TWU negotiations.........what?

[FWAAA]

Funny it cost so much to PAY us but they can GIVE away the majority of a 2 BILLION dollar bail out to JAPAN airlines.

AA gave no money to JAL, let alone your fantasy of $2 billion. AA offered JAL as much as $300 million (with TPG putting up about one billion, but JAL and the Japanese government rejected all American investment and JAL filed for bankruptcy protection instead. Gotta wonder about the motivations of whomever is feeding you the misinformation. My guess is that it's some Gomer from the TWU.

So we cost 600 million too much money after BILLIONS in concessions. I have an idea how about instead of GIVING JAPAN 2 BILLION dollars they give us what they freaking owe us. How about that? As far as I am concerned AMERICAN just gave away our concessions so apparently they don't need them after all, yet there asking for even more..

Repeating someone eles's fantasy about AA investment in JAL makes you look foolish.

Frankly I would love to see American get sued by its employees for gross fraudulent claims to procure concessions.. So since 2001 they are super broke but they 1.Bought TWA, 2. Bought new aircraft, 3. The execs got huge bonuses and, 4. They gave Japan the majority of a 2 billion dollar bailout. Yeah really sounds like there hurting.........

AA didn't give JAL any money. The purchase of new aircraft will cause AA to spend less on fuel. Would you rather that AA spent more on fuel? Execs got huge bonuses? You really should read the proxy statement instead of listening to the worthless union's stooges. TWA? That purchase was two years before AA demanded concessions.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Funny it cost so much to PAY us but they can GIVE away the majority of a 2 BILLION dollar bail out to JAPAN airlines.

Notice the can in the sentence

I understand at 4 I stated they gave Japan Airlines money. I should have replaced gave with offered. I know they did not take the bailout. The point of the list however was to show that they are throwing around alot of money and had that money to burn. Its going everywhere but toward the employee. Also that was the last time chronologacly I could think of they were going to cut lose such a large amount of money. And yes American DID give away our concessions JAL just did not take them.

It is irrelevant if JAL took the money the point was AA felt they could offer it. There supposed to be hurting remember?
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/238143/american-

I don't feel foolish. I come here for information and clarification. Isn't this a place to get information and share news?

The purchase of new aircraft will cause AA to spend less on fuel. Would you rather that AA spent more on fuel?

No I rather them pay me decent. Yeah less on fuel, more on aircraft. I rather get new planes if its economically viable instead of fuel of course. But I don't see the immediate benefits. We do however have immediate problems. If we are really hurting as bad as they say we are the timing is a bit off don't you think? Maybee in time we will realize more profit form the new aircraft. But that only causes even more expense in the short term because of the cost of the aircraft.

Execs got huge bonuses? You really should read the proxy statement instead of listening to the worthless union's stooges.

Show me this proxy statement your talking about. I would love to see it. And no that information about the bonuses came from other sources than the TWU.

TWA? That purchase was two years before AA demanded concessions.

Did I say that was before the concessions. I said since 2001. I am fully aware the concessions were in 2003. But with the economy on the downslide even then they had no business buying another airline. They could just have easily waited for it to liquidate the assets and gotten them alot cheaper. Not to mention the assets we took on we did'nt even want. Plus all the debt we took on. I have no doubt that even 2 years later the concessions we gave went toward that purchase.

I don't feel foolish at all. I do however think your confrontational. And from this post in my opinion you reek of Company.

 

[Thomas Paine]

AA gave no money to JAL, let alone your fantasy of $2 billion. AA offered JAL as much as $300 million (with TPG putting up about one billion, but JAL and the Japanese government rejected all American investment and JAL filed for bankruptcy protection instead. Gotta wonder about the motivations of whomever is feeding you the misinformation. My guess is that it's some Gomer from the TWU.

AA didn't give JAL any money. The purchase of new aircraft will cause AA to spend less on fuel. Would you rather that AA spent more on fuel? Execs got huge bonuses? You really should read the proxy statement instead of listening to the worthless union's stooges. TWA? That purchase was two years before AA demanded concessions.

Didnt AMR commit to $2billion in revenue for JAL through One World?
Didnt AMR loan or secure a loan for JAL?
Spend less on fuel? So we should agree to work for less so AMR can buy fuel efficient aircraft? Come on, you claim to be a lawyer, surely to can come up with a better spin than that.
Bonuses, stock options, play whatever word games you like a bonus is something extra, could be cash, stock or a happy ending.
TWA writedowns were used to inflate the losses of 2002, in 2003 they used those inflated losses to justify the nedd for concessions.

