Why I Voted Yes

[Anomaly]

The truth is that not a damn one of you had the balls to take a stand and fight.

You hear that, Third Seat Hero ??

TWU informer just called you a ball-less sack.

By the way, our history of voting NO is well known. At the end of the day, we are still here. I think things could have turned out much worse, all things considered. Slicing open our wrists to watch the bleed truly was one option, but in the end I am happy we decided to stay alive. This too, took balls.

 

[whoop whoop]

You hear that, Third Seat Hero ??

TWU informer just called you a ball-less sack.

By the way, our history of voting NO is well known. At the end of the day, we are still here. I think things could have turned out much worse, all things considered. Slicing open our wrists to watch the bleed truly was one option, but in the end I am happy we decided to stay alive. This too, took balls.

At the end of what day is who still here?????

In 2000 Ual had about 14,000 mechanics and related, today UAL is only 4,800 tops!!! Can you explain to me what voting yes to anything helped the over 9,000 people that lost their jobs?

VOTE NO!!!!!!!!! A yes vote will not save anything!!!!

 

[Buck]

What makes you think I'm not already one? Maybe I don't even work for AA and I work for IBT International. Maybe I am here evaluating Anomaly.

That was a lewd reaching comment Buck....Even for you but I guess I have grown to expect it so carry on.

Your welcome.

 

[Overspeed]

I was told that Evie Rodriguez told guys at JFK that the line needs to vote for this so the company can outsource enough OH to make the line the majority and in Tulsa they are telling them they have to vote for this to keep Tulsa the majority. Jim Ream told the guys at LGA they need to vote for it so they can outsource more OH work that they can get done cheaper and then told the guys at JFK that the company would like to pay their line mechanics what competitors pay their line mechanics but pay OH what competitors pay for overhaul but "unfortunately" the 6500 people in OH control the discussion. (The fact is that our competitors pay their OH mechanics nearly or exactly the same as their line guys, they just have less of them-the guys did not bite and had no interest in Tulsa bashing and instead hit upon the deficiencies of the offer and their treatement of mechanics. ) In other words he was saying to the line guys that if AA didnt have the base that the line guys would get what their peers get and thats why they need to vote YES, because the LBO-2 would allow the company to outsource that work and eventually(in three years) bring the line guys up to the average of the bottom three.
Look at the language, neither is completely true, headcount will go down, possibly by 4000 by 2017 whether we vote this in or not, but I doubt they will decrease the Bases to the point where the line outnumbers the base. AFW may close in a year or so but DWH will expand, Tulsa will probably shrink but so will the line. The question before us is not about saving jobs, its whether or not we explicetly put in langauge allowing them to outsource in addition to the lowest compensation and worst work rules in the industry (wage adjustment included) for at least 6 more years.

Right now there are around 6500 in the bases, 3000 in the line and 2000 in Title II. So thats 11500 total, 35% of 11500 is 4025, The language allows 35% outsourcing, now thats maintenance spend, because its "spend", including parts and materials, it would allow more than 35% of the jobs to be outsourced, not less.

So Tulsa is running around telling their guys that if they vote YES they are saving their jobs, that instead of losing 4000 jobs they would only cut 2000 jobs, but in the language it says that they can outsource 35% of the "maintenence spend", and 35% of the jobs would be 4000. So how does voting yes save jobs when a YES vote explicitly allows them to outsource at the very least 4000 jobs?

If you want to save jobs dont work OT. Why take a paycut to save jobs? Paycuts dont save jobs because jobs are primarily driven by demand for labor, not primarily the cost of labor,so if you work fewer hours and demand stays the same you help create more jobs. If you make fewer hours available then more people will need to be hired to accomplish the same amount of work. If two people agree to work 60 hours a week they are doing three persons work and eliminating one job. If wages go down to where you need to work more hours then what you are doing is eliminating more jobs. great for the company, not so good for the workers, the ones who keep working or the ones who no longer have a job.

AA's business plan is built around us being willing to work double digit percentages in OT, in other words several hundred hours per year.So if everyone refused OT they probably could not lay off anyone right now or in the near future. Attrition would absorb the fall in demand.

