TWU Waving White Flag Already

[The Goose]

You conveniently left out Option3: NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, THE TOP MANAGERS WILL GET THEIRS!
EVEN IN CHAPTER 11, YOU WOULD SEE THE COMPANY ASKING THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE TO INCREASE THE PAY OF THE EXECUTIVES SO THEY DON'T LOSE THE "KEY" TALENT.

This key talent's only ability is greed and should be the first out the door - they were the ones driving when the bus ran off the cliff.

Unfortunately, a court would never see it that way.

 

[TWU informer]

This seems a good time to review the Video of Jim Little claiming

"Labor is in the House"

and

"We want our Share and We Want it Now"

Jim Little Talking Tough

Note: Sound on this video is a faulty but gets better at the 1 minute mark.

 

[TWU informer]

Here is another video with Jim Little talking about the erosion of the "Middle Class".

No mention of this without further ratification 17.5% paycut coupled with another 20% cuts in benefits that Jim Little negotiated and signed. O'le Jim is still blaming the Politicians for his failures.

Watch Snake Tongue of Jim Little at Work

Note the TWU gave John Edwards the kiss of death endorsement. Now the TWU endorses Obama.

 

[Bob Owens]

CONely doesnt have to live under the concessions he plans to put in place.

He and the International are probably more worried about the price of AA stock than our wages.

That pretty much sums it up.

Conley must go. We cant have the guy who is in charge of our contract pleading the airlines case to the press while the members are suffering. Any decent union official would have responded to the $100/barrel comment with "Our members are consumers of energy also, higher energy costs are having a severe impact on our members. Higher energy costs are driving up costs throughout the economy and we can't have our members be the only ones who dont simply pass these costs on by charging more for what they supply. The airlines have implemented several fuel based surcharges since 2003, our members simply saw their costs go up. Over the last 12 months inflation has been recorded at an understated rate of 7.5%, this comes on top of a 25% decrease our members suffered in 2003 and at least another 15% since 2003. The well has run dry, the airlines have to go somewhere else this time, our members must have their compensation restored."

Profitability? Who cares? According to all the "experts" this industry has never been profitable. 80 years of losing money and its still around.Its still around because no matter how much money this industry "loses" it generates billions for others.

Since 2003 AA has eliminated 40,000 jobs, thats roughly $2.4 billion a year in savings, plus another $1.8 billion from us and their gross earnings have increased from around $20 billion to around $22billion. That means that AA has around $6.8 billion a year extra to play with. Add into that that AA uses less fuel than before due to winglets, Goldhoffers, reduced flying, has hedged a large percentage of their fuel, and has implemented several fuel surcharges to ticket prices and the impact of $100 barrel oil hits the employees a lot harder than it does the airline. Increased energy costs, food costs, utilities etc are all having a severe impact on our quality of life. I'm not making it and I dont live extravagantly and I could care less about AAs claims of hardship. Let it shut down if thats the case. If profits were required then this industry would have vanished 80 years ago. Airline workers can not concern themselves with the profitability of the airline because thats not under their control. We gave up around 40% of our compensation, we are going broke yet Conley claims we must give more. Conley must go.

 

[Boomer]

As a term and condition of employment, I am forced to pay dues to the TWU as my bargaining Agent.

As my bargaining agent, the TWU has an individual Fiduciary Duty to represent my best interests.

The TWU, for whom Conley is an International Representative, has now told the aerospace community that the current negotiations are no longer conditioned on getting back what was given back in '03, despite the submitted TWU economic proposal to AA.

Added: the price of oil has not affected the bonuses paid to AA Management or the increases in the salaries of TWU International Officers.

If a Lawyer made the statements attributed to Conley during the course of representing me in a legal matter, he would be subject to discipline before the bar and a civil suit.

Other than the obvious censure before the bar, are Conley and the TWU any different with resepect to civil litigation?

 

[DallasConehead]

It would be nice to know exactly what he said. It seems his comments were said for the benefit of stock prices and the company execs, good news for them with upcoming pup payout. If this is the case, he should resign or be fired, he could go back to cleaning lavs. This would send a strong message. I'm curious how the M&E committee is reacting to his comments. Anyone?

 

[Boomer]

It would be nice to know exactly what he said. It seems his comments were said for the benefit of stock prices and the company execs, good news for them with upcoming pup payout. If this is the case, he should resign or be fired, he could go back to cleaning lavs. This would send a strong message. I'm curious how the M&E committee is reacting to his comments. Anyone?

If the TWU is negotiating another Stock Deal, and AMR has proffered any type of deal relating to said transaction: we have enough for an Indictment before a Federal Court.