Whats your motivation for the misinformation you spin?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Thank you Thomas Paine. I am glad to see someone agrees with my point of veiw. I agree this guy is nothing but a spindocter. And a company one at that.

 

[The Janitor]

By Maria Recio

mrecio@mcclatchydc.com

NEW YORK — AMR Corp.’s annual meeting, designed to showcase American Airlines’ growing New York City presence, was a largely uneventful and sparsely attended event on the east side of Manhattan.

AMR Chairman Gerard Arpey credited workers for the carrier’s improved performance, but warned the airline had to be able to overcome $600 million in labor cost disparity compared to its competitors.

American recently reached tentative agreements with the Transport Workers Union and faces tough negotiations with the flight attendants, and later this year, with the pilots’ union. The flight attendants voted Wednesday in favor of a strike, in the event it is allowed to do so by federal regulations.

In a federal securities filing Wednesday, AMR said its focus on five markets - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Miami – and business alliances with foreign carriers “will result in incremental revenues and cost savings of over $500 million per year.” The major savings will be felt in 2011, it said.

The carrier also said the labor cost gap will likely “narrow as open industry labor contracts are settled.”

In one of the few discordant notes at the meeting, Arpey was challenged by a member of the Professional Flight Attendants Association, which represents American’s flight attendants, on increased medical costs cutting into workers’ pay.

“We’ve got to stop this destruction of the middle class,” said Patrick Hancock, a Dallas//Fort Worth-based flight attendant.

Arpey responded that other carriers had abrogated labor contracts through bankruptcies that left American with the $600 million disparity. American stayed out of bankruptcy in 2003 after workers accepted deep cuts.

“A company that’s not competitive I don’t think is going to be successful,” Arpey said.

Several TWU members who attended the meeting suggested that the tentative agreements might not be ratified.

“I’m telling my people vote ‘no,’ “ said Chuck Schalk, a New York local official. But the TWU assistant director, Robert Gless, said the agreement “is a major enhancement to what we’ve been seeing.”

The Allied Pilots Association released a statement citing the “leadership vacuum” at the carrier.


Robert Gless is out of touch with mechanic's requirements for a contract. Tell TWU to stick it and take their company feed bag someplace else.

Oh come on. Someone got to pay for the Billion dollar USairways merger after you all sign your contracts and lay your cards down. The TWU even gets to add a new craft making a top out of $10 an hour. What's that, they said no fleet service will be affected even though fleet service is losing scope? Riiigghhtttt, along comes 6 months and their are pink slips because of 'other factors'.

 

[TWU informer]

ame='Large Grey' date='01 June 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1275430629' post='746061']

Oh come on. Someone got to pay for the Billion dollar USairways merger after you all sign your contracts and lay your cards down. The TWU even gets to add a new craft making a top out of $10 an hour. What's that, they said no fleet service will be affected even though fleet service is losing scope? Riiigghhtttt, along comes 6 months and their are pink slips because of 'other factors'.

That must be why the TWU Leadership quietly tells everyone to view the merger/acquisition protection language. And the dues payer exclaims "Huh, I work for pay and benefits".

 

[The Janitor]

That must be why the TWU Leadership quietly tells everyone to view the merger/acquisition protection language. And the dues payer exclaims "Huh, I work for pay and benefits".

something inherently wrong about not getting pay raises for the past two years when most every other airline gave them. Bonus'?????

And the TWU gets rewarded with a new airplane cleaning craft where the TWU protects its dues with more members who top out at $10, as they throw the fleet service under the bus.
While I get the impression that your fleet here are going to vote it down by a large margin, my concern is that if this T/A actually becomes a contract then it will drag down our talks starting next year.

 

[DFWFSC]

The thing is cabin cleaning will remain in the fleet service scope. Whats going to happen is csm's at DFW will panic when the new cabin cleaners are too slow or do a crappy job and make fleet service go up and finish the clean or start cleaning cause the cabin guys are stuck on another gate...etc....They did this with the RON's when we lost that in 2003.

 

[FWAAA]

Funny it cost so much to PAY us but they can GIVE away the majority of a 2 BILLION dollar bail out to JAPAN airlines.

Notice the can in the sentence

I understand at 4 I stated they gave Japan Airlines money. I should have replaced gave with offered. I know they did not take the bailout.

Ahh. Now I see it. Your post gave the impression that AA did give $2 billion to JAL and this post clears it up. It's helpful if people would write with precision so that the words they type match what they're trying to say. Sometimes it's not easy to do but it's a goal worth pursuing.

The point of the list however was to show that they are throwing around alot of money and had that money to burn. Its going everywhere but toward the employee. Also that was the last time chronologacly I could think of they were going to cut lose such a large amount of money. And yes American DID give away our concessions JAL just did not take them.

The increase in fuel prices after the concessions were imposed on you more than soaked up the entire dollar amount of the concessions. JAL didn't take them - ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and BP took them.

Yes, AA has borrowed money to buy more fuel efficient airplanes and offered to borrow money to keep JAL. No way will any company borrow money to pay higher wages - no lender would ever lend money so the borrower could give raises. I'm certain that you aren't willing to borrow money to increase your kids' allownace - same with employers. Raises aren't something you borrow to pay. Investments in new planes or to keep a valuable partner? Certainly.

It is irrelevant if JAL took the money the point was AA felt they could offer it. There supposed to be hurting remember?
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/238143/american-

That article butchered the facts, which admittedly are confusing about the AA/Oneworld/TPG offer.

AA didn't offer to throw away $2 billion of its money. AA offered to invest about $300 million in JAL and lined up TPG to invest another $1.1 billion. The two billion dollars referenced in the Manila paper consisted mostly of revenue that JAL already gets from customers that AA claims is because of their alliance with AA as explained here:

PART 1: ENHANCED $2 BILLION COMMERCIAL BENEFITS FROM AMERICAN, BRITISH AIRWAYS AND QANTAS

The first part of the broad-based offer would provide for vastly enhanced commercial relationships between JAL and American, British Airways and Qantas. The three airlines' approximately $2 billion in commitments and benefits would be realized by JAL over the three years and includes $1.5 billion of continuation of the ongoing revenue that JAL realizes from oneworld today, $300 million in incremental revenue guarantees from American Airlines, and approximately $200 million in enhancements from British Airways.

American already has proposed to JAL to apply for anti-trust immunity (ATI) between the United States and Japan on the basis that American - with its strong network and ability to quickly obtain ATI - is the best choice for JAL. With immunity and by participating in a joint venture with American, JAL can realize a revenue benefit that will bring it an estimated $100 million annually. As part of this enhanced offer, American is guaranteeing the $100 million in new annual revenue for the first three years of the proposed venture.

http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2823

AA did offer to guarantee $100 million of revenue a year for three years - but that was hardly a risky move - since antitrust immunity with AA will probably bring JAL more than $100 million of new revenue each year.

I wonder how many employees at AA realize the motivations of Delta in trying to woo JAL away from AA and Oneworld. Delta wasn't trying to get JAL to join Skyteam because of all the wonderful things JAL would bring Skyteam as much as Delta wanted to inflict a wound on AA and Oneworld. In case anyone at AA hasn't noticed, Delta intends to kill AA. DL is trying to kill AA at NYC and is making inroads at LAX. Snagging JAL into Skyteam would have weakened AA further and DL knows it. How many daily flights to NRT could AA support without all the online connections JAL offers? Quite a few of the passengers AA flies to Tokyo each day connect to HKG, SIN, BKK and other Asian cities on JAL. JAL joins Skyteam and AA's five daily NRT flights probably shrink as customers defect to UA and DL.

Delta sees this as a fight to the death and AA management was right (IMO) to place it on the front burner and offer investment to prevent JAL from defecting to Skyteam. And if AA had to borrow some money on JAL's behalf to accomplish that goal, then that was the right thing to do, even if it did anger employees who would like (and in many cases deserve) pay raises. If JAL left, then the question becomes how many flights don't fly and how many employees get furloughed. Raises? AA's trying to preserve the current revenue, which hasn't even been enough to produce profits lately.

I don't feel foolish. I come here for information and clarification. Isn't this a place to get information and share news?

The purchase of new aircraft will cause AA to spend less on fuel. Would you rather that AA spent more on fuel?

No I rather them pay me decent. Yeah less on fuel, more on aircraft. I rather get new planes if its economically viable instead of fuel of course. But I don't see the immediate benefits. We do however have immediate problems. If we are really hurting as bad as they say we are the timing is a bit off don't you think? Maybee in time we will realize more profit form the new aircraft. But that only causes even more expense in the short term because of the cost of the aircraft.

Of course you'd like more pay. Who wouldn't? Don't you think someone at AA has crunched the numbers on fuel burn and decided that the 35% fuel savings per seat mile that the new 738s offer is a better solution than burning lots more fuel in old MD-80s? If it wasn't economically viable, then AA wouldn't be borrowing money to buy 84 new 738s. The fuel savings alone won't be enough to make the payments on the new planes, but when you add in the reduced maintenance costs, the new planes are not significantly more expensive than the old MD-80s. The ones many passengers are growing weary of. My complaint with AA management is that Arpey and Beer (and now Horton) took far too long to order these new planes. Had they placed the orders in 2005 instead of waiting until 2007-08, AA would be farther along in replacing the MD-80s and would have saved that much more on fuel in 2008 when oil peaked at $147/bbl.

If you fix airplanes for a living, then reduced maintenance expenses isn't all that good news for you, since it probably equals fewer mechanics.

Execs got huge bonuses? You really should read the proxy statement instead of listening to the worthless union's stooges.

Show me this proxy statement your talking about. I would love to see it. And no that information about the bonuses came from other sources than the TWU.

Here you go:

No payment under financial component of our Annual Incentive Plan. Because we did not meet the pre-tax earnings threshold of our Annual Incentive Plan in 2009, we did not make any payment under the financial component of the plan.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Mzc4Mzg5fENoaWxkSUQ9Mzc3NTY2fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

In English (instead of corporate finance lawyer speak), that means that the board has once again not paid out any bonuses to management. Same as every year since 2001.

The Compensation Committee also considered the following factors in setting pay for our named executive officers in 2009:

• The need to retain and motivate them to achieve our goals and restore sustained profitability

• No employees received annual base pay increases in 2009

• Since 2001, no payment has been made to them under the financial component of our short-term incentive programs since we have not met the required 5% pre-tax earnings margins during that time, and they have not received any discretionary short-term incentive awards

• Our cyclical business and the difficult economic environment have resulted in extraordinary volatility in our stock price, the primary variable of our long-term equity based compensation. This volatility, coupled with our heavy emphasis on long-term compensation, has produced significant variations in realized compensation for our named executive officers from year to year. In addition, the future value of their long-term compensation remains highly unpredictable

• For the ten years 1999 through 2008, their total realized compensation was only approximately 65% of the total targeted compensation awarded to them during this period

Notice that the executives have received about 65% of the amount the board intended to pay them over that decade. That's equivalent to a 35% paycut, not dissimilar to the paycut you and everyone else suffered. Yes, they have been paid millions in stock. Point is, they got millions less than the board intended them to get. Corporate executives don't come cheap. Arpey gets about $670,000 in base salary (guaranteed) and that represents about 15% of his target compensation each year. That's right - the board intends for him to get about $4.5 million each year between cash, stock and retirement savings. Far more than anyone needs, to be sure, but in line with what CEOs get.

TWA? That purchase was two years before AA demanded concessions.

Did I say that was before the concessions. I said since 2001. I am fully aware the concessions were in 2003. But with the economy on the downslide even then they had no business buying another airline. They could just have easily waited for it to liquidate the assets and gotten them alot cheaper. Not to mention the assets we took on we did'nt even want. Plus all the debt we took on. I have no doubt that even 2 years later the concessions we gave went toward that purchase.

In hindsight, the TWA puchase didn't provide the benefits Carty hoped for when it was announced in January 2001. AA could have waited until liquidation, but the problem with that strategy is that it makes it difficult to get the one asset that's actually valuable: the higher-spending elite frequent flyers that TWA still had in major markets. The day TWA stopped flying, those higher-spenders would have dispersed to all the other airlines. That was one of the big assets that AA was buying - the revenue stream provided by the customers. The airplanes weren't what AA wanted. The slots and some real estate were valuable, but the customer base was the real prize. Reasonable people can disagree, but I don't think AA's finances in the wake of September 11, 2001 were any worse because AA had acquired the TWA assets. On the contrary, most of the airlines that didn't buy TWA filed for Ch 11 and slashed wages. What did AA do differently? Laid off all those newly acquired furlough cushions (TWA LLC employees).