Again, you lack critical thinking skills.

There is only 300 to 400 AMTs at WN working overhaul for over 600 aircraft. AA would love the WN contract. Outsource all but four lines of AO, all engines, and all components. Then we can have a 500 overhaul AMTs and brag about having the highest paid overhaul AMTs in the industry. Had to lay off all of PALM, TAESL, and CRO to do it but we will have the highest paid. UA focuses on engines and component overhaul, again they have no AO AMTs or OSMs. So who is going to tell the AO guys they have to lose their jobs so you can get your geo pay? CO does only NB AO in-house and no engines or components. Again, lay off all of TAESL, PALM, CRO, and WB AO. Tell the overhaul guys the truth, yes some could get WN wages but a lot won't because they will have their job outsourced at a much higher level than the TA. You are in it for you and no one else aren't you?

You need to start reading more about the new planes that are coming. Work is being outsourced and drive job loss, right? That work is overhaul work mostly on older WB and 757 aircraft. Most of those aircraft are being replaced with new A321s and 787s. So if those planes are new and don't require overhaul for the first 6 or so years and the work that they are replacing is aircraft that are being retired, how does that drive more head count loss? Those jobs were already lost to outsourcing? You are counting the same value twice.

You need to fully understand the term maintenance spend. What's the most labor intensive and low material usage job in maintenance? Line and AO. What's the highest material and lowest labor intensive job? Engines and components. So if AA outsources an engine we would lose less jobs than if we outsourced a C Check even though they may cost the same, one uses a ton of labor and the other does not. Pay attention to what you read and think it through before you claim to be the expert.

And on the concept of percentages, if we can lower the internal cost of maintenance through more efficient utilization of our labor and material then AA has to outsource less. If it costs $1B in total to run AA one year they can outsource $350M. If you lower your internal costs by $100M through becoming more efficient then the total MX spend became $900M now AA can only outsource $315M and $45M has to come back in-house. Of course you could shove it up AA's tail and increase cost by $100M and then they can outsource $385M so you lose in-house work when you become less efficient.

That's rich Bob. Now you are worried about guy's jobs. Stop working OT and putting people out of job. Go ahead. You are on roll. You just stated earlier the jobs were gone anyway so vote no. Let the bumping begin. I think a lot of AMTs will be bumping out to the line from AFW and TUL. Sure the operation will suffer teething pains but when we absorbed all those TUL RIF's in the '93 what happened? We got steadily better in our MX on time performance in fact by 1995 we were the best we had been since the late 80s. So great AMTs came out of TUL then I expect to see that now. I will welcome them and help bring them up to speed.

So vote no and letting the bumping begin. Where is JFK and LGA on the juniority list? Ouch!

 

[scorpion 2]

Again, you lack critical thinking skills.

There is only 300 to 400 AMTs at WN working overhaul for over 600 aircraft. AA would love the WN contract. Outsource all but four lines of AO, all engines, and all components. Then we can have a 500 overhaul AMTs and brag about having the highest paid overhaul AMTs in the industry. Had to lay off all of PALM, TAESL, and CRO to do it but we will have the highest paid. UA focuses on engines and component overhaul, again they have no AO AMTs or OSMs. So who is going to tell the AO guys they have to lose their jobs so you can get your geo pay? CO does only NB AO in-house and no engines or components. Again, lay off all of TAESL, PALM, CRO, and WB AO. Tell the overhaul guys the truth, yes some could get WN wages but a lot won't because they will have their job outsourced at a much higher level than the TA. You are in it for you and no one else aren't you?

You need to start reading more about the new planes that are coming. Work is being outsourced and drive job loss, right? That work is overhaul work mostly on older WB and 757 aircraft. Most of those aircraft are being replaced with new A321s and 787s. So if those planes are new and don't require overhaul for the first 6 or so years and the work that they are replacing is aircraft that are being retired, how does that drive more head count loss? Those jobs were already lost to outsourcing? You are counting the same value twice.