 

[FWAAA]

Since 2003 AA has eliminated 40,000 jobs, thats roughly $2.4 billion a year in savings, plus another $1.8 billion from us and their gross earnings have increased from around $20 billion to around $22billion. That means that AA has around $6.8 billion a year extra to play with. Add into that that AA uses less fuel than before due to winglets, Goldhoffers, reduced flying, has hedged a large percentage of their fuel, and has implemented several fuel surcharges to ticket prices and the impact of $100 barrel oil hits the employees a lot harder than it does the airline. Increased energy costs, food costs, utilities etc are all having a severe impact on our quality of life. I'm not making it and I dont live extravagantly and I could care less about AAs claims of hardship. Let it shut down if thats the case. If profits were required then this industry would have vanished 80 years ago. Airline workers can not concern themselves with the profitability of the airline because thats not under their control. We gave up around 40% of our compensation, we are going broke yet Conley claims we must give more. Conley must go.

You've overstated the wage savings. AA's spending on wages, salaries and benefits has declined by about $1.8 billion each year; magically, that's the amount of the stated savings AA promised at the time of the concessions. The $1.8 billion included the furloughs. Check the financials from 2002-2007. 2004's wage spending was just about $1.8 billion less than 2002. In 2003, the savings were about half that, since the concession savings were phased in (especially the pilots, due to furloughs and downgrades). Since 2004, wages have gone up slightly, probably due to the 1.5% raises.

You've also understated the revenue gains. 2003 total revenue was $17.4 billion and in 2007 it was $22.9 billion.

Spending on fuel in 2003 was $2.77 billion and in 2007 was $6.67 billion. 2008's fuel bill is now projected to be almost $9 billion.

Nobody's denying your costs are going up. Unfortunately, AA doesn't appear to be the place to recoup those higher costs of yours. AA quite clearly doesn't have the money.

The profitability of your employer is largely (mostly) out of your control. But not your concern? Seriously? Employees of profitable companies often negotiate raises, like at WN. Employees of unprofitable employers rarely get raises, let alone big raises. Good luck altering that.

 

[Bob Owens]

You've overstated the wage savings. AA's spending on wages, salaries and benefits has declined by about $1.8 billion each year; magically, that's the amount of the stated savings AA promised at the time of the concessions. The $1.8 billion included the furloughs. Check the financials from 2002-2007. 2004's wage spending was just about $1.8 billion less than 2002. In 2003, the savings were about half that, since the concession savings were phased in (especially the pilots, due to furloughs and downgrades). Since 2004, wages have gone up slightly, probably due to the 1.5% raises.

I didnt say that AA furloughed enough people to lower wage expense buy $2.4 billion, I said they eliminated around 40,000 jobs, some through furloughs others, if not most, by not replacing those who left through terminations, resignations and retirement.

You've also understated the revenue gains. 2003 total revenue was $17.4 billion and in 2007 it was $22.9 billion.

Ok, so revenue went up by $5.5 billion with around 40,000 less employees. That means they had around $9.7 billion more to play with.

Spending on fuel in 2003 was $2.77 billion and in 2007 was $6.67 billion. 2008's fuel bill is now projected to be almost $9 billion.

Well lets skip the projected costs for fuel since we dont know what the revenue will be. It doesnt take all that long to slap on a few more fuel surcharges. So as far as known figures go fuel went up by around $4billion, revenues alone covered that with $1.5 billion to spare.

Nobody's denying your costs are going up. Unfortunately, AA doesn't appear to be the place to recoup those higher costs of yours. AA quite clearly doesn't have the money.

Then they need to raise the price they charge like everyone else.

The profitability of your employer is largely (mostly) out of your control. But not your concern? Seriously?

When it comes to negotiating our terms of employment the profitability of the company should not be our concern since we have no control over that anyway and the company can manipulate those figures to suit their arguement. After acceptable terms have been made employees should do whatever they can to make the operation run as effeciently as possible so the company can live up to their end of the bargain. Whether or not the company actually achieves profitability or not is up to management but if the employees have done their part they should be compensated accordingly regardless of the final outcome. We sell our labor to the company, providing that labor has its costs, just like any other entity doing business with AA they have to sell their product at a price that covers its costs and then some, do you know of any vendors who set their long term price agreements to whatever the profitability of the customer is at the time of the agreement? Does Boeing slash the cost of their $1000 toilet seats lids because AA is paying more for fuel?

Employees of profitable companies often negotiate raises, like at WN. Employees of unprofitable employers rarely get raises, let alone big raises. Good luck altering that.

That rule of yours doesnt seem to apply to the executives does it? All over the economy we see executives, who are employees, get huge raises and bonuses while losing money for the shareholder. The fact is profitability of the company or not workers must get enough to cover their costs. If management can not meet their obligations its up to the shareholders to hold them accountable, the workers should not be penalized based upon the poor performance of management. If management can not meet its obligations and the shareholders do not take action then the company should be liquidated to let those companies that can deliver to both their shareholders and employees expand.

 

[FWAAA]

I didnt say that AA furloughed enough people to lower wage expense buy $2.4 billion, I said they eliminated around 40,000 jobs, some through furloughs others, if not most, by not replacing those who left through terminations, resignations and retirement.

