Good point Brad. I am an AMT for AA. My wife is a reservationist for Southwest. We live both sides....funny thing is the person answering the phones at one airline will be higher paid then the one fixing the aircraft at the other. Reality check!
Union Employees will never be satisfied with anything
- Thread starter AAONO
- Start date
jetsandprops
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 0
The reason that Southwest is doing well has to do with both good mgmt and different work rules for labor. At the end of the day they use less people to get the same work done or they out source things ....C checks on the 737s for example. If AA were to have the same work rules as WN yes all the current employess could make the same salary or more but there would be thousands of less workers.
AAObserver
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2003
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
I''ve watched this board for sometime and have gained alot of insite on how AA union employees think. Simply said, the posts on here are just more proof that unions are the single biggest reason the failure rate of major US airlines is so high.
The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses, yet union employees are so out of touch with the real business world that they can''t understand this. In fact, it sounds like all three unions are more worried about sticking it to management than they are about their own personal welfare.
The pension issue is also a non-issue; it''s made up of money that the executives have already earned, but deferred for tax reasons. It''s underfunded, and the execs will get a payout that is taxed to death and less than what they are actually owed.
Regardless, the bottom line on the executive compensation is that it is none of your business. You are the employEEs, not the employERs. The employERs hired you to do a job, and if you don''t like the working conditions or pay then leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for AA.
As for the union concessions, the fact of the matter is that your airline is going down the tubes, and todays market does not allow the same payscales that you had back in the late 90''s economic heyday. If you are going to get mad at anyone, get mad at the government for allowing the economy to degrade, or get mad at the 9/11 terrorists, or get mad at President Bush for going to war with Iraq. Don''t get mad at the management.
Actually, if you are going to get mad maybe you should be mad at your unions. If it weren''t for them, those of you who really do a great job could be rewarded based on your merit instead of watching less deserving employees make more money simply because they have been with the company longer. If I were an FA who worked my butt off but had to work with lazy FAs with terrible attitudes who were making more money than me I''d be mad as hell. That''s what being in a union does -- it rewards long-term mediocrity instead of rewarding employees who do the best job.
I''m sure now that AA''s execs have rescinded their bonuses, the unions still won''t be happy. They will find something else to gripe about and will probably drag AA right down the tubes alongside Eastern, PanAm, and the other former giants who were brought to their knees by whiny, self-centered unions.
The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses, yet union employees are so out of touch with the real business world that they can''t understand this. In fact, it sounds like all three unions are more worried about sticking it to management than they are about their own personal welfare.
The pension issue is also a non-issue; it''s made up of money that the executives have already earned, but deferred for tax reasons. It''s underfunded, and the execs will get a payout that is taxed to death and less than what they are actually owed.
Regardless, the bottom line on the executive compensation is that it is none of your business. You are the employEEs, not the employERs. The employERs hired you to do a job, and if you don''t like the working conditions or pay then leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for AA.
As for the union concessions, the fact of the matter is that your airline is going down the tubes, and todays market does not allow the same payscales that you had back in the late 90''s economic heyday. If you are going to get mad at anyone, get mad at the government for allowing the economy to degrade, or get mad at the 9/11 terrorists, or get mad at President Bush for going to war with Iraq. Don''t get mad at the management.
Actually, if you are going to get mad maybe you should be mad at your unions. If it weren''t for them, those of you who really do a great job could be rewarded based on your merit instead of watching less deserving employees make more money simply because they have been with the company longer. If I were an FA who worked my butt off but had to work with lazy FAs with terrible attitudes who were making more money than me I''d be mad as hell. That''s what being in a union does -- it rewards long-term mediocrity instead of rewarding employees who do the best job.
I''m sure now that AA''s execs have rescinded their bonuses, the unions still won''t be happy. They will find something else to gripe about and will probably drag AA right down the tubes alongside Eastern, PanAm, and the other former giants who were brought to their knees by whiny, self-centered unions.
To AAobserver:
You are correct in that if you do not want to go to jiffy lube and pay $30 then don't. I am saying I would like to work for management of a company that does not pad their pockets before worrying about the companies profitability. A management team that knows the importance of high employee morale. A management team that cares about it's employees. I would like to have AMR assume Southwest's pay scales across the board....I'll get a raise, bet you'd get a paycut! Yes, I could leave, but I think I'll hang out a bit, who knows, maybe we'll go bankrupt, replace upper management and the company will turn around.....I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!
You are correct in that if you do not want to go to jiffy lube and pay $30 then don't. I am saying I would like to work for management of a company that does not pad their pockets before worrying about the companies profitability. A management team that knows the importance of high employee morale. A management team that cares about it's employees. I would like to have AMR assume Southwest's pay scales across the board....I'll get a raise, bet you'd get a paycut! Yes, I could leave, but I think I'll hang out a bit, who knows, maybe we'll go bankrupt, replace upper management and the company will turn around.....I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!
AAObserver
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2003
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep, exactly right.
Anything to screw management.
Anything to screw management.
AAObserver
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2003
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:46:49 PM Brad wrote:
As for the airlines not being able to pay the labor, how does southwest do it? Let give you my answer. BETTER MANAGEMENT!
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:46:49 PM Brad wrote:
As for the airlines not being able to pay the labor, how does southwest do it? Let give you my answer. BETTER MANAGEMENT!
