Like I said, Liquidation is not up to us. AA is the one claiming that they need to eliminate PVs (most others get DATs), reduce our sick days to 4 days a year(most get 12), take away yet another week of vacation(most get more vacation), never pay doubletime(most get double after 12 hours), only recognize 5 holidays and only pay half pay if we work it (Most get at least double the amount of days and double the amount of extra pay on each of those days), claiming they need to trash all the OT rules , gut all our work rules, pay us much much less than any other major carrier, confiscate funds that were put aside to pay for our retiree medical, freeze our pension and only match base wages on a 401K(most get a match on all wages), outsource stuff that nobody else outsources (nobody outsources PS, Acks and B checks)and eliminate nearly half the workforce in order to compete(our ratio of mechanics per airplane would be less than UALs under their proposal). What I'm saying is if AA needs all that to reorganize then we are better off letting them liquidate the company than try and subsidize their existance. As mechanics we are supposed to put our licenses first, uphold the profession, by subsidizing AA they would likely use those subsidies to lower prices which in turn would cause other carriers to do the same (and seek lower wages), Since AA has already established through their own admission that they can not reorganize and remain competative without all these concessions, in other words on a level playing field, then that means they would come back for even more concessions once their competitors level the field again by getting more concessions from their workers, probably before 2018, (all of our peers current agreements become amendable prior to 2018, some are open now, some open next year)thus repeating the cycle. Why waste more years subsidizing AA? If they really must have these things then we would be better off to get on with the strike and let them liquidate if they would rather do that than pay a competative wage so the assetts can be more effectively used at carriers that can pay a fair wage and compete on a level playing field. If their business plan is based upon paying us much much less than anyone else why would we want to help them succeed? Why would we want to invest even more years working under a substandard deal for a cpmapny where they are pretty straightforwardly telling us that we will never see our "investment" pay off?
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
I believe they do in some cases, and some they dont.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Lets face it you are the minority. The members voted that POS TA down. Now we are in bankruptcy and the judge decides. What exactly have you done besides vote yes ??????
Why dont you run for an elected position and try and get your points across to sway the vote. All I see is you bashing Bob on a forum. We voted NO and if they pass us another concessionery proposal we will vote NO again. We are tired of being raped by the same people Id rather take it from behind from someone else. I know one thing it wont be you
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. We won't know until we vote will we.
So the scenario is according to you and Bob, vote no on the next deal, go to the judge who will most likely approve the company's motion, jobs get outsourced, we then negotiate with less leverage since we now have approximately 4,300 less M&R members, we wait for the NMB to release us, and then when it happens we go on strike. That will be in how many years from today? Oh well, doesn't matter because part of the RLA process is the company can implement its last offer, not best offer, last offer. Maybe AA will shut down or maybe they will have moved so much work out that the impact that we think we have will be diminished because we have 4,300 fewer members or more by the time that happens. With two more years to prepare AA will have MRO relationships in place that allow them to move work more quickly outside. Then there is that line maintenance thing and how line is impervious to outsourcing. Let's test that shall we? NWA did. But there is a mechanic shortage and what about all those former AA'ers? Will they scab like those tough as nails AMFA/NWA guys? Maybe, maybe not. None of this takes in to account AA may be bought. Those US Airways guys might be willing to take our line jobs when we walk.
Great plan, awesome plan!!!
787nightmare
Veteran
- Aug 28, 2010
- 722
- 153
So just roll over and play "Rover", right?
Go ahead....you know the drill well.
Like I said before.......I'd pay to see you say that Sh!t to some honorable exNWA mechs I know at Boeing.
AA-MRO.COM
Senior
- Mar 12, 2012
- 425
- 472
The majority that voted NO seem to like it better than your plan of VOTE YES. Less pay and benefits to save jobs. I dont think so. What is your plan or dont you have one. I and many other NO voters would love to hear it. Please tell us...
Or is your plan to bash Bob Owens who has proven himself by getting re-elected by the members he represents. that speaks more about his charecter than your constant rants. Run for office "rock the vote" i dont think you have it in you...
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
I'm not rolling over. Every succeeding offer is getting worse than the first and now we will get the ultimate screw job. Face it, your strategy is killing good paying jobs. The MROs aren't hiring in the US at good wages and thanks to the FAA passing out 145 certificates like candy and NAFTA the supposed AMT shortage in the US will be filled by unlicensed workers at COOPESA, Aeromexico, and Aeroman.
