We should have taken our medicine in 2003

[tom barry]

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:

You, and I quote....."Brilliant, just friggin brilliant"..... AND are quick to jump on Chuck and Bob.
WELL, I'll tell you What REAL......."Brilliant, just friggin brilliant...is. It's EVERY TIME since the contract of 83' with ALL of the YES voters in ALL of the "YES" locals. (And you silly fellows thought that 501/NY and 507/BOS were always voting NO, just to be mean) !!!

 

[Frank Szabo]

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:

That's OK - your buds in the international will be fighting for us - won't they?

... or fighting to keep their dues income.

 

[Frank Szabo]

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!

... at least this way the bastards only get one bite at the apple instead of the two they'd have gotten if we'd bought that contract.

 

[FWAAA]

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?

No, I'm not privy to any inside info about whether AMR was actually going to file in 2003, but if you read my posts (#3 and #13) carrefully, you'll see that neither requires an assumption that AA was actually going to file. All you have to believe is that AA would have sought and would have obtained deeper concessions in pay and benefit cuts had it filed. AA made no secret in 2003 that the Vermont Plan would have cost the employees more than the 2003 concessions did. The OP said that the employees would have been better off had AA filed in 2003 because AA would not be facing bankruptcy now. It's that faulty premise with which I disagree.

There was a common emotion expressed in this forum in early 2003 and repeated every so often that the 2003 bankruptcy discussions were an empty threat and that employees should have called Arpey's bluff, because he lacked the stones to actually file. Bob Owens made much of the fact that they were lying about being on the courthouse steps because the courthouse in NYC has no steps. The phrase "courthouse steps" is used even when courthouses lack steps, but Owens seized on that as more lies from management. Well, today the board proved that it is not afraid of bankruptcy, and it's a given that the company will seek (and will probably get) pay and benefit concessions again.

On the one hand, the OP and others claim that it was AA's huge concessions that set the bar, forcing the others to demand even greater concessions - Bob Owens has posted this belief repeatedly. Well, if he's right, then a 2003 AMR bankruptcy would have set the bar even lower, which would have forced the others to cut pay and benefits even further. Had UA, US, NW and DL obtained even bigger concessions, it's my belief that AA would be in the same mess today - with costs that exceed its major competition.

I'm sure there are still chest-thumpers who will claim in the coming days and weeks that no concessions will be forthcoming, but IMO, they're delusional.

 

[WorldTraveler]

No, I'm not privy to any inside info about whether AMR was actually going to file in 2003, but if you read my posts (#3 and #13) carrefully, you'll see that neither requires an assumption that AA was actually going to file. All you have to believe is that AA would have sought and would have obtained deeper concessions in pay and benefit cuts had it filed. AA made no secret in 2003 that the Vermont Plan would have cost the employees more than the 2003 concessions did. The OP said that the employees would have been better off had AA filed in 2003 because AA would not be facing bankruptcy now. It's that faulty premise with which I disagree.

There was a common emotion expressed in this forum in early 2003 and repeated every so often that the 2003 bankruptcy discussions were an empty threat and that employees should have called Arpey's bluff, because he lacked the stones to actually file. Bob Owens made much of the fact that they were lying about being on the courthouse steps because the courthouse in NYC has no steps. The phrase "courthouse steps" is used even when courthouses lack steps, but Owens seized on that as more lies from management. Well, today the board proved that it is not afraid of bankruptcy, and it's a given that the company will seek (and will probably get) pay and benefit concessions again.

On the one hand, the OP and others claim that it was AA's huge concessions that set the bar, forcing the others to demand even greater concessions - Bob Owens has posted this belief repeatedly. Well, if he's right, then a 2003 AMR bankruptcy would have set the bar even lower, which would have forced the others to cut pay and benefits even further. Had UA, US, NW and DL obtained even bigger concessions, it's my belief that AA would be in the same mess today - with costs that exceed its major competition.

I'm sure there are still chest-thumpers who will claim in the coming days and weeks that no concessions will be forthcoming, but IMO, they're delusional.

while your logic is sound, I think you are missing one key ingredient in why AA's costs were not competitive - and that is because they had too many employees for an airline of their size... which was driven by the assumption that other carriers would not successfully restructure in BK and AA would have been able to grow into a size commensurate with its workforce. Obviously, other carriers didn't fail (which should serve as an indication to US and those who wish AA's demise that airline restructuring is now a fairly "certain" exercise) and AA was left with a workforce that was unproductive not as much because of workrule differences but because other carriers cut more of their workforces and then grew (notably CO and DL) while AA has been treading water (no growth) for several years.
.
DL and WN both pay pilots more than AA does NOW so the notion that AA couldn't have had higher employee costs and still compete is not valid.
.
AA's BK does make it alot harder for UA/CO employees to demand wage increases and will certainly slow if not stop wage growth at DL and WN - that is what happens when one carrier brings wages down.
.
My biggest fear for AA employees is that now that the company has the ability to "right-size" the workforce in BK, there will be huge layoffs in order to catch up to where AA should have been before... add in the fact that AA WILL cut capacity as it takes advantage of BK to get rid of many older jets - perhaps earlier than it would like given the arrival of the new jets is 18-24 months away - and THEN you factor in the scope changes for various workgroups (ie fleet service and maintenance esp. but every workgroup) and I fear that AA could be cutting many, many jobs in the next six months esp.
.
However, there really is not a whole lot of value in continuing to Monday morning QB what sent AA to BK... the focus now should be on getting AA and its people through the process and out the other end in the best possible shape.
Fighting about what caused it doesn't serve that purpose. Fighting AGAINST the competition and for every dollar in revenue that AA needs to make its plan work is what is needed more than anything else.

