vote no for twu agreement

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 4:55:08 PM RV4 wrote:


Living life and making decisions based on fear is far worse than ignorance.

At least the ignorant can be excused for their own self destruction. In contrast those that are not ignorant but are instead cowards are not worthy of a decent standard of living.

Non-ignorant FEAR based Americans are prime targets for terrorist and will be trampled by there own fearful minds.

Why do we watch others fight the battles, reap the rewards of their fights, and then return the favor with voluntary concessions that reverse all battles won?

I am ashamed to be associated with those cowering to fear.

What exactly is a worthy fight to you cowards out there advocating YES votes anyway? What would it take to qualify your values as BRAVE?

Just as people get the representation they deserve, so do they also get the paycheck they deserve and fight to keep.

----------------​

RV4:

ONLY A FOOL FIGHTS IN A BURNING HOUSE.

TANSTAAFL

 

[rampguy]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 4:55:08 PM RV4 wrote:


Living life and making decisions based on fear is far worse than ignorance.

At least the ignorant can be excused for their own self destruction. In contrast those that are not ignorant but are instead cowards are not worthy of a decent standard of living.

Non-ignorant FEAR based Americans are prime targets for terrorist and will be trampled by there own fearful minds.

Why do we watch others fight the battles, reap the rewards of their fights, and then return the favor with voluntary concessions that reverse all battles won?

I am ashamed to be associated with those cowering to fear.

What exactly is a worthy fight to you cowards out there advocating YES votes anyway? What would it take to qualify your values as BRAVE?

Just as people get the representation they deserve, so do they also get the paycheck they deserve and fight to keep.

----------------​

So if someone doesn''t agree with you then that means we cower in fear? We vote different than what you say and that makes us cowards? As a veteran of Viet Nam I resent you calling me a coward. You have no idea what BRAVE is. It sounds like the coward is from those afraid to take a cut, save some jobs and as FAMikey says, live to fight another day when there is pieces of a pie to fight for. Your solution is more like "I got mine so to he** with the rest of you. No, I will vote how I want which is yes. I don''t care if that upsets anyone because you don''t get a say in how I vote. Coward? Me? I don''t think so.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:28:12 AM rampguy wrote:

----------------

So if someone doesn't agree with you then that means we cower in fear? We vote different than what you say and that makes us cowards? As a veteran of Viet Nam I resent you calling me a coward. You have no idea what BRAVE is. It sounds like the coward is from those afraid to take a cut, save some jobs and as FAMikey says, live to fight another day when there is pieces of a pie to fight for. Your solution is more like "I got mine so to he** with the rest of you. No, I will vote how I want which is yes. I don't care if that upsets anyone because you don't get a say in how I vote. Coward? Me? I don't think so.


----------------​

It is not the actual vote that creates the coward. It is the reasons being given to vote yes that define clearly cowardice actions.

Tell us all once again why are you voting yes?

And before you give us your reasons, read this:


cow•ard

Pronunciation: (kou'urd),
—n.
a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

—adj.
1. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
2. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.

 

[Hopeful]

NH/BB''S:

First! MAKE SURE YOU VOTE! That''s important.

Secondly, As much as I abhor this piece of crap, as you can see by AAquila and twaokc, there will be many "yes" votes.

After all, MCI and STL are the ones most grateful to UNCLE DON. When this is said and done, those TWAers will still have received a nice little increase in pay!

 

[1AA]

Vote Results for recent Tentative Agreement
Maintenance and Related



Motion made by Charlie Meyer of St Louis Local 529
Seconded by Butch Sponaugle of Kansas City Local 530

In favor:
1. Charlie Meyer-Title 1 AMT-St. Louis
2. Butch Sponaugle-Title 1 AMT-Kansas City
3. Randy McDonald-Title 1 AMT-Tulsa
4. Jack Madish-Title 1 AMT-Detroit
5. Jim Brinker-Title 1 AMT-Washington D.C.
6. Mike Semich-Title 1-Nashville
7. George Miller-Title 2-JFK
8. Tony McCoy-Title 2-DFW
9. Dale Lance-Title 2-Tulsa
10. Ty Johnson-Title 2-Kansas City
11. Rich Beeks-Title 2-ORD
12. Kevin Thompson-Title 4-Tulsa
13. Nestor Rodriguez-Title 3 Fleet Service-Raleigh Durham
14. Jeff Ortengreen-Title 3 Fleet Service-Nashville

Against:
1. Chuck Schalk- Title 1 AMT-jfk
2. Don Videtich-Title 1 AMT-DFW
3. Todd Woodward-Title 1 AMT-Miami
4. Paul McCormick-Title 1 AMT-ORD
5. Gary Peterson-Title 1 AMT-AFW
6. David Rivera-Title 2-AFW
7. Sean Grey-Title 2-Boston



Tulsa and TWA sold out the AMT''s. Nothing surprising to me here. Why did Fleet service have a say in the AMT vote. Are we separate or not?