And love your concept of beat the crap out of someone who has a different perspective. Real professional. Maybe that tactic will work in US BK Court. "Your Honor I know some exNWA mechs at Boeing that will kick your ass."
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
They voted no on the advice that they would get a better deal. So now they will get less pay, benefits, and less jobs too. Awesome! You won that battle.
Not bashing Bob, just holding him accountable for his words. And Bob can fight his own battles, he's a big boy. Getting elected in a process reminiscent of running for student body president isn't saying much. Promising things you can't deliver on and blaming the system and other people doesn't sound like much of a leader. Sounds like a person who is out of touch of the world in which he lives in.
And Bob isn't that tough. Think about it, he has enough seniority that either way he is unaccountable. When AA goes to court who will lose their job, not Bob he has seniority. Nothing like playing fast and loose with someone else's job and career. He knows AA won't liquidate so either way he wins, he gets to be the fighter you all praise and worship and keep his job. Bob great job fearless leader. Will Bob quit or leave the industry when AA gets its way? Stay tuned kids, don't touch that dial.
AA89
Veteran
- Jun 1, 2010
- 690
- 320
I would be willing to bet that if the T/A were offered today there would be more yes votes than last time.
This is a whole different ballgame than when NWA went out. At AA, all we have to do is look around to see our future.
The only question is: Do I want to TRY and save my profession by going on strike or do I see that risk as too great and the odds too long.
I think most guys at AA see the RLA, BK laws, and the twu as obstacles that we will never overcome and they just want to get out of this with as much as they can. Especially those that live in the lower cost of living areas.
If we are allowed to vote on the term sheet we will see which side of the fence most people are on.
This is a whole different ballgame than when NWA went out. At AA, all we have to do is look around to see our future.
The only question is: Do I want to TRY and save my profession by going on strike or do I see that risk as too great and the odds too long.
I think most guys at AA see the RLA, BK laws, and the twu as obstacles that we will never overcome and they just want to get out of this with as much as they can. Especially those that live in the lower cost of living areas.
If we are allowed to vote on the term sheet we will see which side of the fence most people are on.
Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
Let me get this right ,The TWU puts out a T/A that they don't even endorse.On top of that they insert a strike clause
that goes nowhere,but its Bobs fault.Have you thought of getting professsional help?Repeat after me ,We Are at the bottom
we have nowhere to go but Up !
So one the one hand you say that we can't ask for anything because we have more mechanics than anyone else then you say that if we end up with less mechanics then we have less leverage, which is it?
Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
The presidents that were for it got voted out! You just can't sell a #### sandwich here anymore!
They voted NO because the deal was unacceptable, and they need to keep voting NO until we get an acceptable deal.
I never claimed to be a tough guy, yea I may not lose my job if AA cuts 4000 heads because I have a lot of seniority but if AA did go belly up, with my name out there the odds that I would not be picked up by anotherr carrier because their HR departments would simply google my name. So I do have something at stake here more so than you but its a risk worth taking to me. By the way even the company admits that it would take well over a year to cut those heads, if they did. The fact is they treally cant cut as much as they put out there and they have said they want the "ability" to outsource. A while back one manager confided that he would like to contract out all of Title II but there really wasnt anyone out there he could, the fact is the few companys that handle such work in the Northeast pay their guys pretty much the same, all they would lose is the airline benefits and they would not save any money. Figure by the time they start cutting attrition will already be absorbing a lot of the loss, If their plan is to reduce the headcount by 4000 jobs and we lose 500 per year anyway then by 2018 3000 of the possible 4000 would have been recalled, just like we had 16000 in 2003 and now have 11000 with everyone having been offered recall, and most not taking it. So 5000 jobs are gone but nobody is still on layoff, nobody eneded up on a street corner with a tin cup in hand either, sure some struggled, but so are those of us who stayed.
AA89
Veteran
- Jun 1, 2010
- 690
- 320
The Democratic process at work. So here we are.
The more I think about it, Bob is right that you shouldn't keep offering concessions in lieu of headcount reductions. There comes a point when you cut pay and benefits enough that it isn't worth keeping the job. But again, that's my view as an outsider I don't have a dog in this fight.
Josh
Josh
