vote no for twu agreement

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 12:35:53 PM rampguy wrote:


I'm voting yes because I think it is the correct thing to do. It is my opinion that AA won't survive without help. You shared in it's profits now it's time to share in it's troubles. I know you will now tell me what a pitance your profit sharing was but AA is a business and didn't really owe you any more than a paycheck. That is what you asked for when hired. Now you can put your dictionary away. I know damn well how to use one myself and as I said before, I know what a coward is. I will vote yes but not from fear. None of your name calling will change that. You want people to just do what you say, vote how you say to vote and don't question it. Just do what you tell them as you bully them into doing your bidding. Maybe there is your coward.

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


I'm here 17 years and I never shared in the profits. I did get some of the concessions refunded through the Profit Sharing program but in order to get at best $5000 in PS I first had to agree to several times that amount in reduced wages and benifits. You may vote as you like. That is your right. If I were in your place, doing your job, and only had to offer what you do to AA then perhaps I too would vote YES. But I am not. 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.​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 12:40:18 PM FWAAA wrote:

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.


----------------​

Is that your Intellectual response to the debate?

Why should we vote YES?
What guarantees do we get for our $315,000,000 contribution?

 

[rampguy]

----------------
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.

----------------​

I'm voting yes because I think it is the correct thing to do. It is my opinion that AA won't survive without help. You shared in it's profits now it's time to share in it's troubles. I know you will now tell me what a pitance your profit sharing was but AA is a business and didn't really owe you any more than a paycheck. That is what you asked for when hired. Now you can put your dictionary away. I know damn well how to use one myself and as I said before, I know what a coward is. I will vote yes but not from fear. None of your name calling will change that. You want people to just do what you say, vote how you say to vote and don't question it. Just do what you tell them as you bully them into doing your bidding. Maybe there is your coward.

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
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.​

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

That's all?

This entire protestation on your part is an *EGO* thing?

TANSTAAFL

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:13:06 PM MiAAmi wrote:

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

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


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

Yes.
In 2005 when AA reports record breaking profits will you still be content to work for 20% less than you are today?​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 138 PM WXGuesser wrote:

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


That''s all?

This entire protestation on your part is an *EGO* thing?

YGBSM!

TANSTAAFL

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

No not at all. I''m willing to work hard but I expect to be paid well. Whats wrong with that?​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:08:19 PM FWAAA wrote:

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

Wrong, if we vote YES we are guaranteed to be making less for the next SIX years than we are now, thats pretty much it.

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

Oh really, besides the company which reserves the right to change its mind what makes the C-11 filing a guarantee? It may be likely but its certainly not guaranteed, if you say it is you are expressing an opinion not fact.

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

Finally you got something right!

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.

I bleed more so it bleeds less. AA has a lot more blood to spare than I do. Perhaps they should not be so greedy and go for a one year deal. They were offered a 25% cut for 1 year which they rejected.

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.

I have yet to hear of an airline employee who made out better by giving concessions before bankruptcy. The fact is you will never know unless you have two exact paralells which choice is better. Tell me how the Pan Am guys made out with all their concessions. How many who were here in "92" think that we did the right thing by going "the safe way" in "95". That should be a lesson learned.We dont expect to get a better contract than we now have but what the company is offereing is completely unacceptable. How is it going to look when the Judge finds out that the company was offered a 25% cut for one year and they rejected it? The fact is we are going though unchartered territory. UAL has been unable to come to an agreement in BK for over 5 months, absolute deadlines keep being not so absolute. The contracts remain in place. Five months, a lot can happen in five months, Iraq could be over, demand could pick up. Why settle for something that you know is bad for a large portion of your life and eliminate the possibility that things will get better?. If we vote YES, at best we will be locked into this recession regardless of what happens to the economy or the industry.


----------------​

 

[wwtraveler99]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:43:03 AM AAquila wrote:

----------------
On 4/2/2003 806 AM amerigojfk wrote:

it is time for new union leadership

----------------​

True; it''s time for new leadership, but the unions (all) have their backs to the wall on this one. New leadership in Washington is needed first. Deregulation has failed, JBLU and LUV strive, but America still needs a full service airline for the future, that airline is AMR.

The glory and glamour days are gone for the airline industry. So you better learn a new trade, or profession my friend. A new single act of terrorism, could make the entire industry fold. Just a recent mention of SARS at AMR yesterday and Wall Street shuttered yesterday.

The door to door fighting toward Baghdad followed by an occupation force of US GIs means many months of Americans staying home, so you can write off the next two years of any improvements.