You need to fully understand the term maintenance spend. What's the most labor intensive and low material usage job in maintenance? Line and AO. What's the highest material and lowest labor intensive job? Engines and components. So if AA outsources an engine we would lose less jobs than if we outsourced a C Check even though they may cost the same, one uses a ton of labor and the other does not. Pay attention to what you read and think it through before you claim to be the expert.

And on the concept of percentages, if we can lower the internal cost of maintenance through more efficient utilization of our labor and material then AA has to outsource less. If it costs $1B in total to run AA one year they can outsource $350M. If you lower your internal costs by $100M through becoming more efficient then the total MX spend became $900M now AA can only outsource $315M and $45M has to come back in-house. Of course you could shove it up AA's tail and increase cost by $100M and then they can outsource $385M so you lose in-house work when you become less efficient.

That's rich Bob. Now you are worried about guy's jobs. Stop working OT and putting people out of job. Go ahead. You are on roll. You just stated earlier the jobs were gone anyway so vote no. Let the bumping begin. I think a lot of AMTs will be bumping out to the line from AFW and TUL. Sure the operation will suffer teething pains but when we absorbed all those TUL RIF's in the '93 what happened? We got steadily better in our MX on time performance in fact by 1995 we were the best we had been since the late 80s. So great AMTs came out of TUL then I expect to see that now. I will welcome them and help bring them up to speed.

So vote no and letting the bumping begin. Where is JFK and LGA on the juniority list? Ouch!

For starters who would want to bump to JFK or LGA for 30 bucks an hour? That was something you did when you had retirement and real benefits that you wanted to keep building on. Those guys are safe!

Where does it say that we are given exclusive rights to do maintenance on new aircraft? Remember the 35% can be exceeded if we dont have the equipment or facilities to do the work.

You need to rethink your analogy on the engine maintenance work. Wouldnt you rather have 5 people employed rather than 100? If you could use up your 65% maintenance budget mostly on engine parts rather than mechanics wouldnt that be a much better bang for your buck?

 

[BigMac]

For starters who would want to bump to JFK or LGA for 30 bucks an hour?

I would

 

[amt66]

I would

Lmao! Good luck

 

[BigMac]

Lmao! Good luck

Thanks. NY ain't that bad. Been there done that.

 

[AA89]

Again, you lack critical thinking skills.

There is only 300 to 400 AMTs at WN working overhaul for over 600 aircraft. AA would love the WN contract. Outsource all but four lines of AO, all engines, and all components. Then we can have a 500 overhaul AMTs and brag about having the highest paid overhaul AMTs in the industry. Had to lay off all of PALM, TAESL, and CRO to do it but we will have the highest paid. UA focuses on engines and component overhaul, again they have no AO AMTs or OSMs. So who is going to tell the AO guys they have to lose their jobs so you can get your geo pay? CO does only NB AO in-house and no engines or components. Again, lay off all of TAESL, PALM, CRO, and WB AO. Tell the overhaul guys the truth, yes some could get WN wages but a lot won't because they will have their job outsourced at a much higher level than the TA. You are in it for you and no one else aren't you?

You need to start reading more about the new planes that are coming. Work is being outsourced and drive job loss, right? That work is overhaul work mostly on older WB and 757 aircraft. Most of those aircraft are being replaced with new A321s and 787s. So if those planes are new and don't require overhaul for the first 6 or so years and the work that they are replacing is aircraft that are being retired, how does that drive more head count loss? Those jobs were already lost to outsourcing? You are counting the same value twice.

You need to fully understand the term maintenance spend. What's the most labor intensive and low material usage job in maintenance? Line and AO. What's the highest material and lowest labor intensive job? Engines and components. So if AA outsources an engine we would lose less jobs than if we outsourced a C Check even though they may cost the same, one uses a ton of labor and the other does not. Pay attention to what you read and think it through before you claim to be the expert.