 

[Hopeful]

Also keep in mind that if just ONE group rejects this, then it's off to bankruptcy court anyway!

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 5:30:37 AM RV4 wrote:

----------------

On 4/3/2003 1:28:12 AM rampguy wrote:

----------------


So if someone doesn''t agree with you then that means we cower in fear? We vote different than what you say and that makes us cowards? As a veteran of Viet Nam I resent you calling me a coward. You have no idea what BRAVE is. It sounds like the coward is from those afraid to take a cut, save some jobs and as FAMikey says, live to fight another day when there is pieces of a pie to fight for. Your solution is more like "I got mine so to he** with the rest of you. No, I will vote how I want which is yes. I don''t care if that upsets anyone because you don''t get a say in how I vote. Coward? Me? I don''t think so.



----------------​

It is not the actual vote that creates the coward. It is the reasons being given to vote yes that define clearly cowardice actions.


Tell us all once again why are you voting yes?


And before you give us your reasons, read this:




cow•ard


Pronunciation: (kou''urd),

—n.

a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.


—adj.

1. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.

2. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.

----------------​

You seem to be having trouble reading between the lines again, now you are trying to hide behind the cut''n paste from the dictionary. Accepting a bad deal in lieu of having a judge decide is not fear, it gives you breathing room to bail out.
Why don''t you get a portable welding setup and start into your new career?
Maybe you will then understand that a business, large or small runs the same way, it is asked to make a surplus for the owner.

As to your fear factor, if you are not afraid then why don''t you just quit? The fact is that if the mechanics try for any major strike against the air transport system, under the present regime, we''ll somehow be classified as aiding the terrorist de jour and our licenses could be bye bye. Would not bother you, you don''t have a license.

 

[mike7867]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 6:59:28 AM 1AA wrote:

Vote Results for recent Tentative Agreement
Maintenance and Related



Motion made by Charlie Meyer of St Louis Local 529
Seconded by Butch Sponaugle of Kansas City Local 530

In favor:
1. Charlie Meyer-Title 1 AMT-St. Louis
2. Butch Sponaugle-Title 1 AMT-Kansas City
3. Randy McDonald-Title 1 AMT-Tulsa
4. Jack Madish-Title 1 AMT-Detroit
5. Jim Brinker-Title 1 AMT-Washington D.C.
6. Mike Semich-Title 1-Nashville
7. George Miller-Title 2-JFK
8. Tony McCoy-Title 2-DFW
9. Dale Lance-Title 2-Tulsa
10. Ty Johnson-Title 2-Kansas City
11. Rich Beeks-Title 2-ORD
12. Kevin Thompson-Title 4-Tulsa
13. Nestor Rodriguez-Title 3 Fleet Service-Raleigh Durham
14. Jeff Ortengreen-Title 3 Fleet Service-Nashville

Against:
1. Chuck Schalk- Title 1 AMT-jfk
2. Don Videtich-Title 1 AMT-DFW
3. Todd Woodward-Title 1 AMT-Miami
4. Paul McCormick-Title 1 AMT-ORD
5. Gary Peterson-Title 1 AMT-AFW
6. David Rivera-Title 2-AFW
7. Sean Grey-Title 2-Boston



Tulsa and TWA sold out the AMT''s. Nothing surprising to me here. Why did Fleet service have a say in the AMT vote. Are we separate or not?

----------------​

jesus christ first twa brought down aa now we have brought down the amt''s. get real there is only two votes from twa people on your list the rest is aa. so how do you figure?

 

[Hopeful]

What do you expect from the TWAers? They will still come out ahead. They owe alot to Uncle Don.

Remember those on the President Council who voted yes. There are some rising stars in King Little''s kingdom. Just like Bobby Gless (former JFK local Pres), they too can achieve higher positions in the International. They enjoy a job for life. Gless sold his soul to Little to get his position. He sold out JFK to advance himself.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:46:00 PM twaokc wrote:

Bob,

No, I am talking about work rules, hourly pay, hours of service, putting up with part time. You know, you have really had it bad hiding under the coat tails of a union....

----------------​

Did I say anything about coat tails?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 1:56:12 PM FA Mikey wrote:

Gordon Bethune is blow hard. But sorry if he is your hero, my apologies. Let me see if I understand, AA''s treat of layoffs and the contract cuts are basically extortion, and that''s not OK. But for mechanics it is OK to extort to hold airplanes and the company hostage to your wants. Now we see how you work. Thanks bob.

----------------​

Hero, not quite, but I do respect the man. He took a BK airline and brought it to profitability. Is Carty your hero? He took the most profitable airline and will likely bring it to BK.

If you get shot at is it OK to shoot back? Neither action is right. We should concentrate on trying to make money instead of seeing who can do more damage to the company. If the company makes threats in order to change the treaty (contract) that is in place then are we not morally justified to make whatever threats we have at our disposal in retaliation? Should we just accept whatever terms are dictated when we have an agreement in place? Should we just cower to their threats? Well maybe you are the type of man that has no problem liking another mans boots, but not me. I will fight for what is right. You do what you feel is right. You will have to live with yourself. I do have one question though. Will you be working under this agreement as a union member or are you in management?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:28:12 AM rampguy wrote:

It sounds like the coward is from those afraid to take a cut, save some jobs and as FAMikey says, live to fight another day when there is pieces of a pie to fight for.


----------------​

Live to fight another day?

And when might that day come? The threats of bankruptcy and contracting out are always there. We are not talking bad bargaining here, we are talking about a total unconditional surrender here. Let me ask you something, when you were in NAM why didnt you just walk over to the Viet Cong and surrender with the same logic "Live to fight another day"? Well for one thing although you may, and I would like to emphasize "may" survive your quality of life would be severely diminished. Not quite as bad as being killed in combat but bad enough to risk fighting against even though there was a chance that you would be killed. Its reasonable to say that being killed would more than likely be worse than being captured however you would likely only be willing to surrender when the likelyhood of your being killed was certain.
We are giving everything the company asked for with NO guarantees in return. Nothing, Nada, Zippo!! What are you getting in return for all of this? Will the company go not go BK if we all vote yes? Maybe, maybe not, it depends what you are willing to give up next time, and there will be a next time despite the fact that they claim that they will "try" not to come back for more. Just like a few months back they said that they were going to try not to touch our paychecks. Instead we were left with the entire bill.
Look the company says its burning $5million/day. Well what does that come out to per year? $1.8 billion. Suprise. The company has not changes their business plan, they claim to have located $2.2 billion in savings but what and where are they? If they implement them then they are no longer losing money right? THey should be looking at a $400 million profit then.
The fact is that nothing here is certain. This is uncharted territory. The circumstances in the BK cases that the union and the company are citing are very different than what is going on here today. The demand for six years is unreasonable, Period. This industry has made recoveries from its worst downturns to profitablity in less than 2 years. We may see this once again.
I hope the company does not go BK. The fact that they say they will if I vote this down means nothing to me because they are not saying that they will not if we vote YES. They are saying that they will try not to. What does that mean? Shouldnt they try not to either way? To be willing to give up what comes out to over 20% and growing of my earnings over the next six years to words like "try" and "attempt" is foolish. The profit sharing is a sick joke. In order for me to restore my compensation the company would have to have an annual profit of $27 billion. The entire industry has never shown a $27 billion anual profit.
The fact is that all of the concessions that we are giving will not assure us that the worst of the companys threats will not come to pass. Rejection of these concessions will not automatically ensure that it does come to pass. Either way its "maybe". So in return for over at least $100,000 in lost wages "Guaranteed"(the only thing that is guaranteed if we vote yes) we get a "maybe". Maybe they wont go bankrupt, maybe they wont come back for more, maybe you will not lose your job. Guaranteed you will earn less than you are making now in six years. If we vote No, we have the possiblity of getting raises any time after 2004. Maybe the company will go BK, maybe they will get concessions, maybe we will lose our jobs, BUT maybe IRAQ will end, maybe the economy will recover, maybe six years from now we will still have a job worth having making decent money with good benifits. Voting NO leaves open the possibilty that things can get better, and yes they could get worse, the worst could still happen. Voting Yes guarantees that things will be worse, and continue to get worse and still can not guarantee that the worst still will not happen.

 

[FWAAA]

Well, when you run out of intellectual arguments you resort to name-calling.

When that doesn''t work, look for the physical intimidation to begin.

If that doesn''t work, watch out for that axe handle.

 

[MiAAmi]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:05:21 PM Bob Owens wrote:

I am an Aircraft Mechanic. I posess licenses, skills, knowledge and experience that are of value to the company. I feel that the previously agreed upon value is still valid. Maybe you feel that you raped the company thus you feel guilty for the company''s present condition, I do not, I feel that I have given the company a fair deal. My conscience is clear so I will vote NO.​

----------------

When a Bankruptcy judge says that your skills are worth even less than this T/A will your conscience still be so clear?

 

[FWAAA]

Sadly, you get no guarantees, regardless of your decision.

The only thing that''s guaranteed is that AMR files for Chapter 11 protection within minutes of defeat of the TAs.

The converse, unfortunately, is not true. AA might file even if the TAs are ratified.

Oh, that and the fact that AA bleeds a little less cash with the first paychecks it has to cut after ratification. That''s guaranteed.

Why vote yes? Because I''ve yet to hear of an airline work group that came out of Ch 11 with a richer contract than when it went in. If you know of any unionized airline employees who got a better deal as a result of the bankruptcy filing, I''m not the only person who would be very interested to hear the details. Your fellow workers would love to hear about those lucky workers.

We all know that bankruptcy judges stick it to the management and richly reward the working stiffs at the bottom. Happens every time.

Best of luck no matter which decision you make.