 

[Hopeful]

while your logic is sound, I think you are missing one key ingredient in why AA's costs were not competitive - and that is because they had too many employees for an airline of their size... which was driven by the assumption that other carriers would not successfully restructure in BK and AA would have been able to grow into a size commensurate with its workforce. Obviously, other carriers didn't fail (which should serve as an indication to US and those who wish AA's demise that airline restructuring is now a fairly "certain" exercise) and AA was left with a workforce that was unproductive not as much because of workrule differences but because other carriers cut more of their workforces and then grew (notably CO and DL) while AA has been treading water (no growth) for several years.
.
DL and WN both pay pilots more than AA does NOW so the notion that AA couldn't have had higher employee costs and still compete is not valid.
.
AA's BK does make it alot harder for UA/CO employees to demand wage increases and will certainly slow if not stop wage growth at DL and WN - that is what happens when one carrier brings wages down.
.
My biggest fear for AA employees is that now that the company has the ability to "right-size" the workforce in BK, there will be huge layoffs in order to catch up to where AA should have been before... add in the fact that AA WILL cut capacity as it takes advantage of BK to get rid of many older jets - perhaps earlier than it would like given the arrival of the new jets is 18-24 months away - and THEN you factor in the scope changes for various workgroups (ie fleet service and maintenance esp. but every workgroup) and I fear that AA could be cutting many, many jobs in the next six months esp.
.
However, there really is not a whole lot of value in continuing to Monday morning QB what sent AA to BK... the focus now should be on getting AA and its people through the process and out the other end in the best possible shape.
Fighting about what caused it doesn't serve that purpose. Fighting AGAINST the competition and for every dollar in revenue that AA needs to make its plan work is what is needed more than anything else.

Ok, Let's right size the airline.....

SCOPE is nothing but a memory.... Minimum hours flown by pilots will be substantially raised...Whether AA keeps the APA flying all the jets at competitive rates or just larger aircraft will determine if any pilots get laid off..

F/A staffing changes and hours flown will undoubtedly determine their layoff numbers....
Shedding the OH operations or spinning it off into a lower wage MRO will determine mechanic layoffs...If it's the former scenario...thousands are gone.

Ticket agents? Counters are barely staffed sufficiently as it is.....I don't see cuts in there ranks...

Gate agents? More often than not I see ONE agent working a flight.....I don't see reductions there...

Cabin Service is gone no question....What happens to Fleet Service is anyone's guess.

Facilities maintenance/automotive.......Could easily be contracted out...but who knows..

Supervisors?..................Way too many of them as it is.....their numbers need to be reduced.....

Class II and lower sations will be de staffed from having any AA employees.......that's thousands of jobs there covering ALL work groups.

People here see AA outsourcing nearly everyone except pilots and f/a's... But looking at those carriers which have gone BK and the low cost guys, the common thread is NO major OH.

But be certain that right now every department VP and director is devising extreme cost cutting measures that will be presented to the BK jusge while at the same time still negotiating contracts...
No one should be surprised when they see the company's proposals go from bad to worse!

 

[WorldTraveler]

your pessimistic assessment is accurate... and anyone with a leg in the game should take such a view and be surprised ONLY if things are not as bad as feared....
.
There are departments like passenger service that have little extra cushion but remember that they are staffed based on AA's CURRENT FLEET and network.
.
AA has over 200 leased OPERATING aircraft among M80s, 757s, and 767s (200s and 300s) offset by a couple dozen new 737s and 777s scheduled to be delivered in 2012 ... it is far from certain how many of those aircraft AA could decide it doesn't need but it is very possible that they have already decided they will shrink the airline dramatically in the near term particularly in the usually revenue weak first six months of the year when stopping the losses is absolutely critical.
They could renegotiate some of the leases so that planes don't leave TOO fast but if they intend to go forward with the Airbus and Boeing deals, they are not going to sign long term leases and the lessors might not want to sign short term deals with huge cuts in lease rates... thus AA might be forced to delay obtaining some of the aircraft cost cuts, reduce the fleet fairly quickly in the short term (which means shrinking the airline), or be stuck w/ more of those less than desirable aircraft for a longer period of time than originally wanted...
remember, AA's original plan was to restructure out of court and tie the retirement of older aircraft to deliveries of new ones.