And on the concept of percentages, if we can lower the internal cost of maintenance through more efficient utilization of our labor and material then AA has to outsource less. If it costs $1B in total to run AA one year they can outsource $350M. If you lower your internal costs by $100M through becoming more efficient then the total MX spend became $900M now AA can only outsource $315M and $45M has to come back in-house. Of course you could shove it up AA's tail and increase cost by $100M and then they can outsource $385M so you lose in-house work when you become less efficient.

That's rich Bob. Now you are worried about guy's jobs. Stop working OT and putting people out of job. Go ahead. You are on roll. You just stated earlier the jobs were gone anyway so vote no. Let the bumping begin. I think a lot of AMTs will be bumping out to the line from AFW and TUL. Sure the operation will suffer teething pains but when we absorbed all those TUL RIF's in the '93 what happened? We got steadily better in our MX on time performance in fact by 1995 we were the best we had been since the late 80s. So great AMTs came out of TUL then I expect to see that now. I will welcome them and help bring them up to speed.

So vote no and letting the bumping begin. Where is JFK and LGA on the juniority list? Ouch!

if AA management were interested in increasing efficiency they wouldn't have pulled the crap they pulled in after 2003. They had everybody on board until they got greedy. Now who is going to work harder for way less than comparable airlines? Sometimes it seems as if AA management allowed the country club mentality to happen for this very reason. Of course the TWU was happy to go along as long as the dues were flowing in.

 

[Vortilon]

Again, you lack critical thinking skills.

There is only 300 to 400 AMTs at WN working overhaul for over 600 aircraft. AA would love the WN contract. Outsource all but four lines of AO, all engines, and all components. Then we can have a 500 overhaul AMTs and brag about having the highest paid overhaul AMTs in the industry. Had to lay off all of PALM, TAESL, and CRO to do it but we will have the highest paid. UA focuses on engines and component overhaul, again they have no AO AMTs or OSMs. So who is going to tell the AO guys they have to lose their jobs so you can get your geo pay? CO does only NB AO in-house and no engines or components. Again, lay off all of TAESL, PALM, CRO, and WB AO. Tell the overhaul guys the truth, yes some could get WN wages but a lot won't because they will have their job outsourced at a much higher level than the TA. You are in it for you and no one else aren't you?

You need to start reading more about the new planes that are coming. Work is being outsourced and drive job loss, right? That work is overhaul work mostly on older WB and 757 aircraft. Most of those aircraft are being replaced with new A321s and 787s. So if those planes are new and don't require overhaul for the first 6 or so years and the work that they are replacing is aircraft that are being retired, how does that drive more head count loss? Those jobs were already lost to outsourcing? You are counting the same value twice.

You need to fully understand the term maintenance spend. What's the most labor intensive and low material usage job in maintenance? Line and AO. What's the highest material and lowest labor intensive job? Engines and components. So if AA outsources an engine we would lose less jobs than if we outsourced a C Check even though they may cost the same, one uses a ton of labor and the other does not. Pay attention to what you read and think it through before you claim to be the expert.

And on the concept of percentages, if we can lower the internal cost of maintenance through more efficient utilization of our labor and material then AA has to outsource less. If it costs $1B in total to run AA one year they can outsource $350M. If you lower your internal costs by $100M through becoming more efficient then the total MX spend became $900M now AA can only outsource $315M and $45M has to come back in-house. Of course you could shove it up AA's tail and increase cost by $100M and then they can outsource $385M so you lose in-house work when you become less efficient.

That's rich Bob. Now you are worried about guy's jobs. Stop working OT and putting people out of job. Go ahead. You are on roll. You just stated earlier the jobs were gone anyway so vote no. Let the bumping begin. I think a lot of AMTs will be bumping out to the line from AFW and TUL. Sure the operation will suffer teething pains but when we absorbed all those TUL RIF's in the '93 what happened? We got steadily better in our MX on time performance in fact by 1995 we were the best we had been since the late 80s. So great AMTs came out of TUL then I expect to see that now. I will welcome them and help bring them up to speed.

So vote no and letting the bumping begin. Where is JFK and LGA on the juniority list? Ouch!

