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

[The Goose]

I will say it again because it applies "Bad moral will dwarf any concession that is given by the company" Management will say that moral has no effect with our dismal on time performance. Poor moral has a direct quantifiable financial and service impact. It is anothern poor decision of management not to recognize it and god for bid do something about it. enough said!

Chuck, it depends on who you ask.

This flavor of the day is typically what's put forth by the "management" firms on the property and not the AA mismanagement. The stated belief of the RLG (latest in TUL) group is that money is not a motivator - if that's the case, perhaps they could explain what good the exec bonuses do.

Poor morale not being a factor is the answer given by those far enough out of touch with the realities of their business as to be worthless to their company.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Chuck, it depends on who you ask.

This flavor of the day is typically what's put forth by the "management" firms on the property and not the AA mismanagement. The stated belief of the RLG (latest in TUL) group is that money is not a motivator - if that's the case, perhaps they could explain what good the exec bonuses do.

Poor morale not being a factor is the answer given by those far enough out of touch with the realities of their business as to be worthless to their company.

I would really enjoy going to tulsa and debating this point with the management firms and show them a chart of our high performance years that is directly related to high moral years as well.

 

[FWAAA]

Chuck, it depends on who you ask.

This flavor of the day is typically what's put forth by the "management" firms on the property and not the AA mismanagement. The stated belief of the RLG (latest in TUL) group is that money is not a motivator - if that's the case, perhaps they could explain what good the exec bonuses do.

They might reply "Money is not a factor in morale, be it executive or grunt. But the PUP/PSP payouts were the agreed-upon compensation for staying with AA at substandard exec wages during 2002-2006. The execs aren't getting the PSP payouts to enhance their morale, they're getting it because their contracts require that it be paid." Refusing to pay it to the 860-or-so execs wouldn't harm their morale - since the affected execs would simply sue AA if it refused to pay them.

You and others might disagree with that characterization. You see, the PUP/PSP payout weren't a bonus the execs dreamed up in 2006 to reward themselves for the return of profits or individual good performance. They were bonuses dreamed up many years ago to compensate the execs for their historically low pay when the value of AA stock outperformed the value of their peers. And for three years now, under the formula, that's happened.

Nobody seriously argues that morale is unaffected by pay. But with many of you banging the "give it all back, NOW, and then some" drum, it's obvious that poor morale would still be hanging around even if AA did offer a modest raise.

Of course, those truly out of touch think that AA can somehow afford to restore the $1.6 billion of concessions.

And for those who can't spell "morale," but are claiming that poor "moral" could be fixed with more money, there are lots of poor morals that can't be fixed with money.

 

[Bob Owens]

Of course, those truly out of touch think that AA can somehow afford to restore the $1.6 billion of concessions.

You forget that it wouldnt be that much. First of all the Maint share was 700million, since then 4000 jobs have been eliminated, thats another $320 million in savings that has never been accounted for plus additional revenue of over $500 million from contract maintenance. So they could give back every penny and still be in the black $120 million.

 

[The Goose]

They might reply "Money is not a factor in morale, be it executive or grunt. But the PUP/PSP payouts were the agreed-upon compensation for staying with AA at substandard exec wages during 2002-2006. The execs aren't getting the PSP payouts to enhance their morale, they're getting it because their contracts require that it be paid." Refusing to pay it to the 860-or-so execs wouldn't harm their morale - since the affected execs would simply sue AA if it refused to pay them.

You and others might disagree with that characterization. You see, the PUP/PSP payout weren't a bonus the execs dreamed up in 2006 to reward themselves for the return of profits or individual good performance. They were bonuses dreamed up many years ago to compensate the execs for their historically low pay when the value of AA stock outperformed the value of their peers. And for three years now, under the formula, that's happened.

Nobody seriously argues that morale is unaffected by pay. But with many of you banging the "give it all back, NOW, and then some" drum, it's obvious that poor morale would still be hanging around even if AA did offer a modest raise.

Of course, those truly out of touch think that AA can somehow afford to restore the $1.6 billion of concessions.

And for those who can't spell "morale," but are claiming that poor "moral" could be fixed with more money, there are lots of poor morals that can't be fixed with money.

Reality says to me that we won't get it all back - we can try to bargain for a lot, but "all" - not yet.

My biggest problem with this is the TWU's attitude. We want pay, which means employment would go down, and the TWU wants more members (dues income) to pay their inflated salaries. There is a direct conflict here and the company is exploiting it by sending "proposals" such as they have recently. It's a lot like FleaBay - put a high price on something and eventually some damned fool will buy it.

While looking out for those on the street, it would be better if the TWU would do what they can to make American a place people want to work again. As many others, I'd leave if I didn't have the time invested but I do discourage those I can and tell them there are better jobs out there. Perhaps not in pay, but certainly in benefits and time off.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

They might reply "Money is not a factor in morale, be it executive or grunt. But the PUP/PSP payouts were the agreed-upon compensation for staying with AA at substandard exec wages during 2002-2006. The execs aren't getting the PSP payouts to enhance their morale, they're getting it because their contracts require that it be paid." Refusing to pay it to the 860-or-so execs wouldn't harm their morale - since the affected execs would simply sue AA if it refused to pay them.

You and others might disagree with that characterization. You see, the PUP/PSP payout weren't a bonus the execs dreamed up in 2006 to reward themselves for the return of profits or individual good performance. They were bonuses dreamed up many years ago to compensate the execs for their historically low pay when the value of AA stock outperformed the value of their peers. And for three years now, under the formula, that's happened.

Nobody seriously argues that morale is unaffected by pay. But with many of you banging the "give it all back, NOW, and then some" drum, it's obvious that poor morale would still be hanging around even if AA did offer a modest raise.

