Waste, waste and more waste

[AAmech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6:23:21 PM LGA Fleet Service wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 5:29:17 PM FA Mikey wrote:

It just has to be a last resort not the first thing on there petty little list, of people and organizations to screw today.

----------------
[/BLOCKQUOTE]


[FONT size=1] Right, first thing on the list.

Cutting $2 billion in expenses,freezing
management pay for the second consecutive year,grounding the F100's
ahead of schedule,short term storage of 42 S80's and 16 762's,
all of the service and staffing reductions associated with those actions.
Right,first thing they did was turn the thumb screws on us.

They cut one hell of a lot before they came to us for help, unlike what
went on at other airlines, where the employee concession was the first
order of business.

Petty little list of people and organizations to screw today?

Is this recess and the big bad sixth graders are bullying the third graders?
Or is this a multi billion dollar corporation fighting to survive?

I know whats first on my petty little list.

[/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]

A prime example of the "other airlines" inaction is UAL's announcement last week that they will be closing their CTO's. AA closed all their CTO's by Oct/2001!

 

[TWAnr]

[BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]----------------[BR]On 1/15/2003 7:03:11 PM FA Mikey wrote: [BR][BR]12 hours so what? I have a 18 hour layover at home. How does that create a problem?[BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]I asked a very simple question of whether the length of the layover presented contractual problems, if it were too to short to satisfy the legal rest requirement, had the trip been converted into two separate "turns". By your curt answer, it would appear that it did not.[BR][BR]By the way, did you save the company the expense of paying for your hotel room by [SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"]canceling[/SPAN] it? Being the contract wiz that you are, I am sure you are aware of that option.

 

[FA Mikey]

As of the 7th they were canceled thru the end of the month. On the 13th they canceled them thru March.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Are the CCS cancellations being handled on a day-by-day basis, or are they canceled thru some date in the future?

If they're being canceled on a day-to-day basis, that might explain why crew planning didn't simply break up the line.

 

[rampguy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6:38:17 AM Hopeful wrote:

To RAMPGUY and LGA FLEET SERVICE:

Do you really believe it's only about the 3% Carty wants us to forego? Wake up! It is going to go far deeper than anyone here has ever imagined. Every department is going to be affected. It will not only be aircraft maintenance losing thousands of jobs after AA starts contracting out more and more work and close at least one overhaul facility. It will mean the contracting out of cabin service, maximum part time numbers for line cargo, more hours flown by pilots and f/a's, contracting out of automotive and plant maintenance. Basically much more work done by less people.
So, don't be fooled into a false sense of security by saying "Geez, all they want is 3%"
----------------
[/blockquote]

Wake up to what? I've been awake and watching the cash burn. Of course it's not just about 3%. It's about doing our part as employees to help when help is needed. Yes, there is waste that needs to be trimmed. Yes there is some corporate fat that needs to be trimmed. Yes, there are nickles here and dimes there. 3% taken alone is very little but add all of those up and it starts making a difference. It gets a little old hearing from some that the company needs to do this first or that first before coming to the employees. AA didn't come to employees first but these things need to be done collectively anyway, not one before the other.
Wake up? I've been awake and paying attention. A few have not.

 

[Hopeful]

RAMPGUY: I assume you remember the 6 1/2% raise over six years when the company had record profits? Times were good then and thats what we got!

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 6:37:09 AM Hopeful wrote:

RAMPGUY: I assume you remember the 6 1/2% raise over six years when the company had record profits? Times were good then and thats what we got!
----------------
[/blockquote]

That much? Some industries, even when the airlines were booming, didn't get that much. Then again, you were under a contract and would have been accused of drinking the company kool aid should they have offered going beyond the terms of the contract and you accepted. I still say labor contracts should be tied to company profitablity - especially in a cyclical industry like the airlines. Get it in the good years, ease up in the bad. But - tying anything to company profitablity has been, and most likely always will be an anathema to labor.

 

[Hopeful]

KCFLYER: You have an awful lot of trust in management. So when the times are good, we can get minicscule increases, and when times are bad, we can give major concessions and accept large reductions in salary. Talk about sipping company kool-aid. You seem to ba a card carrying management kool-aid-aholic!

You are assuming that management will be more than happy to just fork over nice increases to labor in the good times. The same management that, as we speak, are lobbying congress to take away our rights under the RLA, screw us with our pensions, and basically decimate unions in this country. And this is the Management you would entrust into giving the working man or woman a fair shake? You have got to be kidding KCFLYER. Oh I forgot, you are not in favor of unions!

I suppose this is your wish come true, to have ALL the cards stacked in managements favor.

 

[Hopeful]

KCFLER: Thanks to you, I have finally seen the light! I should just be happy to have a job. I should pay AA to go to work. While I'm at it, I should not expect anything in return for my willful employment. I should not expect a pension, sick time, medical benefits or anything! I should do whatever they want me to do for nothing. Then when the CEO and the other bigwigs retire with millions and millions of dollars, I can say "Good Luck! It's been nice working for you! For nothing!" [BR]Give me a break, tie labor increases to management increases! Please![BR][BR]Let's do the math! [BR][BR]Carty makes, say $600,000.00 and gets a 5% increase. He gets a $30,000.00 increase.[BR][BR]Joe SHMOE makes $60,000.00 and gets 5% increase. He gets a $3000.00 increase..[BR][BR]Hmm, it's all relative, right?[BR][BR]Carty does not pay for medical for him and his family.[BR]Joe SHMOE pays, let's say $15.00 per week out of salary. Not too bad. Now let's consider copayments and deductions and braces for the kids. That $3000,00 is gone rather quickly.[BR][BR]Ok now, Carty gets nice stock options. Ok there no complaint. Joe SHMOE and his family do not have money to waste on stocks. No problem, he never aspired to be a CEO. Heck, JOE SHMOE can't put much into his 401k, Ok, it's his problem. No one told him to get married and have 2 kids. [BR]But not to worry, he has AA's pension to retire on. [BR]Ooops, I forgot, when he retires he will now get 40% less than under the old plan. But he can thank the CEOs and governement for passing legislation to reduce people's pensions. JOE SHMOE is very happy Carty just had his pension credit tripled. [BR][BR]You are right KCFLYER! Let's do it management's way![BR]

 

[Hopeful]

Ok, KCFLYER, but you have not responded to the airlines looking to Congress to take away our rights under the RLA. How do you feel about the governement legislation to screw older workers nearing retirement by changing the way pensions are calculated. This is all being done because many corporations have pension obligations that they simply do not want to satisfy. How about the perpetual increase in our contributions to medical year after year? Do you think the upper crust of any corporation has the same mediocre medical plan we are forced to have? And if they do, they can more than afford the copayments and deductibles.

I'm sorry, I just don't have that much faith in any management who, for years, noegotiated with union represented employees, but now, once and for all, are having the government take away every basic right unions have.

How long do you think it will take the airlines to have congress declare the airline industry unions unconstitutional?

 

[KCFlyer]

Hopeful - that isn't really what I said. What I said was - write a contract that specifies increases based on company profit. If you're worried about managment "cooking the books" and showing consistant losses, then write a contract that ties labor increases to management increases. You point out that management reaps big rewards in the good years...it seems to me that if you have a contract tying your increases to managements increases, you'd sit pretty in the good years and all be in it together in the bad years...after all, management wouldn't be able to grant themselves a raise without also granting similar raises to labor.

As it is, you always seem to end up negotiating contracts in the lean years, then "suffering" thru the good years, and come up for contract renewal in the down cycle once again. If anything, what I propose isn't "trusting management" or "drinking kool-aid". It's a form of "checks and balances". But - since you wouldn't have a "guaranteed" increase during a contract period, it most likely would be voted down by the bulk of labor, even though it might be a start to breaking the cycle of managment raises when a company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Also, bear in mind that a whole lot of folks with the label of "management" haven't had the luxury of even a 1% annual increase, and several have had decreases. Tie your contract to what upper management gets and see if you don't like it.

 

[Steiner]

American Airlines used to have profit sharing, at least for TWU members. When was the program cancelled, and why?

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 9:44:39 AM Hopeful wrote:

Ok, KCFLYER, but you have not responded to the airlines looking to Congress to take away our rights under the RLA.

Seems to me that what I suggest would make that a moot point - if management is given a raise, so is labor. If labor is asked to take cuts - so is management. If you think that management makes so much now that they simply won't approve any management raises, guess again. A guy making a million a year will want to make a million and a half. That's human nature. They're doing it already in other industries, even after laying off 40 to 50 percent of their workforce. If the big boys want their raises, they'll have to give them to labor as well. Do you really have a problem with that?

How do you feel about the governement legislation to screw older workers nearing retirement by changing the way pensions are calculated. This is all being done because many corporations have pension obligations that they simply do not want to satisfy.

How do the younger folks feel about being cut loose so the company can pay a retired employee to take his winter trips to Florida on his fully funded penision? That's a perfect case of a "guaranteed benefit" without any forethought as to just where the money will come from to fund it. There are more companies out there that do NOT have pension plans than there are companies that DO.

How about the perpetual increase in our contributions to medical year after year? Do you think the upper crust of any corporation has the same mediocre medical plan we are forced to have? And if they do, they can more than afford the copayments and deductibles.

Even your current "mediocre" plan is a dream for a whole lot of folks out there. But despite that, imagine how great that mediocre plan is should you ever have to really use it. Just for fun, ask the doctor and hospital to send you a copy of the bill that you would have to pay if it weren't for that "mediocre" plan. My plan is a heckuva lot more "mediocre" than yours...I just had a stress test as part of a annual physical. The bill was almost $2,000 for that one test. I paid $30. Does it really matter that your corporate executives might have had to pay only $20?