You know what Overspeed, in a perfect world - all the work would be performed "in house". Trouble is, people with your mentality will bleed our pay and benefits down to nothing to keep more dues payers on payroll. At what point do you draw the line? Most critical thinkers on this board see that the line has been crossed.

 

[TWU informer]

WHERE IS THE "ME TOO" NOW?

According to the APFA Hotline Message below AA reduced the concessions for the APFA by approximately 34 percent less .The Company moved from its original ask of $230 million annually to one of $168 million.

Have you seen a 34% reduction in Mechanic and Related Concessions?
Where is the "ME TOO" clause when you really need it?



APFA HOTLINE MESSAGE JULY 26
These are extraordinary and unprecedented times for our union and our company. Never before, in decades of collective bargaining, has our union been in such a challenging position. As you know, APFA’s negotiating team worked tirelessly over the past several weeks to hammer out a contract with American Airlines management under Section 1113 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy law gives the Debtor a tremendous amount of power and leverage in negotiations. It is designed to allow the bankrupt company to extract as much as possible from its unions.

Last week, our team secured a Last Best and Final Offer (“LBFO&rdquo from the Company. Given that the bar for negotiations was set by the Section 1113 Term Sheet of March 22nd (“Term Sheet&rdquo, this LBFO is a vast improvement. Voting to accept or reject the LBFO is open until August 19th, 10am Central Time, for members in good standing. Below are the facts you should have in order to make an informed decision:

Key LBFO Points:
LBFO contains approximately 34 percent less in concessions than American’s Term Sheet. The Company moved from its original ask of $230 million annually to one of $168 million.

LBFO includes an Early Out Program with a $40,000 payment. Term Sheet has no such option.

LBFO includes signing bonus of $1,500. Term Sheet has no signing bonus.

LBFO includes a wage increase at date of signing of 3 percent. Term Sheet includes no increase.

LBFO improves on TAFB. Term Sheet includes no improvements.

LBFO provides for an adjustment to industry average pay rates 36 months after date of signing. Term Sheet provides no adjustment.

LBFO includes Critical Coverage Pay Premium at 150 percent. Term Sheet has no Critical Coverage Pay Premium.

LBFO retains G Time without change. Term Sheet reduces G Time.

LBFO includes Sequence Pay Protection. Term Sheet does not include Sequence Pay Protection.

LBFO includes bankruptcy claim for 3 percent equity of post-emergence Company. Term Sheet does not include an equity claim.
As you can see, our negotiating team made significant progress during the negotiations, despite American’s legal advantages. Although far from the deal we were close to reaching prior to bankruptcy, the Company’s LBFO is far better than the Term Sheet. Should we reject the LBFO, the Court will likely grant the Company’s Section 1113 motion. Management knows that should this happen, they will have legal permission to put in place the more concessionary Term Sheet (whether the Company will be allowed to impose even worse concessions than in the Term Sheet is an open legal issue). There is a remote possibility that the Court will not grant the Company’s motion, but even then the judge would likely only ask American to make minor adjustments to the Term Sheet. Our legal team can say with certainty that should the Court issue a ruling on the Section 1113 motion, whether it be to grant or deny it, our contract would be far more concessionary than this offer.

Additionally, should the Company impose the Term Sheet, it will include no wage increases, no defined contribution plan to replace our current pension plan, and no profit sharing. Although each of these items is in the Term Sheet, they are contingent upon reaching a consensual agreement.

Although no carrier has emerged from bankruptcy without labor agreements, there is no legal barrier preventing it. If we reject the LBFO, and the Court allows American to impose the Term Sheet, the flight attendant costs in American’s business plan would be $84 million less than the US Airways plan. That would give American a serious advantage over US Airways, and one that they will exploit when convincing creditors their standalone plan is stronger.