Of course, those truly out of touch think that AA can somehow afford to restore the $1.6 billion of concessions.

And for those who can't spell "morale," but are claiming that poor "moral" could be fixed with more money, there are lots of poor morals that can't be fixed with money.

they're getting it because their contracts require that it be paid."


COMMENTS DELETED BY MODERATOR-USE OF PROFANITY AND PERSONAL ATTACK

 

[FWAAA]

You forget that it wouldnt be that much. First of all the Maint share was 700million, since then 4000 jobs have been eliminated, thats another $320 million in savings that has never been accounted for plus additional revenue of over $500 million from contract maintenance. So they could give back every penny and still be in the black $120 million.

I disagree that the furloughs were never part of the concession calculations; my recollection is that the concession totals included both wage and benefit reductions plus headcount reductions. But you are right - headcount reductions have occurred in all workgroups, so the snapback might only cost $1.0 or $1.2 billion or so instead of the $1.62 billion suffered by the represented work groups.

You don't actually believe that AA has brought in half a billion in new contract maintenance revenue, do you? I'm skeptical that AA has managed to attract that much new revenue.

 

[The Goose]

I disagree that the furloughs were never part of the concession calculations; my recollection is that the concession totals included both wage and benefit reductions plus headcount reductions. But you are right - headcount reductions have occurred in all workgroups, so the snapback might only cost $1.0 or $1.2 billion or so instead of the $1.62 billion suffered by the represented work groups.

You don't actually believe that AA has brought in half a billion in new contract maintenance revenue, do you? I'm skeptical that AA has managed to attract that much new revenue.

What American did was play game with parts and the warehouse stock re: their $.5 billion figure. That was the book-cooking by Burdchitte and his butt-buddy Parmesian.

What heavy maintenance that did make its way to the TULE base was reall very little and some of it American got stiffed for, I believe (the F100 a/c to SA).

 

[FWAAA]

What American did was play game with parts and the warehouse stock re: their $.5 billion figure. That was the book-cooking by Burdchitte and his butt-buddy Parmesian.

What heavy maintenance that did make its way to the TULE base was reall very little and some of it American got stiffed for, I believe (the F100 a/c to SA).

I believe ya. The press releases announcing the big maintenance "goals" also said that they would be met with a combination of new business (revenue) plus cost savings - presumably obtained via the much-hated pajama parties and "working together" acronyms. Overhauling a few Allegiant MD-80s (former AA planes, right?) doesn't look like a billion of new business to me.

 

[The Goose]

I believe ya. The press releases announcing the big maintenance "goals" also said that they would be met with a combination of new business (revenue) plus cost savings - presumably obtained via the much-hated pajama parties and "working together" acronyms. Overhauling a few Allegiant MD-80s (former AA planes, right?) doesn't look like a billion of new business to me.

While this is only a personal opinion, I feel the many acronym-ed groups gave those who were worth a tinker's damn anyway something to do with themselves rather than foul up their 'work' on an aircraft and become a more 'important part of the company' (in their own mind).

That alone is probably where most of the supposed savings came from.

The Meeting - The corporate-accepted alternative to real productivity.

 

[AAflygirl]

Of course boosting pay is going to boost morale. That's a no-brainer. But I think many of my co-workers, pilots in particular, want to trade a short term morale (pay) boost for long term uncertainty. That worries me, since I'm low on the totem pole and would probably have to go if there's another round of flight attendant furloughs. So I'm sorry but I have to consider my job security ahead of your raise.

 

[Bob Owens]

Of course boosting pay is going to boost morale. That's a no-brainer. But I think many of my co-workers, pilots in particular, want to trade a short term morale (pay) boost for long term uncertainty. That worries me, since I'm low on the totem pole and would probably have to go if there's another round of flight attendant furloughs. So I'm sorry but I have to consider my job security ahead of your raise.

If you want job security get a government job.
Otherwise you are playing a fools game giving up pay to a private company in the hopes that by working for less you are more secure. There is no security in poverty. Make as much as you can because tomorrow the owners of the company could sell it, just ask the TWA flight attendants that are still on furlough who also gave up pay for the illusion of security.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

If you want job security get a government job.
Otherwise you are playing a fools game giving up pay to a private company in the hopes that by working for less you are more secure. There is no security in poverty. Make as much as you can because tomorrow the owners of the company could sell it, just ask the TWA flight attendants that are still on furlough who also gave up pay for the illusion of security.

Bob,you forgot the job of Mortician. That's the most secure job in the world. People are just dying for that type of service. Pays good too!

 

[Flyboy4u]

Of course boosting pay is going to boost morale. That's a no-brainer. But I think many of my co-workers, pilots in particular, want to trade a short term morale (pay) boost for long term uncertainty. That worries me, since I'm low on the totem pole and would probably have to go if there's another round of flight attendant furloughs. So I'm sorry but I have to consider my job security ahead of your raise.

LOL...I have to laugh at this one...AAFlygirl, if you think the APFA is going to keep your job over giving the f/a's a pay raise you obviosuly haven't been around here (AA) very long..You will so be thrown on the street without blinking an eye ,so as the majority can get a raise! Goodluck with that one.

 

[Boomer]

Of course boosting pay is going to boost morale. That's a no-brainer. But I think many of my co-workers, pilots in particular, want to trade a short term morale (pay) boost for long term uncertainty. That worries me, since I'm low on the totem pole and would probably have to go if there's another round of flight attendant furloughs. So I'm sorry but I have to consider my job security ahead of your raise.

Don't worry about the TWU sister, not too long ago AA was considering making trousers mandantory for the F/A's and skirts mandantory for the TWU: the former had been inadvertently revealing dangling fortitude to the consternation of the traveling public while the latter had yet to prove posession of same.