We should have taken our medicine in 2003

[proAMT]

All our efforts to "save" the airline came to not. Concessions are ALWAYS a bad deal.

I'm glad I didn't have to go through another round of "Save the Company" whining by the TWU and I'm glad I voted no in 2003 I just wish more of us had.

If we hadn't stood firm this time they would of clipped us again and again.

Look at our load factors and everything we did to save the company and it still wasn't enough.

We could have worked for free and still lost money.

Look at our morale now as opposed to our morale in 2001.

If we had taken our medicine in 2003 we would have been profitable and better off by now.

Cuss me if you will but I feel the company has finally done the right thing.

Our future finally looks brighter now that we can actually be allowed to return to profitability.

 

[TWU informer]

And not experience the "Without Further Ratification" James C. Little sign off that gave him the appointment to the throne?

 

[FWAAA]

I disagree with the OP. Had AA filed for Ch 11 in 2003, AA would have gone for more cuts to labor costs. Like it's going to do now.

You had 8+ years of better pay and benefits than you would have received had AA filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Many of you are loathe to admit that reality, but reality it is. Some of the posts I'm seeing today appear to acknowledge that things are going to get worse.

Besides, even if AA had filed in 2003, the subsequent filings of NW and DL in 2005 might have seen those airlines go for even bigger cuts to their labor costs in order to compete with AA (which would have achieved larger paycuts in its 2003 bankruptcy). As a result, there's no guarantee that AA would currently be profitable now and there's no guarantee that today's CH 11 filing would not have happened.

 

[TWU informer]

I disagree with the OP. Had AA filed for Ch 11 in 2003, AA would have gone for more cuts to labor costs. Like it's going to do now.

You had 8+ years of better pay and benefits than you would have received had AA filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Many of you are loathe to admit that reality, but reality it is. Some of the posts I'm seeing today appear to acknowledge that things are going to get worse.

Besides, even if AA had filed in 2003, the subsequent filings of NW and DL in 2005 might have seen those airlines go for even bigger cuts to their labor costs in order to compete with AA (which would have achieved larger paycuts in its 2003 bankruptcy). As a result, there's no guarantee that AA would currently be profitable now and there's no guarantee that today's CH 11 filing would not have happened.

Well there in lies the problem.

No matter who goes first to the concession stand, someone else always gets raped even worse, and so the downward moving merry-go-round keeps spinning, it doesn't matter when you get on or off, and it doesn't matter who goes first or last.

Maybe some form of regulation will re-emerge before another industry of decent paid U.S. jobs are relegated to government welfare and entitlements.

 

[High Speed Steel]

I disagree with the OP. Had AA filed for Ch 11 in 2003, AA would have gone for more cuts to labor costs. Like it's going to do now.

You had 8+ years of better pay and benefits than you would have received had AA filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Many of you are loathe to admit that reality, but reality it is. Some of the posts I'm seeing today appear to acknowledge that things are going to get worse.

Besides, even if AA had filed in 2003, the subsequent filings of NW and DL in 2005 might have seen those airlines go for even bigger cuts to their labor costs in order to compete with AA (which would have achieved larger paycuts in its 2003 bankruptcy). As a result, there's no guarantee that AA would currently be profitable now and there's no guarantee that today's CH 11 filing would not have happened.

Good post. To this day I still support the decision of 2003 to avoid bankruptcy...

 

[Buck]

Well there in lies the problem.

No matter who goes first to the concession stand, someone else always gets raped even worse, and so the downward moving merry-go-round keeps spinning, it doesn't matter when you get on or off, and it doesn't matter who goes first or last.

Maybe some form of regulation will re-emerge before another industry of decent paid U.S. jobs are relegated to government welfare and entitlements.

I believe you are correct. Maybe the government will give the industry a buyout. What is so different than that of a banking system or a car manufactuer. Spiking Fuel Prices, Maintenance Violations and Tarmac Delays with their fines etc..

 

[Chuck Schalk]

we gave up all those concessions in 2003(over 100,000 dollars per employee) to avoid bankruptcy and protect the pension. The employees gave another 595 million dollars yearly in M&R savings through the "pull together, win together" campaign. Furthermore our productivity has increased overall as well.
now we are told labor is the problem and more concessions are needed.
The parties will negotiate in bankruptcy and if the parties can't come to an agreement then the judge may step in. So This voluntary chapter 11 is pre-manufactured and designed in hope that labor groups will cave in during the negotiation process.

 

[tech2101]

So This voluntary chapter 11 is pre-manufactured and designed in hope that labor groups will cave in during the negotiation process.

What?