In the event that we vote to reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s Section 1113 motion, and the Company imposes its Term Sheet, our subsequent negotiations would be governed by the Railway Labor Act. Unfortunately, at that point the Company will already have such advantageous terms that there will be little to no incentive for it to negotiate any changes. We are all very familiar with American’s stall tactics, having seen them first hand from 2008 until the bankruptcy filing. I have no doubt that management would make as little progress as possible during National Mediation Board negotiations. Instead, I would expect American to drag out each subsequent contract negotiation for as long as possible, preferring instead to keep the awful provisions of the Term Sheet in place. Furthermore, the NMB has not triggered a cooling off period for a major airline in over eleven years, and is even less likely to do so during a Presidential election season. Our attorneys and I do not believe the RLA bargaining process is a viable option for us at this time.

Make no mistake, our singular focus continues to be achieving a merger with US Airways and I am confident in our ability to do that. The momentum has shifted to our side. Analysts, public officials, and the media are all calling for a merger in bankruptcy. Approving this LBFO is a step in that process. Our colleagues at APA and TWU are in the same situation. Their leadership and I agree that the best path forward is to approve new contracts and allow American’s management to complete their standalone plan. This will allow the US Airways team to develop and present their merger plan, which they are eager to do. In fact, US Airways CEO Doug Parker has said publically that approving new labor contracts is the fastest way towards achieving a merger.
The tremendous pain and frustration we have all endured makes this vote a tough one. Indeed, the disrespect and aggravation the negotiators and I felt is part of what made achieving this offer so difficult. Though still unpleasant and very concessionary, the LBFO represents an enormous effort on the part of our negotiating team and its terms are far better than those we were handed on March 22. Please consider the offer carefully before casting your vote. As always, APFA’s resources are available to answer any questions you may have.

In Unity,
Laura Glading
APFA President

 

[whoop whoop]

AA mechanics and related need to look at UAL & DELTA for your answer to vote yes or no. They both gave concessions and that stopped nothing. UAL had 14,000 mechanics and related, now they have under 5,000. Delta gave concessions and lost their defined benefit pension, and what good did that do, they lost all airframe heavy checks.

Voting yes to concessions will not stop anything the company is planning on doing. It will not save job.

 

[amt66]

WHERE IS THE "ME TOO" NOW?

According to the APFA Hotline Message below AA reduced the concessions for the APFA by approximately 34 percent less .The Company moved from its original ask of $230 million annually to one of $168 million.

Have you seen a 34% reduction in Mechanic and Related Concessions?
Where is the "ME TOO" clause when you really need it?



APFA HOTLINE MESSAGE JULY 26
These are extraordinary and unprecedented times for our union and our company. Never before, in decades of collective bargaining, has our union been in such a challenging position. As you know, APFA’s negotiating team worked tirelessly over the past several weeks to hammer out a contract with American Airlines management under Section 1113 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy law gives the Debtor a tremendous amount of power and leverage in negotiations. It is designed to allow the bankrupt company to extract as much as possible from its unions.

Last week, our team secured a Last Best and Final Offer (“LBFO”) from the Company. Given that the bar for negotiations was set by the Section 1113 Term Sheet of March 22nd (“Term Sheet”), this LBFO is a vast improvement. Voting to accept or reject the LBFO is open until August 19th, 10am Central Time, for members in good standing. Below are the facts you should have in order to make an informed decision:

Key LBFO Points:
LBFO contains approximately 34 percent less in concessions than American’s Term Sheet. The Company moved from its original ask of $230 million annually to one of $168 million.

LBFO includes an Early Out Program with a $40,000 payment. Term Sheet has no such option.

LBFO includes signing bonus of $1,500. Term Sheet has no signing bonus.

LBFO includes a wage increase at date of signing of 3 percent. Term Sheet includes no increase.

LBFO improves on TAFB. Term Sheet includes no improvements.

LBFO provides for an adjustment to industry average pay rates 36 months after date of signing. Term Sheet provides no adjustment.

LBFO includes Critical Coverage Pay Premium at 150 percent. Term Sheet has no Critical Coverage Pay Premium.

LBFO retains G Time without change. Term Sheet reduces G Time.

LBFO includes Sequence Pay Protection. Term Sheet does not include Sequence Pay Protection.