I don't feel foolish at all. I do however think your confrontational. And from this post in my opinion you reek of Company.

I encounter numerous posts on this website that reek of ignorance (not necessarily yours) and I do my best to help provide information and combat that ignorance.

 

[Hopeful]

Notice that the executives have received about 65% of the amount the board intended to pay them over that decade. That's equivalent to a 35% paycut, not dissimilar to the paycut you and everyone else suffered. Yes, they have been paid millions in stock. Point is, they got millions less than the board intended them to get. Corporate executives don't come cheap. Arpey gets about $670,000 in base salary (guaranteed) and that represents about 15% of his target compensation each year. That's right - the board intends for him to get about $4.5 million each year between cash, stock and retirement savings. Far more than anyone needs, to be sure, but in line with what CEOs get.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH,,,,I get it now......The fact that the Fat Cats at the top did not get what was promised them is a pay cut.........Ohh I get it now...


I guess the $20,000 a year cut I took every year since 2003 wasn't really a paycut...Just not the raise I thought I was going to receive..

Oh thanks for the explanation, FWAAA....

And please give my condolences to the execs regarding their 35% paycut...Let me know when the collection plate is coming around.

 

[AANOTOK]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH,,,,I get it now......The fact that the Fat Cats at the top did not get what was promised them is a pay cut.........Ohh I get it now...


I guess the $20,000 a year cut I took every year since 2003 wasn't really a paycut...Just not the raise I thought I was going to receive..

Oh thanks for the explanation, FWAAA....

And please give my condolences to the execs regarding their 35% paycut...Let me know when the collection plate is coming around.

How dare you to think they didn't suffer as much as we did.

 

[Boomer]

...In hindsight, the TWA puchase didn't provide the benefits Carty hoped for when it was announced in January 2001. AA could have waited until liquidation, but the problem with that strategy is that it makes it difficult to get the one asset that's actually valuable: the higher-spending elite frequent flyers that TWA still had in major markets. The day TWA stopped flying, those higher-spenders would have dispersed to all the other airlines. That was one of the big assets that AA was buying - the revenue stream provided by the customers. The airplanes weren't what AA wanted. The slots and some real estate were valuable, but the customer base was the real prize. Reasonable people can disagree, but I don't think AA's finances in the wake of September 11, 2001 were any worse because AA had acquired the TWA assets. On the contrary, most of the airlines that didn't buy TWA filed for Ch 11 and slashed wages. What did AA do differently? Laid off all those newly acquired furlough cushions (TWA LLC employees).

FWAA,
Surely you are not saying that AA buying TWA was the reason AA did not file bankruptcy in the wake of 9/11? Reasonable people can disagree, but, IMHO AA did not file BK in:
1) the wake of 9/11; and,
2) the burst of the high tech bubble; with,
3) the ensuing recession because they have had a history, going back to 1983, of being able to tap their employees Unions, most notably the TWU, for concessions that enabled the growth and developement of the air carrier route structure and the equipment required to service it.

AMR and the rest of the Legacy Carriers were under price pressure from the LCCs AND were unprepared for the changes many businesses made following the bursting of the high tech bubble and the recession in early 2000; additionally, the airline industry had notoriously been self-victimized by an inability to restrain from uncontrolled capacity expansion.

The real reason, in my opinion (and reasonable people can disagree) TWA was purchased was to hedge against the then corporate mantra in numerous industries that required you to go big or go home.

 

[Birdman]

There was a video discovered recently, produced by "Shawn Lam Video", that showed how the negotiators, both AA and TWU, "lived it up" after hours. Supposedly a tango line had formed and fun was had by one and all. Did anyone see this video before it was washed from their site?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I would argue Arpey did not take a cut. He is guaranteed $670,000 right? Did he get that? What do we call things that we get that are not guaranteed? We call those bonuses don't we? Cry me a river that Arpey did not get his bonuses. When they take away the rest of his "bonuses" and cut his $670,000 dollars then were on the same page. They did'nt take our bonuses, they took out a chunk of our $670,000 (figuratively speaking). Tell you what, if the company takes away the rest of Aprey's "bonuses" and knocks him down to about $600,000.00 and I won't say another word about management screwing us.

 

[Ralph]

Reminder: Discuss the topic, not each other. Everyone who is a member has a right to comment on any topic. What they do for a living or how much they post is no one else's business. Posts have been deleted. Time off can be given.