The point was to throw out there how a freeze, brought on through BK would affect us, the impact wouldn't probably be as severe as many believe it would be. We should not fear it to the point of giving away even more in a vain effort to avoid it especially since if they do go BK it will be to go after the pilots pensions and workrules, and i think its too late for that as well. As far as wages they are already at rock bottom. In New York they had to raise the starting wage to the third step in Aircraft maintenance and forth step , with top scale in six months in facilities. The situation is not likely to improve for the industry any time soon. With manufacturers having to fill record orders, and other industries competing for the skill sets we have and continued attrition ( as I've cited many times before, AA alone will require 500 of the 3000 or so A&Ps that come into the industry just to maintain headcount) the wages are already too low.BK can't force anyone to stay and it can't force new hires to take the job.
I agree that Wall Street is a Ponzi scheme but I don't believe that we should be willing to give up on getting decent compensation because the company and others threaten that if we don't they will go BK .
In my 32 years in the industry this is the first time (in normal negotiations) that I've ever seen where unions did not come to the table with at least saying they had the expectation of getting an " industry leading contract". Are they being pretentious and arrogant or are they still acting like unionists and refusing to cower to the company and accept diminished expectations? I think they are going the right way, There's a shortage of pilots, the company needs to get an agreement with new aircraft on order, they should squeeze for all they can. Questions about BK have never been fully answered, none of the unions actually challenged the courts in the post 9-11 environment when there were thousands of recently furloughed airline workers on the street, we know the judge can rip up the agreement, the question is what if the union rejects what he proposes? Did the unions back in the post 9-11 period just choose to accept what the judge ruled to avoid ripping up the contract, was the judges ruling uncontested? Today's environment, while not perfect, is more favorable to the pilots and if they decide to take on the challenge it's in all our interests to support them, AFL-CIO affiliated or not.
We heard that same BS over at M&R. So we said ok if that's the case then guarantee that nobody loses their job in their location as a result of expanded Eagle , of course the company said they were not interested in negotiating, they want it their way or no way. The fact is that with the addition of more long haul flights, by large aircraft like the 777-300ER, regional feed ASMs are automatically increased. Over the last ten years the AA fleet has been shrinking while the Eagle fleet has grown proportionately larger. AA has shrunk as Eagle has grown under the current ratio, why would we believe that raising the ratio even higher would promote growth when historically the opposite has happened? Sounds to me like a new version of trickle down economics.
Is acting like unionists ignoring the fact that AA is near bankruptcy and that making outlandish demands further denigrates unions in the public's minds? Chest thumping by unionists does not errase red ink on paper, regardless of who's at fault.
Shortages don't negate the effects of poor manAAgement. Sure, they should squeeze for all their worth but again, their only worth what they can get from a compAAny in dire financial straits.
I've accepted that "today's environment" is not favorable to anyone, including the pilot's, and crying in my beer over the past doesn't move the compAAny forward. While I agree concessions are not an option, neither should breaking the bank.
That's why I have him on ignore, Strike - he's not worth conversing with as "he's got his" and thinks we should finance more of "his" as do other executive-types and wanna-bes.
How are unions supposed to act???
Near bankruptcy? Dire financial straits? Well what does that mean? They have more cash than ever before, a third fewer workers and just placed the largest order ever for new aircraft. This year they are set to bring in $24billion, almost if not more than they did in 2008. How does it go" it was the worst of times, it was the best of times"?
Customers don't care about safety but if the terminal isn't pretty they will fly somebody else, funny but for years all we've heard was that if AA charges a nickel more than a competitor they will loose customers, more room in coach, doesn't matter, nothing matters but price but now you are claiming all these Taj Mahals are needed to make AA competitive , please, everyone knows it's just a cash burn.
