AMR bankruptcy update

[TWU informer]

Wow, your name calling laced diatribe really got to me.

However, the fact still remains that you are going to be much worse off now.

Congrats

But in the end, where you stand in the game is what really matters. In fact since this is our careers, it is the only thing that matters.
We are not keeping score like it is some soccer or baseball game, it is your livelyhood.

Are you too ignorant to grasp that you cannot negotiate out of the company what the company refuses to give?
We had no strike potential, because they (AA) held the Chapter 11 filing potential at all times throughout the negotiations.
Only the fools that called that a bluff failed to understand.

You can only get what they are willing to give, when you have no weapons.

 

[Slopoke]

For me the bottom line is that whoever votes YES for a contract that has differences between age groups or senority groups is considered to me as an "I've got mine" type of person. In the close to 26 years of service with AA, I've voted NO and will continue to vote NO to any contract that dose not treat ALL the same. For those still bringing up the NO vote on the last TA should just turn the page and get on with life.

 

[Buck]

For me the bottom line is that whoever votes YES for a contract that has differences between age groups or senority groups is considered to me as an "I've got mine" type of person. In the close to 26 years of service with AA, I've voted NO and will continue to vote NO to any contract that dose not treat ALL the same. For those still bringing up the NO vote on the last TA should just turn the page and get on with life.

Which way would you have voted in the 1983 contract which started the age based agreements, with the B-Scale?

Since the membership as a majority seem to believe that that concession was a smart move what makes it ok to force the company into the bankruptcy by turning down the T/A?

When state "all the same" what do you mean?

 

[Slopoke]

Which way would you have voted in the 1983 contract which started the age based agreements, with the B-Scale?

Since the membership as a majority seem to believe that that concession was a smart move what makes it ok to force the company into the bankruptcy by turning down the T/A?

When state "all the same" what do you mean?

Well, I was not employed with AA in 83, I was hired on in 86. If I was though, I would have voted NO, because ones that would be hired in prior to the B-scale would have a different pay progression than the others following the vote, "I've got mine", or the biggest "I've got mine" would be a 5 and 5 early out in the contract which benefits one age group and not the rest.

When I mean "all the same", it means that one age group will not benefit more than another age group, such as we had on the last TA, the over 50 and the under 50 or different pay progressions such as B-scale, etc.

As far as if we voted yes, I don't think that we would have avoided BK. If I knew those things, me and my crystal ball would have made millions in stocks or sports betting and I would not be here. I could be wrong but everything points to the company getting their cake and eating it too. So in my opinion a YES vote would have prolonged the time to reach BK and the cuts would be as bad as they are on the current term sheets. Yes we could have had a few more bucks in our pockets, but like I said, my crystal ball dose not work and I am not going to fret over the loss of that money.

 

[patriot00]

I always said voting no on the $2.55 Line Premium would result in a worse agreement.
But I will admit that this is even worse than I suspected.

I am angry, but just as much at my co-workers as the TWU and AA.

Picking a fight with AA while being represented by the most docile union in the industry, deserves the 2011 Dumbasses of the Year Award.

You guys are the one's that asked for a battle while the membership was ill prepared and the docile leadership was still in control.

Give it 6 more years Chuck, you will then be at parity with Line AMT Market Rates.
Not sure if they will be brought down to you or you up to them, but there will be parity.

Thousands of overhaul AMT's will be out of work, but you will have yours, just hang in there a little longer.

At least you saved half of the profession....Your Half maybe.
I hope you enjoy every penny of it.

What the hell makes you think they wouldn't have done the same thing. Voting yes didn't guarantee htey wouldn't file bankrupcy. That is what Horton wanted we were told that long ago. This is the way corparations do businesses today.

 

[Buck]

Well, I was not employed with AA in 83, I was hired on in 86. If I was though, I would have voted NO, because ones that would be hired in prior to the B-scale would have a different pay progression than the others following the vote, "I've got mine", or the biggest "I've got mine" would be a 5 and 5 early out in the contract which benefits one age group and not the rest.

When I mean "all the same", it means that one age group will not benefit more than another age group, such as we had on the last TA, the over 50 and the under 50 or different pay progressions such as B-scale, etc.

As far as if we voted yes, I don't think that we would have avoided BK. If I knew those things, me and my crystal ball would have made millions in stocks or sports betting and I would not be here. I could be wrong but everything points to the company getting their cake and eating it too. So in my opinion a YES vote would have prolonged the time to reach BK and the cuts would be as bad as they are on the current term sheets. Yes we could have had a few more bucks in our pockets, but like I said, my crystal ball dose not work and I am not going to fret over the loss of that money.

Some of those that will be laid off, could've used a little more money.

If the bankruptcy was inevitable, them why should the union push the company over the edge?

 

[rifbound]

What the hell makes you think they wouldn't have done the same thing. Voting yes didn't guarantee htey wouldn't file bankrupcy. That is what Horton wanted we were told that long ago. This is the way corparations do businesses today.

i agree. even if we voted yes they were going to file anyway. then they would have the cba that they wanted and still would come for more. horton has always disliked overhaul. he's said it himself, "outsourse overhaul and we can save money." now he's in charge and thats what he's doing. aa waited to file to see how the other faired first. now they know what they can get and they're going to get it. what's done is done and non of us can change it now. if there was a time to do something it would've been in 03.