----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 1002 AM Hopeful wrote:

KCFLER: Thanks to you, I have finally seen the light! I should just be happy to have a job. I should pay AA to go to work. While I'm at it, I should not expect anything in return for my willful employment. I should not expect a pension, sick time, medical benefits or anything! I should do whatever they want me to do for nothing. Then when the CEO and the other bigwigs retire with millions and millions of dollars, I can say "Good Luck! It's been nice working for you! For nothing!"
Give me a break, tie labor increases to management increases! Please!

Let's do the math!

Carty makes, say $600,000.00 and gets a 5% increase. He gets a $30,000.00 increase.

Joe SHMOE makes $60,000.00 and gets 5% increase. He gets a $3000.00 increase..

Hmm, it's all relative, right?

Okay, lets do the math. Carty makes 600,000 and gets a 5 percent increase. That's a 30,000 increas

Joe Schmoe makes 60,000 and gets a 1% annual increase (as stipulated by his current contract). That's a $600 increase. I don't know where you live, but in KC, most folks would jump at the idea of a raise that was $2,400 more than what their current contract called for. I guess it's just easier to ***** about low raises and overpaid managment.

But you're right - it's all relative - Carty should work for nothing. Here's one for you ...Carty is underpaid. Let's take a look shall we? Salary only here - Carty is CEO of an organization that employees 123,000 people and he is paid a salary of $600,000. Bill Esrey is CEO of a telecom (Sprint) who used to employ 65,000, but they have laid off almost 25% of their workforce. He is paid $1,500,000. You don't even want to know about the bonuses. So...Carty makes half as much as a CEO who heads a company that employees half the number of employees.

Carty does not pay for medical for him and his family.
Joe SHMOE pays, let's say $15.00 per week out of salary. Not too bad. Now let's consider copayments and deductions and braces for the kids. That $3000,00 is gone rather quickly.

Now, see how much of that you didn't have to pay because your insurance covered it. Then tell me you're getting screwed.

Ok now, Carty gets nice stock options. Ok there no complaint. Joe SHMOE and his family do not have money to waste on stocks. No problem, he never aspired to be a CEO. Heck, JOE SHMOE can't put muck into his 401k, Ok, it's his problem. No one told him to get married and have 2 kids.
But not to worry, he has AA's pension to retire on.
Ooops, I forgot, when he retires he will now get 40% less than under the old plan. But he can thank the CEOs and governement for passing legislation to reduce people's pensions. JOE SHMOE is very happy Carty just had his pension credit tripled.

I used to work for a company that offered stock options - but you won't consider them because they are really tied to the companies performance. I put a down payment on my house, a deck on the house, and a down payment on a car with those options. And I didn't waste a nickle on stocks. Here's why...I was given the option to purchase stock at a specified price. When I wanted a deck, I simply called Chuck Schwab (who managed the program), told him I wanted to exercise my options. So...he BOUGHT the stock at my strike price and turned around and SOLD the stock for the market rate, and sent me a check for the difference. Total out of pocket for this "Joe Schmoe"...$0.00. Total income for Joe Schmoe...$$$$$$$

FWIW, I do have a pension plan where I work. I certainly don't count on it to retire on....It simply won't allow me to live in "the manner I am accustomed", so I go ahead and fund my 401K. I get a nice tax break at the end of the year, and I've got some money waiting for me when I retire. And since I never SEE the money, I'm never really OUT the money.

You are right KCFLYER! Let's do it management's way!

You might actually find it to be more lucrative if you didn't have your condesention glasses on.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[WingNaPrayer]

[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/16/2003 10:42:36 AM KCFlyer wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]Carty is underpaid. Let's take a look shall we? Salary only here - Carty is CEO of an organization that employees 123,000 people and he is paid a salary of $600,000. Bill Esrey is CEO of a telecom (Sprint) who used to employ 65,000, but they have laid off almost 25% of their workforce. He is paid $1,500,000. You don't even want to know about the bonuses. So...Carty makes half as much as a CEO who heads a company that employees half the number of employees. [BR][BR]----------------[BR][BR]Sprint's Ersey doesn't have 35,000+ managers under him either! I'll bet you could quiz Ersey on every aspect of his company's operation and he'd know the answer. Try asking Carty....he'd have to refer it to a chain of a dozen people or more before you got an answer, because he just doesn't have a clue.[BR][BR]Face it, all the top executives of AA know how to do is pad their pockets. You're rocking the wrong boat. If you think Carty is doing his job (and I make that statement lightly) for a pittance of a salary only compared to his counterparts at other corporations, then the man must be a bigger fùckìng idiot than I thought![BR][BR]Read between the lines KC - compare the CEO's by the perks (that they grant to themselves) and you'll see that Ersey is the one getting screwed! I'll bet you my phone card against yours that Ersey doesn't have a 77 million dollar warchest for a pension fund for him and his family to fall back on so none of them will ever have to work a day in their lives and he [EM]got[/EM] that warchest on the backs of the very labor force that he is now begging congress for the legal right to screw....NO LUBE![/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]