Are you going to play hardball in BK court?

I hope you are joking.

 

[xUT]

I disagree with the OP. Had AA filed for Ch 11 in 2003, AA would have gone for more cuts to labor costs. Like it's going to do now.

You had 8+ years of better pay and benefits than you would have received had AA filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Many of you are loathe to admit that reality, but reality it is. Some of the posts I'm seeing today appear to acknowledge that things are going to get worse.

Besides, even if AA had filed in 2003, the subsequent filings of NW and DL in 2005 might have seen those airlines go for even bigger cuts to their labor costs in order to compete with AA (which would have achieved larger paycuts in its 2003 bankruptcy). As a result, there's no guarantee that AA would currently be profitable now and there's no guarantee that today's CH 11 filing would not have happened.

I don't agree.
AA gave deep concessions outside of BK that put downward pressure on everyone else in and out of BK.
I know it applied as a downward example with the UA M&R concessions in BK.
If AA went through BK in 2003 (along with the rest of us), there would be no AA BK now.
Hindsight is 20/20.
JMHO
B) xUT

 

[High Speed Steel]

we gave up all those concessions in 2003(over 100,000 dollars per employee) to avoid bankruptcy and protect the pension. The employees gave another 595 million dollars yearly in M&R savings through the "pull together, win together" campaign. Furthermore our productivity has increased overall as well.
now we are told labor is the problem and more concessions are needed.
The parties will negotiate in bankruptcy and if the parties can't come to an agreement then the judge may step in. So This voluntary chapter 11 is pre-manufactured and designed in hope that labor groups will cave in during the negotiation process.

Voluntary chapter 11 is pre-manufactured?.....Wow, now that is a new twist :blink:

What was it again that "Vote NO" was gonna gain us? I seem to have lost in excess of 8 grand within the past year and still the echo's of chest thumping continue...lol

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Voluntary chapter 11 is pre-manufactured?.....Wow, now that is a new twist :blink:

What was it again that "Vote NO" was gonna gain us? I seem to have lost in excess of 8 grand within the past year and still the echo's of chest thumping continue...lol

only 8 grand? you must have missed the last 8 years.

you think voting the last contract in would have been protected in bankruptcy? maybe i give you too much credit!

 

[Slopoke]

What was it again that "Vote NO" was gonna gain us? I seem to have lost in excess of 8 grand within the past year and still the echo's of chest thumping continue...lol

And what makes you so sure that if we voted yes, we would NOT be going through the BK process at some point down the road? I for one would think that AA would want it's cake and eat it too, meaning even with concessions AA would still file for BK and lower our pay and benefits more.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't agree.
AA gave deep concessions outside of BK that put downward pressure on everyone else in and out of BK.
I know it applied as a downward example with the UA M&R concessions in BK.
If AA went through BK in 2003 (along with the rest of us), there would be no AA BK now.
Hindsight is 20/20.
JMHO
B) xUT

We can certainly agree to disagree. I believe that an AA bankruptcy in 2003 would have lowered the bar even further, causing UA's round two concessions to be even larger, and US' round two (or three) concessions would have been larger. Then, when NW and DL filed, they would have had to cut further to match AA (and UA and US), leading to an eventual round two for AA, which is happening right now. I'm just not as certain as you and others that a 2003 bankruptcy would have been a "one and done" deal. I suspect (but of course can't prove it) that AA would be in the same fix right now even if it had filed in 2003.

 

[Frank Szabo]

We can certainly agree to disagree. I believe that an AA bankruptcy in 2003 would have lowered the bar even further, causing UA's round two concessions to be even larger, and US' round two (or three) concessions would have been larger. Then, when NW and DL filed, they would have had to cut further to match AA (and UA and US), leading to an eventual round two for AA, which is happening right now. I'm just not as certain as you and others that a 2003 bankruptcy would have been a "one and done" deal. I suspect (but of course can't prove it) that AA would be in the same fix right now even if it had filed in 2003.

Much supposition.

Are you privy to info that AMR was actually going to file in 2003 or do you simply believe everything the company put out for the readers' benefit as gospel?

 

[High Speed Steel]

only 8 grand? you must have missed the last 8 years.

you think voting the last contract in would have been protected in bankruptcy? maybe i give you too much credit!

There are no guarantees in anything Chuck and with the rejected M&R TA there were some wage and benefit increases that could have come in handy, especially after today's news. So instead. Here we are with the potential to be disadvantaged before a bankruptcy judge, because thanks to the "Vote NO" campaign we are going to bankruptcy at the 2003 wage and benefit rates...Brilliant, just friggin brilliant :blink: