What is next after failed ratification vote?

[jimntx]

From the article:

"American officials will put their "heads back down and go to work and try to find a way to get to a sensible contract with the TWU," Horton said. "It's in the interest of the company. It's in the interest of the employee."

Translated into the English, a "sensible contract" means one that will not cut into the executive bonusses.

 

[Bob Owens]

My next question is this: Will we assign blame to those responsible for the mess? It is logical, but, first their must be an admission of guilt and mistakes before the problem-solving can begin.

Now, because of the outcome of this voting, we can safely reach some conclusions here. And IMO, that conclusion is:

1. That a massive disconnect exists between the TWU Leadership and the membership.
Now there is anger and resentment, proven by the vote results. They never should have brought it back, trying to jam that crap down our throats. The next meeting at the Hall will be interesting.

2. That there really was no effective negotiation in the whole process, which was supervised and witnessed by the NMB. Too much ram-rodding by one individual. Remember that framous quote by Satchel Paige, "None of us is smarter than all of us". If there is a dictator, will he be cast aside?

3. The authors of the failed TA underestimated the contractual needs of the membership. If the company wrote it, then the company should make it a joint effort. If there is no negotiation, they why have a negotiation committee.

4. In light of the current AMP card drive, the TWU must turn this negative outcome into a positive one. To do nothing different would be insane. Dont ignore the competition, just compete and out-do them or be out-done by them.

5. Will the membership now press for changes, and will the leaders realize the need for change? Now is the time for more effective leadership.

A result of this magnitude demands planning sessions.

You can be the company will be having some brainstorming meetings to decide on a new course of action, and , ditto for the union.
Then the NMB will set a new date for more talks, in order to hammer out a new agreement. Much pressure on the Co. now.

I agree on all points. Its interesting to note that the International only brought YES voters into the International, Clark, Luis, Gilboy and Zimmerman all have International titles and all voted YES.

I voted NO and my membership agreed, 65% of Stores and 95% of M&R rejected the proposal. Granted we put a lot of effort into exposing the multiple concessions in the TA which helped push our numbers so high, the Internationals little subtle vote yes insert was not very effective.

Our numbers were
M&R 32 -Yes 604-NO
Stores 16 Yes 45-NO

We didnt get a breakdown of how each Local Voted, only our own.

I agree that we need change. I had asked Jim Little months ago to step in and make some changes. Clearly the majority at the table were not representative of their membership. Jim Little said years ago that the membership should never reject a TA, so if those who voted YES try to spin this around dont buy it. They found this acceptable or they should not have brought it back. We never offered a counter and there was no firm reason to believe that if we opted to continue to negotiate that an impasse would have been declared or that we would have been on a 30 day countdown.

Many of these same people continued to endorse working together and every other joint process while the company kept coming back with more regressive demands. As we met their demands in one Article they would come back with increased demands elsewhere. This past winter after the company came back with a more regressive offer which raised their ASM demand from 8% to 20% I submitted a motion to raise our demands to industry leading. My motion was rejected, the vote went pretty much along the same lines as the TA. Steve Luis said that if the motion passed that he would "take his ball and go home". In the end the company was able to modify their demand which was an increase from 6% to 8% to more than 12%. When I brought this up to the committee via E-mail one committee member said that was an improvement over what they were demanding with the winter proposal!!!!

Thats how our negotiations up to this point have gone.

The committee agreed to a sub-standard table position because they claimed it was "credible". In the meantime the companies vdemands just kept becoming more and more regressive, Don Videtich kept telling the committee to give in to the company's demands and that we would get a dollar value to roll into the economic proposals which the company simply refused to address month after month. We kept moving closer and closer to the companys postion despite the fact that that position kept moving further and further back. The company eneded up with a zero cost contract and our "credible" table position was abandoned. Now Don wants all the locals to come back with what needs to be changed in the TA to get it passed. My position is that the TA in its entirety needs to be scrapped. Its so full of concessions that it would take more work to fix it than its worth. The best solution is to go back to 2001 language with system seniority moved up to DOS and a COLA adjustment from 2003 to 2008 built into the economic articles effective 2008(retro from 2008 fwd). That agreement was a workable document that both parties agreed in the past. Its well balanced, having been the product of 20 years of concessions with a rebound in hourly rates. Its an agreement that would motivate our members to make this airline number one again so the company and the workers would both win.

 

[eolesen]

Translated into the English, a "sensible contract" means one that will not cut into the executive bonusses.

Ah, yes, the "let's go off on a tangent about executive bonuses" red herring surfaces...

As stated time and time again, AA's entire exec team could work for zero compensation, and it would come out to about an additional $200 per unionized employee.

That earth shattering sum would buy at most about six minutes of management/labor peace.

 

[MCI transplant]

I agree on all points. Its interesting to note that the International only brought YES voters into the International, Clark, Luis, Gilboy and Zimmerman all have International titles and all voted YES.

I voted NO and my membership agreed, 65% of Stores and 95% of M&R rejected the proposal. Granted we put a lot of effort into exposing the multiple concessions in the TA which helped push our numbers so high, the Internationals little subtle vote yes insert was not very effective.

Our numbers were
M&R 32 -Yes 604-NO
Stores 16 Yes 45-NO

We didnt get a breakdown of how each Local Voted, only our own.

I agree that we need change. I had asked Jim Little months ago to step in and make some changes. Clearly the majority at the table were not representative of their membership. Jim Little said years ago that the membership should never reject a TA, so if those who voted YES try to spin this around dont buy it. They found this acceptable or they should not have brought it back. We never offered a counter and there was no firm reason to believe that if we opted to continue to negotiate that an impasse would have been declared or that we would have been on a 30 day countdown.

Many of these same people continued to endorse working together and every other joint process while the company kept coming back with more regressive demands. As we met their demands in one Article they would come back with increased demands elsewhere. This past winter after the company came back with a more regressive offer which raised their ASM demand from 8% to 20% I submitted a motion to raise our demands to industry leading. My motion was rejected, the vote went pretty much along the same lines as the TA. Steve Luis said that if the motion passed that he would "take his ball and go home". In the end the company was able to modify their demand which was an increase from 6% to 8% to more than 12%. When I brought this up to the committee via E-mail one committee member said that was an improvement over what they were demanding with the winter proposal!!!!

Thats how our negotiations up to this point have gone.

The committee agreed to a sub-standard table position because they claimed it was "credible". In the meantime the companies vdemands just kept becoming more and more regressive, Don Videtich kept telling the committee to give in to the company's demands and that we would get a dollar value to roll into the economic proposals which the company simply refused to address month after month. We kept moving closer and closer to the companys postion despite the fact that that position kept moving further and further back. The company eneded up with a zero cost contract and our "credible" table position was abandoned. Now Don wants all the locals to come back with what needs to be changed in the TA to get it passed. My position is that the TA in its entirety needs to be scrapped. Its so full of concessions that it would take more work to fix it than its worth. The best solution is to go back to 2001 language with system seniority moved up to DOS and a COLA adjustment from 2003 to 2008 built into the economic articles effective 2008(retro from 2008 fwd). That agreement was a workable document that both parties agreed in the past. Its well balanced, having been the product of 20 years of concessions with a rebound in hourly rates. Its an agreement that would motivate our members to make this airline number one again so the company and the workers would both win.

<_< --------Bob, I hath to say it, but your beating a dead horse here!------ It ain't going to happen!

 

[eolesen]

The best solution is to go back to 2001 language with system seniority moved up to DOS and a COLA adjustment from 2003 to 2008 built into the economic articles effective 2008(retro from 2008 fwd). That agreement was a workable document that both parties agreed in the past. Its well balanced, having been the product of 20 years of concessions with a rebound in hourly rates. Its an agreement that would motivate our members to make this airline number one again so the company and the workers would both win.

Best solution?.... That's a crack-pipe fantasy, Bob. You can't wake up to Bobby Ewing taking a shower, and believe that everything that's happened in the last ten years didn't actually happen.... The only thing that hasn't changed are ticket prices.

At the very least, the hourly rates in the 2001 contract were based on having parity plus with the other major airlines, and AA being the largest airline in the world. Now you've got fewer airlines, AA's no longer the biggest, and virtually all of the competition has outsourced huge portions of their maintenance and/or slashed their operating costs well below those of AA.

If you wanted to start with the non-wage workrules from 2001, perhaps. But as much as you'd like to negotiate from the hot tub time machine, using 2001 wages as a starting point will get you nowhere.

 

[Birdman]

What value, in the negotiation process, could be placed on the union holding their members accountable, promoting good health and work ethic? The compAAny would be dumbfounded at the notion. What you have is animosity toward the union for allowing bad behavior to go unchecked and it costs us dearly in our worth. Union stewards, counterparts, and multiple committee volunteers are generally worthless. When I assess those who seek change, it's predominantly the ones who are more productive and professional. I'm for giving the compAAny confidence that what they pay me is worth every penny in value.

 

[jimntx]

Ah, yes, the "let's go off on a tangent about executive bonuses" red herring surfaces...

As stated time and time again, AA's entire exec team could work for zero compensation, and it would come out to about an additional $200 per unionized employee.

That earth shattering sum would buy at most about six minutes of management/labor peace.

Ok, I'll take Zero Executive Compensation for $200, Alex. I have some car repairs that need to be done.

E, you are typically missing the point. I have no problem with executives being compensated--after all I worked in the oil business for over 20 years where AMR exec bonusses would be viewed as chump change.

What I have a problem with is executives receiving bonusses while the company is losing money hand over fist. Bonusses are supposed to be for performance over and above. Not for just showing up on a regular basis.

 

[Frank Szabo]

... snip
What I have a problem with is executives receiving bonusses while the company is losing money hand over fist.
.. snip

Just because an item is placed in the debit column per GAAP does not necessarily mean it's an actual loss.

Printing stock in the company for the execs to sell as a reward for "doing such a great job" entails paying the guy doing the printing - that's all. It does, however, dilute the value of the holdings of others, that is, unless they are awarded more stock also.

 

[eolesen]

Ok, I'll take Zero Executive Compensation for $200, Alex. I have some car repairs that need to be done.

E, you are typically missing the point. I have no problem with executives being compensated--after all I worked in the oil business for over 20 years where AMR exec bonusses would be viewed as chump change.

What I have a problem with is executives receiving bonusses while the company is losing money hand over fist. Bonusses are supposed to be for performance over and above. Not for just showing up on a regular basis.

Whatever, Jim. I seem to recall the moderators having had enough of things like executive compensation and TWA seniority, as they're nothing but diversionary topics which only succeed in bringing out the masses carrying pitchforks, tar and feathers, getting peoples' blood pressure up, and contributing absolutely nothing constructive to any given discussion thread...

If you want to continue on the tangent, go for it. At the end of the day, as I've shown, it contributes a whopping 9.6c per hour raise for employees, and there are far bigger things to focus on.

 

[jimntx]

Whatever is a non-answer when a person doesn't have a valid response. Of course, you also add backhanded tattling to your posts to attempt punishment on the person for whom you can't produce a response.

 

[eolesen]

Whatever is also a valid answer when someone has already made their point yet someone else insists on beating a dead horse, instead of actually contribute to the original thread.

And I really have no need to tattle. The moderators seem to be pretty quick lately at cleaning things up.

 

[olderguyAMT]

Best solution?.... That's a crack-pipe fantasy, Bob. You can't wake up to Bobby Ewing taking a shower, and believe that everything that's happened in the last ten years didn't actually happen.... The only thing that hasn't changed are ticket prices.
At the very least, the hourly rates in the 2001 contract were based on having parity plus with the other major airlines, and AA being the largest airline in the world. Now you've got fewer airlines, AA's no longer the biggest, and virtually all of the competition has outsourced huge portions of their maintenance and/or slashed their operating costs well below those of AA.

If you wanted to start with the non-wage workrules from 2001, perhaps. But as much as you'd like to negotiate from the hot tub time machine, using 2001 wages as a starting point will get you nowhere.

Hey eolesen, What no extra bag fees, no special seating fees, no extra fees for this or that in the last ten years? Food fees, movie fees, extra cost of beer, hey flying costs more these days. and with fuel prices lower the revenues are up, especially with other airlines. They drag in a lot more rev with extra fees.
Now fess up and show us your crack-pipe. Is Bobby Ewing still playing reruns of TV soap operas in your mind? The show Dallas stopped running years ago. I had to Google it to find out who Ewing was. so, Why are you thinking of that?

here is an up-to-date link to support the idea that ticket prices are trending up, go figure. EOM

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/airline-prices-trend-higher-including-at-tampa-international-airport/1115806

 

[limit]

Whatever is also a valid answer when someone has already made their point yet someone else insists on beating a dead horse, instead of actually contribute to the original thread.

And I really have no need to tattle. The moderators seem to be pretty quick lately at cleaning things up.

You got drop kicked in the privates and the pain wont let you think straight.
Oh wait.
Jim spoke out of turn.
And this is not contributing to the thread.
Keep your head in the sand,if you think this is not directly related to the contract talks and its something that if addressed properly
will remove a huge obstacle to the progression of the negotiations and above all the way people might vote.
Unfortunately AA seems to have lost the boat on this one issue.


Not to worry though E.
I will email the moderators and have them remove the posts that expose the emptiness of your argument on this.
I promise and we understand .

Moderator!! Moderator!!Where are you Moderator?

And this is the only way you deserve to be addressed on this particular issue.

 

[eolesen]

Hey eolesen, What no extra bag fees, no special seating fees, no extra fees for this or that in the last ten years? Food fees, movie fees, extra cost of beer, hey flying costs more these days. and with fuel prices lower the revenues are up, especially with other airlines. They drag in a lot more rev with extra fees.
Now fess up and show us your crack-pipe. Is Bobby Ewing still playing reruns of TV soap operas in your mind? The show Dallas stopped running years ago. I had to Google it to find out who Ewing was. so, Why are you thinking of that?

here is an up-to-date link to support the idea that ticket prices are trending up, go figure.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/airline-prices-trend-higher-including-at-tampa-international-airport/1115806

If you don't remember Bobby Ewing, then your screen name betrays your age....

Sure, there's extra revenue sources going into AA that didn't exist ten years ago. And there are also lots of new costs like the TSA. You've also got skyrocketing health care expenses (AA is self insured, and pays all that out of pocket, not the insurance company), the number of living retirees is now higher (driving up pension liability which also get funded out of revenues). And please, fuel is cheaper compared to two years ago, but still several times higher than in 2001. Aircraft ownership expenses are also higher because of all the aircraft purchased since 2001 (i.e. retiring the last of the Stage II aircraft, the Bus, and a good portion of the MD80 fleet).

And your example? It even says that in 2001 dollars, the average of $328 would have been $432 adjusted for inflation.

Everything else is more expensive except for tickets. And, since every other airline has a cost structure which breaks even or makes a profit off of lower ticket prices, there's not going to be any rush soon for those other airlines to raise prices. And frankly, AA has no ability to raise prices anymore. That now belongs to the guys at Southwest, Delta, Virgin America and Jetblue.

 

[Bob Owens]

Best solution?.... That's a crack-pipe fantasy, Bob. You can't wake up to Bobby Ewing taking a shower, and believe that everything that's happened in the last ten years didn't actually happen.... The only thing that hasn't changed are ticket prices.

At the very least, the hourly rates in the 2001 contract were based on having parity plus with the other major airlines, and AA being the largest airline in the world. Now you've got fewer airlines, AA's no longer the biggest, and virtually all of the competition has outsourced huge portions of their maintenance and/or slashed their operating costs well below those of AA.

If you wanted to start with the non-wage workrules from 2001, perhaps. But as much as you'd like to negotiate from the hot tub time machine, using 2001 wages as a starting point will get you nowhere.

Call it what you like but there's 4000 less of us and they are set to bring in around $5 billion more this year than when they took everything away. So there are a lot less of us to pay and theres a lot more coming in to pay us with. Maybe your company needs to accept less.

The money is coming in, they just choose to divert it elsewhere. We are going to get our share of it no matter what it takes.

You've also got skyrocketing health care expenses (AA is self insured, and pays all that out of pocket, not the insurance company),

You're right, AA is self insured so the $4000 that we pay for coverage we are paying to AA. Some people may not even see a Doctor for years so the company makes money off those workers. When their costs go up they pass it on to us. Thats why my rates have gone up 500% since 2003, Medical costs across the country have not gone up that much. For all we know this could be another of AAs additional sources of revenue.

the number of living retirees is now higher (driving up pension liability which also get funded out of revenues).

Thats because they bought TWA and offered the VBRs to save money.

Everything else is more expensive except for tickets.

And Labor. You said it, everything else is more expensive and everything else is more expensive for us too however we can't add fees and run higher load factors to make up for lower wages. Maybe we should follow the airlines lead, charge a set hourly rate then add a flashlight usage fee, and a tool usage fee, signature fee, log book review fee, etc etc.

And, since every other airline has a cost structure which breaks even or makes a profit off of lower ticket prices, there's not going to be any rush soon for those other airlines to raise prices. And frankly, AA has no ability to raise prices anymore. That now belongs to the guys at Southwest, Delta, Virgin America and Jetblue.

Well if everybody is full then why couldnt they raise ticket prices? But in reality they dont have to, all they have to do is dream up another fee. The airlines are using the same scam as the Utilities. They claim the rates havent gone up but when consumers look at their bills they are paying more, they tag on and dream up a bunch of fees.