You said:

Since 2003 AA has eliminated 40,000 jobs, thats roughly $2.4 billion a year in savings, plus another $1.8 billion from us and their gross earnings have increased from around $20 billion to around $22billion. That means that AA has around $6.8 billion a year extra to play with.

And that's simply not true. You fabricated that imaginary number of $2.4 billion in savings. AA's wage savings since 2003 are just about $1.8 billion a year. Not $1.8 billion plus some imaginary number of yours of $2.4 billion.

Ok, so revenue went up by $5.5 billion with around 40,000 less employees. That means they had around $9.7 billion more to play with.

And there, you did it again. It's one thing to have a different opinion, which you and I often do. It's quite another to fabricate imaginary facts the way you sometimes do. Like you did here. The numbers I've posted are in the 10-Ks. Your $2.4 billion number of imaginary "money to play with" isn't.

Wages are down $1.8 billion and revenue is up about $5.5 billion. Countering that, fuel is now about $4 billion more. And unlike in late 2001, all of 2002 and the first half of 2003, AA isn't having to borrow money to pay its operating costs.

Then they need to raise the price they charge like everyone else.

True. And supply needs to shrink industry-wide to permit prices to rise. Either that or demand for expensive seats needs to multiply, which it isn't. Since every airline has tried to raise fares, with limited success, I don't ascribe that failure to management incompetence. I'm certain you disagree. Sometimes market forces let prices go up (see gasoline and jetA as examples) and sometimes market forces don't permit price increases (see Airlines for examples).

As to management pay - I don't bother concerning myself with it. I'm not management, and their pay really has very little to do with raising yours. Yours needs to increase, not theirs. And one thing seems certain: Management isn't going to cut their own pay so it can raise yours. Never has happened in the past, and won't in the future unless the represented workgroups buy a majority of the company (and can then call the shots).

 

[Hopeful]

True. And supply needs to shrink industry-wide to permit prices to rise. Either that or demand for expensive seats needs to multiply, which it isn't. Since every airline has tried to raise fares, with limited success, I don't ascribe that failure to management incompetence. I'm certain you disagree. Sometimes market forces let prices go up (see gasoline and jetA as examples) and sometimes market forces don't permit price increases (see Airlines for examples).

Why should the airlines shrink to profitability when all they have to do is slash employee wages and benefits or put the bankruptcy gun to their heads?

 

[eolesen]

Wages and benefits aren't going to cut it this time. Reducing fuel consumption is the only fix, and that means shrinkage...

 

[Bob Owens]

You said:



And that's simply not true. You fabricated that imaginary number of $2.4 billion in savings. AA's wage savings since 2003 are just about $1.8 billion a year. Not $1.8 billion plus some imaginary number of yours of $2.4 billion.

Fabricated? If anything its conservative. If you figure each employee costs the company an average of $60,000 a year times 40,000 that comes out to $2.4 billion, then they took another $1.8 billion in concessions from those who remained. If their numbers dont reflect that perhaps it went to the executives and management.

And there, you did it again. It's one thing to have a different opinion, which you and I often do. It's quite another to fabricate imaginary facts the way you sometimes do. Like you did here. The numbers I've posted are in the 10-Ks. Your $2.4 billion number of imaginary "money to play with" isn't.

Well the people are gone so the savings must be there. Perhaps much of went for Winglets, Goldhoffers and all the new ground equipment we see.

True. And supply needs to shrink industry-wide to permit prices to rise. Either that or demand for expensive seats needs to multiply, which it isn't. Since every airline has tried to raise fares, with limited success, I don't ascribe that failure to management incompetence. I'm certain you disagree. Sometimes market forces let prices go up (see gasoline and jetA as examples) and sometimes market forces don't permit price increases (see Airlines for examples).

I dont agree that more shrinkage is needed. The planes are pretty much full. If they shrink any more then people wouldnt be able to get where they need to get at any price-there would be no seats available.

As to management pay - I don't bother concerning myself with it. I'm not management, and their pay really has very little to do with raising yours. Yours needs to increase, not theirs. And one thing seems certain: Management isn't going to cut their own pay so it can raise yours. Never has happened in the past, and won't in the future unless the represented workgroups buy a majority of the company (and can then call the shots).

Or we go on strike.

 

[FWAAA]

Why should the airlines shrink to profitability when all they have to do is slash employee wages and benefits or put the bankruptcy gun to their heads?

Because I can't imagine that anyone with a shred of self-worth would come to work every day for any less $$$ than you and your colleagues currently accept. But I've been wrong before.

 

[Boomer]

Because I can't imagine that anyone with a shred of self-worth would come to work every day for any less $$$ than you and your colleagues currently accept. But I've been wrong before.

Sure you can, it has been the basis for what you have accomplished for the last 5 years.

Go Ahead, take your victory lap: for now.