High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Nope. Still a yes....
Vote no demonstration in Tulsa
- Thread starter OldGuy@AA
- Start date
Nope. Still a yes....
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Shocking
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
What will take place, aapitbull is but just one man. You are so focused on one or two men that you cannot even grasp the power that the overall line operation has. I don't blame you. I blame your Local that would rather fight and drive wedges between us and them than educate you on what is possible. But keep wearing that logo and slogans and living in denial. One day you will see the truth.
What is wrong with being an OSM, we should be aloud to work on the aircraft all other MRO's do that and have some with A&P's aiding. Then we can be competitive and the line guys plus the few AMT's in tulsa can make more, there would be more people keeping their job at least in the lower paid ranks.
Its been said that Don could convince a Steer that he could produce milk, Gary's response did a good job at counteracting Dons spin.
The fact is that under oath Tom Roth testified that the company ask was "Gross Overkill". In other words it was outrageous, and C-11 or not we need to reject this. Let them abrogate, then we will do what we must, whether the courts or the International say we can.
Everyone must consider this, "What is the purpose of C-11?" Some are saying its there to screw labor, and if that truly is the case then what is Labor doing about it? Why arent they resisting it? Because its not true. Sure companys and some friendly courts have been utilizing it that way but thats not the intent. read the Law. It says its there to relieve debtors of "onerous terms" , it does not say that its purpose is to allow debtors to impose onerous terms.
We have been told that the Judge doesnt care whether the terms they propose are onerous or not, that his decision is to either abrogate or deny the motion. Once again, read the Law. The Judge is very much aware that due to the faulty determinations of his peers Airline workers are placed in a very disadvantageous position should he abrogate. Basically he is releasing the company but not releasing the creditor(us). No other creditor, no other worker, even under the RLA is put into such a position. Morally we have the right to defend our interests and we should. We should look at this no differently than when a member of management tells us to sign something off thats wrong under the threat of termination if we dont. We should do whats right no matter what the threat is. Thats how we are supposed to behave as Licensed mechanics.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
I know I'm a hard case to crack Informer, but so you won't feal left out....see below
Perhaps you need to go and take a long look at the companies March 22nd term sheets "they will impose" with a "no vote". What you are complaining about will be gone anyway also within the March 22nd term sheet is a statement reguarding concensual agreement must be met, and if not, anything with an (*) will not apply. That means there would be no raises, no profit sharing, no Early Out, Pension turned over to the PBGC etc,etc,etc...
What the TA offers is raises, gain sharing plan for Line and Base employees, 36 month wage average adjustment, 48 month early section 6 opener to re-negotiate (we would still get raises as they re-negotiate), profit sharing, a Frozen Pension, matching 401k, Early Out etc,etc,etc...
I will be voting for the TA and I suggest you do the same. If you decide you can't live with it after the fact you can take the Early Out or the Stand In Stead that offer's over $39,500.00, you as well would recieve your prefunding contribution plus interest and if there is a successful Section 1114 filing through the bankruptcy you would get the companies prefunding portion too. This would probably place you near $50,000.00 to sever your ties, and walk away.
Then you could take your skills elswhere to a company who you think would treat you better.....Just my thoughts
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
This particular issue is not the show stopper. It is the concessions that are too far reaching and beyond need to compete.
There is a difference between having a cost structure that allows AA to compete, compared to using the courts to extract a $2 billion per year cost advantage.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Is that your version of "I don't have an intelligent reply in the current debate, so I will tap out and repost and deflect attention away?
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
That is the current debate Informer! Where the hell have you been?
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
OK once again.
I have looked everything over pro and con of my vote.
I Choose to VOTE NO!
Tulsamechanic9
Advanced
- Jul 14, 2012
- 133
- 26
- Banned
- #161
That's good & i'm assuming everyone else has done the same & on Tuesday August 7th we will see what the Majority decided, as for me I choose to vote YES
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Thanks for voting and not being one of the apathetic.
iluvaa
Veteran
- Mar 22, 2007
- 1,228
- 811
Wow don't mean to speak for him but most of what you say is not facts. He was in interior shop and transferred to Dfw long before he would have got recalled back to amt in tul. But don't let facts get in your way
iluvaa
Veteran
- Mar 22, 2007
- 1,228
- 811
Did raptoman tell you to say that. Just asking you seem to be his MOUTH piece
Overstatement.
