yourself. Everyone is upset in having to go through this process.
 
The airline had about $4.1B in cash which was based on secured loans as opposed to profits in the operation. (a small detail you love to leave out). The debt incurred due to all the pertinent reasons, including mismanagement, was about $29B. That is a much, much larger number than the money they had on hand.
 
Pay cuts, wage cuts....who's spinning there?
 
Pay cuts or wage cuts are not a direct action from the bankruptcy code, but rather from the terms imposed by the Debtor-In-Possession lender, if needed, that would finance the operations as the BK runs its course. But you know all this, its just that it doesn't fit your rhetoric and so you conveniently ignore it.

Now playing the false victim card? Where did I call you a name? First off are you an aircraft mechanic? If not what is with the word "we"? Exposing false phopecies? Is that what you claim you are doing? More like erecting straw men and distorting the facts. Please cite one prophecy, let alone a false one. Again and again you make false accusations and arguments over statements that were not made, this post was full of them. Your favorite is the claim that I said BK was just a threat, implying that the company was making the threat and I was ignoring it, well the fact is not once during negotiations did the company ever say anythging about BK, the first time was Nov 29, 2011. The only one who brought up BK was Videtich, who then deliberately strung our negotiations along until they actually did file. After dragging out negotiations for three years he strung them along nearly 18 months after a rejected TA. --I'm sorry, I guess in your world "stupid" and "moron" must mean something endearing.
 
Mr. Vote No is now blaming someone else for stringing along negotiations! Classic.
 
You most certainly did bring up BK during negotiations. You used the threat of 2003 as an argument to not fall for the same "threats" in 2007. As a matter of fact, you even went back further and said that you've seen the airline threaten BK only to post profits shortly after. That has always been a tool you've used. Unfortunately, for you, they did file so your song needed a new chorus and it turned into the $5B in cash (it was $4B) as a sign they should never have been allowed to file, regardless of the $29B in debt.
 
 

 

[Overspeed]

Bob,
If you are talking about 2003, I don't know what you said. Little most likely did say that if we accepted a deal that gave AMR some relief we would be better off in BK. I was speaking in regards to the 2010 TA and the ongoing negotiations at that time. The comments I had been hearing for many years leading up to BK was that it was possible but not probable given AMR's cash position was bad but not that bad. Obviously most of our understanding BK law was not that good or else we would have seen it coming sooner.
 
The contracts were restructured significantly in 2003 but as we now know AMR wanted, and got, more from us. If the point was we would have been better off if we gone to BK then it is about individual perspective. An additional nine years of pension credit was good for most of us.
 
I don't know if Don delayed other than you say he did. If we look at what is happening at UA with their negotiations and SWAs slow progress. The NMB doesn't seem to be willing to let negotiations end up in airline unions going to self help. Consolidation in the industry may have now made it that the last big airline strike was at NWA. So did Don stall? Sounds like he knew it would not have gone anywhere but I don't know.
 
Call the 2010 TA zero cost or whatever but we got a near zero raise contract after we voted it down. We also didn't get full pay SK pay, three holidays back, and an additional week of VC. So not getting $38 an hour in 2010 plus some small raise on top of that prior to BK was a bad deal in your mind. We are so much better off now. Thanks for your leadership Bob on the 2010 TA.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
Call the 2010 TA zero cost or whatever but we got a near zero raise contract after we voted it down. We also didn't get full pay SK pay, three holidays back, and an additional week of VC. So not getting $38 an hour in 2010 plus some small raise on top of that prior to BK was a bad deal in your mind. We are so much better off now. Thanks for your leadership Bob on the 2010 TA.

The company said flat out it was a zero cost contract. Any increases in one area would be paid for with concessions in another. You forget that all the prefunding monies would have been lost in the 2010 deal, for some the contribution part alone was over $40k, so their loss, and losses to OH and Title II would have funded your raise.  In BK  negotiations they still outnumbered the line. 
 
In every negotiations I've seen in my 30 plus years in this industry, except one, when Union members rejected a TA forged in NMB mediated negotiations they went directly into a 30 day cooling off period. 
 
 In three years the company did not move one penny off their zero cost contract, so what did your buddies Little and Videtich do after we rejected the TA? ? They refused to proceed to the next step to get released, in fact Little/Videtich put us on ice from August till December. We most likely would have had a deal before the end of September had we been released, instead they chose to punish the membership by dragging things out until the company, realizing the Politics were not going to roll over and 2012 was likely to be a profitable year decided to utilize the benefits of C-11 fifteen months later. 
 
I have no regrets about voting down the 2010 deal, I'm disappointed that the International prevented us from moving forward in the process but we had no control over that, unfortunately neither did the membership. We can say No, but we cant ask for release. It sucks when your top Union leaders are in the company's pocket, but at least now they are gone, but we are stuck with the damage they did. By the way how come Don hasn't shown up to live under the deal he crafted?  

 

[Overspeed]

Bob,
The prefunding was never "lost". Those under 50 had the way it was funded changed from prefunding to funded by SK time and existing funds would still keep our retiree medical intact. Those 50 and over continued under the plan as it existed at the time. Now we do not have retiree medical at all.
 
While the past is relevant to making a decision on asking for release, the recent past and present should weigh in to that decision as well. We were told on the floor that the NMB would put negotiations on ice if we demanded release. I guess that would not have mattered since we didn't get any further towards a contract in the end. Of course maybe he would have been better off because then you could have blamed the NMB instead of Don.
 
But enough of the past, you are now one of the leadership not him. Little's gone, what are your plans for the future in negotiations? DL plus 7% including the 16% profit sharing? Cool. Can't wait to vote yes on that deal when I see it.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob,
If you are talking about 2003, I don't know what you said. Little most likely did say that if we accepted a deal that gave AMR some relief we would be better off in BK. I was speaking in regards to the 2010 TA and the ongoing negotiations at that time. The comments I had been hearing for many years leading up to BK was that it was possible but not probable given AMR's cash position was bad but not that bad. Obviously most of our understanding BK law was not that good or else we would have seen it coming sooner.
 
The contracts were restructured significantly in 2003 but as we now know AMR wanted, and got, more from us. If the point was we would have been better off if we gone to BK then it is about individual perspective. An additional nine years of pension credit was good for most of us.
 
 

 In order to get a fair picture to see where we would have  landed we have to look and see how much those who had already gone BK lost prior to us giving back 25% outside of BK.
 
I dont recall what US gave up prior to us giving away 25%, but I do recall that UA had a TA with their mechanics that cut their contractual rate by 14%, IIRC they would have seen an increase over the rate imposed by the court and not much else was touched as they had already closed the Indy base. Then within days of them announcing their TA we announced our 25+% reduction, keep in mind that 25% was Donnelley numbers so it was likely closer to 30%. So of course the Creditors Committee at UAL rejected the TA and UAL went back for more, after all they were in BK, AA wasn't. Keep in mind that UA was at a higher rate than we were when they went into BK. 
 
If we had not given so much outside of BK then more than likely the UA TA would have passed and that would have been the standard, so if we followed them in 2003 we likely would have lost the same. However once we gave up 25%+ outside of BK it through the whole industry into a frenzy. 
 
You say keeping the pension the extra 10 years made giving up everything else worth it. The average male life expectancy in Texas is 75.68 years, so you will likely collect your pension for a little over ten years. The extra 10 years in the plan added at most $10,000 a year to your pension, so keeping the pension added $100,000 to the lifetime value of the plan.
 
But what did you lose?
 
Ok lets look a Vacation you lost a week of vacation from 2002 (remember it was retro) till 2018, so that concession cost you around $25,000 in paid time off. (Not even factoring in the second week we lost). The Holidays went from 10 x 2.5 to 5x1.5 comes out to 140 hours lost pay per year add another $80,000 out of pocket, so without even factoring all the other concessions that we gave that our peers kept through multiple rounds of BK your extra 10 years are already are in the red, keep in mind we have not factored in the 401k match offset either, a 5.5% match through all those years where our OT and HW was matched would have added around $80,000 plus since we would have given 14% instead of 17% we would have had another 3% to put in the 401K as well, thats another 48000 in earnings lost. Now lets look at sick time, not just the seven days we lost, but just the 5.1 we use, on average two occurrences per year. Thats two days of income lost, $600/yr, another $9600 out of pocket, the seven days we lost potentially worth another $36,000. The weekly cost of having our uniforms laundered, another $12,000 over the 16 years of concessions. Loss of double-time, figure one 40 hour field trip per year so that concessions costs us .5 hours pay times 28 hours, so another $7000. Keep in mind that these number will continue to increase.
 
I believe we are now the only major carrier that essentially offers nothing as far as retiree medical for workers who are in the 50s with 20 or more years with the company.  That will cost around $1000 per month and would more than consume the extra ten years of pension. 
 
So the 10 years added to the pension adds a total of $100,000 to the value of the average Texas male, but it cost him at least double that by the amendable date of our contract in out of pocket cash, paid time off and the loss of the 401k match for 10 years of heavy OT.