LBFO includes bankruptcy claim for 3 percent equity of post-emergence Company. Term Sheet does not include an equity claim.
As you can see, our negotiating team made significant progress during the negotiations, despite American’s legal advantages. Although far from the deal we were close to reaching prior to bankruptcy, the Company’s LBFO is far better than the Term Sheet. Should we reject the LBFO, the Court will likely grant the Company’s Section 1113 motion. Management knows that should this happen, they will have legal permission to put in place the more concessionary Term Sheet (whether the Company will be allowed to impose even worse concessions than in the Term Sheet is an open legal issue). There is a remote possibility that the Court will not grant the Company’s motion, but even then the judge would likely only ask American to make minor adjustments to the Term Sheet. Our legal team can say with certainty that should the Court issue a ruling on the Section 1113 motion, whether it be to grant or deny it, our contract would be far more concessionary than this offer.

Additionally, should the Company impose the Term Sheet, it will include no wage increases, no defined contribution plan to replace our current pension plan, and no profit sharing. Although each of these items is in the Term Sheet, they are contingent upon reaching a consensual agreement.

Although no carrier has emerged from bankruptcy without labor agreements, there is no legal barrier preventing it. If we reject the LBFO, and the Court allows American to impose the Term Sheet, the flight attendant costs in American’s business plan would be $84 million less than the US Airways plan. That would give American a serious advantage over US Airways, and one that they will exploit when convincing creditors their standalone plan is stronger.

In the event that we vote to reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s Section 1113 motion, and the Company imposes its Term Sheet, our subsequent negotiations would be governed by the Railway Labor Act. Unfortunately, at that point the Company will already have such advantageous terms that there will be little to no incentive for it to negotiate any changes. We are all very familiar with American’s stall tactics, having seen them first hand from 2008 until the bankruptcy filing. I have no doubt that management would make as little progress as possible during National Mediation Board negotiations. Instead, I would expect American to drag out each subsequent contract negotiation for as long as possible, preferring instead to keep the awful provisions of the Term Sheet in place. Furthermore, the NMB has not triggered a cooling off period for a major airline in over eleven years, and is even less likely to do so during a Presidential election season. Our attorneys and I do not believe the RLA bargaining process is a viable option for us at this time.

Make no mistake, our singular focus continues to be achieving a merger with US Airways and I am confident in our ability to do that. The momentum has shifted to our side. Analysts, public officials, and the media are all calling for a merger in bankruptcy. Approving this LBFO is a step in that process. Our colleagues at APA and TWU are in the same situation. Their leadership and I agree that the best path forward is to approve new contracts and allow American’s management to complete their standalone plan. This will allow the US Airways team to develop and present their merger plan, which they are eager to do. In fact, US Airways CEO Doug Parker has said publically that approving new labor contracts is the fastest way towards achieving a merger.
The tremendous pain and frustration we have all endured makes this vote a tough one. Indeed, the disrespect and aggravation the negotiators and I felt is part of what made achieving this offer so difficult. Though still unpleasant and very concessionary, the LBFO represents an enormous effort on the part of our negotiating team and its terms are far better than those we were handed on March 22. Please consider the offer carefully before casting your vote. As always, APFA’s resources are available to answer any questions you may have.

In Unity,
Laura Glading
APFA President

Looks like apfa is recommending a yes vote I really can't blame them since the term sheet that will be imposed is much worst!

 

[amt66]

AA mechanics and related need to look at UAL & DELTA for your answer to vote yes or no. They both gave concessions and that stopped nothing. UAL had 14,000 mechanics and related, now they have under 5,000. Delta gave concessions and lost their defined benefit pension, and what good did that do, they lost all airframe heavy checks.

Voting yes to concessions will not stop anything the company is planning on doing. It will not save jobsor anything.

Your absolutely right a yes vote won't stop layoffs that is a done deal! Afw is closing yes or no, tul is shrinking yes or no and the line will shrink and some outsourced also yes or no!

 

[TWU informer]

Looks like apfa is recommending a yes vote I really can't blame them since the term sheet that will be imposed is much worst!

What about the 34% reduction in concessions and the "me too"?

And what proof do you have as to what will be imposed?