Carty''s 2006 forecasts are on target. Better tighten up that belt, Buddy.

VOTE YES on Carty, and NO on BUSH.

----------------​

I think you are correct in saying America needs a "full service" carrier. I don''t know if it sould or will be AMR or UAL or DAL or CAL. The full service carrier of the future will need to price its product accordingly. I do believe there are many out there who will pay a premium for full service, (ie, meals on all flights, free drinks, more space, etc). Only thing is they won''t pay 100% more in price for these items. I think you are looking at price about 20% to 40% higher than fares charged by the no frills carriers. The way the so called full service carriers look today and the amenities they offer can not command this 40% increase in price.

I hope there is a day, sooner rather than later, that we will see all US Air Carriers making profits, paying thier employees liviable wages, at reasonable prices to the comsumer.

Good luck and best wishes to all employees and air carriers.

 

[wwtraveler99]

----------------
On 4/2/2003 8:43:03 AM AAquila wrote:

----------------
On 4/2/2003 806 AM amerigojfk wrote:

it is time for new union leadership

----------------​

True; it''s time for new leadership, but the unions (all) have their backs to the wall on this one. New leadership in Washington is needed first. Deregulation has failed, JBLU and LUV strive, but America still needs a full service airline for the future, that airline is AMR.

The glory and glamour days are gone for the airline industry. So you better learn a new trade, or profession my friend. A new single act of terrorism, could make the entire industry fold. Just a recent mention of SARS at AMR yesterday and Wall Street shuttered yesterday.

The door to door fighting toward Baghdad followed by an occupation force of US GIs means many months of Americans staying home, so you can write off the next two years of any improvements.

Carty''s 2006 forecasts are on target. Better tighten up that belt, Buddy.

VOTE YES on Carty, and NO on BUSH.

----------------​

I think you are correct in saying America needs a "full service" carrier. I don''t know if it sould or will be AMR or UAL or DAL or CAL. The full service carrier of the future will need to price its product accordingly. I do believe there are many out there who will pay a premium for full service, (ie, meals on all flights, free drinks, more space, etc). Only thing is they won''t pay 100% more in price for these items. I think you are looking at price about 20% to 40% higher than fares charged by the no frills carriers. The way the so called full service carriers look today and the amenities they offer can not command this 40% increase in price.

I hope there is a day, sooner rather than later, that we will see all US Air Carriers making profits, paying thier employees liviable wages, at reasonable prices to the comsumer.

Good luck and best wishes to all employees and air carriers.

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 3:05:20 PM Bob Owens wrote:

I bleed more so it bleeds less. AA has a lot more blood to spare than I do. Perhaps they should not be so greedy and go for a one year deal. They were offered a 25% cut for 1 year which they rejected.
----------------​

If AA could find lenders willing to loan it about $2 billion with one year 25% concessions, then AA would have taken you up on your offer.

The lenders, on the other hand, demanded multi-year concessions. AA was forced to demand multi-year contracts from its work groups.

AA has more blood to give? What are you smokin''??

Do you think AA prints money at DFW?

AA has spent itself dammed near into bankruptcy paying its workers money it had to borrow over the past two years (billions and billions of dollars) and you think AA has more blood left than the workers?

Keep denying reality, and maybe we''ll all wake up and find this was a bad dream.

Gotta run - I see the Easter Bunny on my lawn.

 

[WXGuesser]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 3:09:06 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 138 PM WXGuesser wrote:

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


That''s all?

This entire protestation on your part is an *EGO* thing?

YGBSM!

TANSTAAFL

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

No not at all. I''m willing to work hard but I expect to be paid well. Whats wrong with that?​

​

----------------​

What happens when your employer either a) outsources your work or B) goes out of business?

Both of those are likely (granted not guaranteed, but likely) scenarios under BK.

Then your EGO and a $1.00 might get you a cup of coffee (depends on where you live.)

How is it going to look when the Judge finds out that the company was offered a 25% cut for one year and they rejected it?​

You really think the judge is going to care? Are you willing to gamble yours and everyone else''s future on your Miss Cleo-esque mindreading ability?

Or do you simply not care about anyone but Bob Owens? "I got mine brother" no matter if the company goes poof or not and to heck with everyone else?

I''ll admit, my desire to vote yes on this is self-interested as I think a yes vote could have a positive effect on my future, as well as a positive effect on the future of a whole lot of people, as they will still have a job, a pension, benefits, etc.

And I''ll bet you if this passes, I''ll be making a lot more money six years from now.