----------------
Try lower pay and longer working hours.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:46:49 PM Brad wrote:
As far as I am concerned the issue with the management pensions was not about them having protection it was about them trying to decieve us. It has been pretty common with AA management. Have you observed that?
There are two sides to every story.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:46:49 PM Brad wrote:
As far as I am concerned the issue with the management pensions was not about them having protection it was about them trying to decieve us. It has been pretty common with AA management. Have you observed that?
There are two sides to every story.
----------------
You prove my point. AA management''s comp is none of your business, and is irrelavent to employee pay. You work for them, not vice versa. If you don''t think you are paid enough or don''t like your management, you are free to leave the company.
I think that it is safe to say that the few who frequent this board do not speak for every AA employee. As for the airlines not being able to pay the labor, how does southwest do it? Let give you my answer. BETTER MANAGEMENT!
As far as I am concerned the issue with the management pensions was not about them having protection it was about them trying to decieve us. It has been pretty common with AA management. Have you observed that?
There are two sides to every story.
As far as I am concerned the issue with the management pensions was not about them having protection it was about them trying to decieve us. It has been pretty common with AA management. Have you observed that?
There are two sides to every story.
AAObserver
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2003
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5
53 PM AAONO wrote:
No, we would like to all quit at the same time in order to show we are tired of being under paid for our profession.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5
53 PM AAONO wrote: No, we would like to all quit at the same time in order to show we are tired of being under paid for our profession.
----------------
Then do something else. No one is forcing you to do a job in which you don''t like the pay. Nor did anyone force you to take that job in the first place.
----------------
You are probably one of these people that goes to Jiffy Lube and pays $30 for an oil change, and are satisfied. However, when you fly, you feel you should be able to go caost to coast for $50. If you are happy with $7 hour mechanics, then contact your government officials, ask them to change the railway labor act, then when we can all quit legally, I want you to get on the aircraft that just had maintenance done by a "jiffy lube" mechanic. Have a happy flight!
----------------
You are probably one of these people that goes to Jiffy Lube and pays $30 for an oil change, and are satisfied. However, when you fly, you feel you should be able to go caost to coast for $50. If you are happy with $7 hour mechanics, then contact your government officials, ask them to change the railway labor act, then when we can all quit legally, I want you to get on the aircraft that just had maintenance done by a "jiffy lube" mechanic. Have a happy flight!
----------------
Regardless of how much I pay for my oil change or flight, I realize that no one is forcing me to do it. If I don''t want to pay Jiffy Lube $30, I don''t start a tirade at how overpaid their management must be and how unfair it is -- I simply go somewhere else.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 553 PM AAONO wrote:
----------------
No, we would like to all quit at the same time in order to show we are tired of being under paid for our profession.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5
53 PM AAONO wrote: ----------------
No, we would like to all quit at the same time in order to show we are tired of being under paid for our profession.
----------------
Just where is this "never-never" land that would pay you so handsomely for the privlege of having you working for them?
Myabe it exsisted in some previous decade, but not in this one.
Perhaps those want to control the employers so much, should go start a business of their own, rather than trying to drive this one by looking in the rearview mirror.....the future is ahead.....not in back.
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:39:42 PM AAObserver wrote:
Why do you all want to quit at the same time? Because you care more about screwing over the company than actually going out on your own and finding a job with pay and conditions you find more suitable?
That, my friend, is a huge part of the problem. When companies are forced to allow employees with lousy attitudes to stick around, you have today''s American Airlines.
----------------
No, we would like to all quit at the same time in order to show we are tired of being under paid for our profession. You are probably one of these people that goes to Jiffy Lube and pays $30 for an oil change, and are satisfied. However, when you fly, you feel you should be able to go caost to coast for $50. If you are happy with $7 hour mechanics, then contact your government officials, ask them to change the railway labor act, then when we can all quit legally, I want you to get on the aircraft that just had maintenance done by a "jiffy lube" mechanic. Have a happy flight!On 4/18/2003 5:39:42 PM AAObserver wrote:
Why do you all want to quit at the same time? Because you care more about screwing over the company than actually going out on your own and finding a job with pay and conditions you find more suitable?
That, my friend, is a huge part of the problem. When companies are forced to allow employees with lousy attitudes to stick around, you have today''s American Airlines.
----------------
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
What is wrong with attempting improve ourselves? The amount of compensation may not be our business, but if that is true why would the company attempt to hide the fact that it exists. In negotiations just tell the union this compensation is here take your stand and go on.
spacewaitress
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:23:33 PM AAObserver wrote:
.. Simply said, the posts on here are just more proof that unions are the single biggest reason the failure rate of major US airlines is so high.
The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses...
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:23:33 PM AAObserver wrote:
.. Simply said, the posts on here are just more proof that unions are the single biggest reason the failure rate of major US airlines is so high.
The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses...
----------------
And one thing many of you big-headed business types fail to realize is, legal or not, there is a simple matter of ethics and how that plays with the working person. Carty and company showed their utter lack of ethics in their behind the scenes maneuverings.
As Lou Dobbs, CNN's Moneyline host, said on tonight's show "...At a time of 'shared sacrifice' it's only right that (Carty) should apologize, Carty has a lot to be sorry for." I don't think I've ever seen such disgust on ole Lou's face before...except in his musings regarding Enron, WorldCom, et al.
I guess you skipped or otherwise cheated on your business ethics course. Your lack of morality is sickening. As long as it's not illegal, it's all just fine, huh.
No wonder we need our unions!!!!!