TANSTAAFL

 

[rampguy]

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

----------------
On 4/3/2003 12:35:53 PM rampguy wrote:


I''m voting yes because I think it is the correct thing to do. It is my opinion that AA won''t survive without help. You shared in it''s profits now it''s time to share in it''s troubles. I know you will now tell me what a pitance your profit sharing was but AA is a business and didn''t really owe you any more than a paycheck. That is what you asked for when hired. Now you can put your dictionary away. I know damn well how to use one myself and as I said before, I know what a coward is. I will vote yes but not from fear. None of your name calling will change that. You want people to just do what you say, vote how you say to vote and don''t question it. Just do what you tell them as you bully them into doing your bidding. Maybe there is your coward.

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


I''m here 17 years and I never shared in the profits. I did get some of the concessions refunded through the Profit Sharing program but in order to get at best $5000 in PS I first had to agree to several times that amount in reduced wages and benifits. You may vote as you like. That is your right. If I were in your place, doing your job, and only had to offer what you do to AA then perhaps I too would vote YES. But I am not. 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.​

----------------​

Yeah, just keep posting your dogma. It means nothing. You don''t have a clue what you would do "in my place". Who cares what skills you possess. We have to take your word you possess knowledge or maybe we don''t. again, who cares. You aren''t any more valuable to AA then all the other workers. you are a piece of puzzle. We all make up the picture. Get over yourself.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 4:32:08 PM FWAAA wrote:

If AA could find lenders willing to loan it about $2 billion with one year 25% concessions, then AA would have taken you up on your offer.

How do you know they couldnt?

The lenders, on the other hand, demanded multi-year concessions. AA was forced to demand multi-year contracts from its work groups.

Were they they only possible path? What about the government guaranteed loans? Hey what about all that money they just got?

AA has more blood to give? What are you smokin''??

I dont smoke, AA has plenty of assetts, certainly a lot more than I''ll ever have.


Do you think AA prints money at DFW?

It would not suprise me if they did.

AA has spent itself dammed near into bankruptcy paying its workers money it had to borrow over the past two years (billions and billions of dollars) and you think AA has more blood left than the workers?

Yes, and I think that if AA gets these concessions in two years or less they will spend as recklessly as they did through the nineties.

Keep denying reality, and maybe we''ll all wake up and find this was a bad dream.

What makes you so sure that you know what is real and what is not? Other than what you are "told" what do you really know of AA''s condition? Is AA in bad shape? Probably, but isnt it relative? How different is Delta, Continental, UAL and USAIR? It makes a difference you know.

Gotta run - I see the Easter Bunny on my lawn.

----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/4/2003 1253 AM rampguy wrote:


You aren''t any more valuable to AA then all the other workers. you are a piece of puzzle. We all make up the picture. Get over yourself.

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

Face reality. While all of us are needed some are worth more than others, thats why we get paid more.

​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 448 PM WXGuesser wrote:

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

What happens when your employer either a) outsources your work or B) goes out of business?

Answer; a&b Go out and get another job.

Both of those are likely (granted not guaranteed, but likely) scenarios under BK.

Then your EGO and a $1.00 might get you a cup of coffee (depends on where you live.)

Answer; I dont drink Coffee. EGO might be YOUR only assett but not mine. Like I said I''m not afraid of working.


​

How is it going to look when the Judge finds out that the company was offered a 25% cut for one year and they rejected it?​

You really think the judge is going to care? Are you willing to gamble yours and everyone else''s future on your Miss Cleo-esque mindreading ability?

Answer; Yea he should take this into consideration when determining whether both parties made an honest attempt to reach an agreement. Not mind reading, just common sense.

Or do you simply not care about anyone but Bob Owens? "I got mine brother" no matter if the company goes poof or not and to heck with everyone else?

Answer; While I''m not the picture of altruism I''m not a complete narcissist either. The well being of my family comes first. Over the long term my family will suffer if this passes and if I stay. I feel that failure of this company is preferrable over the long term than keeping it alive with long term concessions. If it did liquidate, which I think is extremely unlikely, it would be better to maintain the wage so that once I found work again it would be worth while.

I''ll admit, my desire to vote yes on this is self-interested as I think a yes vote could have a positive effect on my future, as well as a positive effect on the future of a whole lot of people, as they will still have a job, a pension, benefits, etc.

Response. So you are not the picture of altruism either. The people who see the positive effects will be the stockholders and the passengers, not the workers who have to live under this.

And I''ll bet you if this passes, I''ll be making a lot more money six years from now.

Response. Probably me too, but not in this industry.

TANSTAAFL



----------------​