Fuzzy Math on the Co. Ask

olderguyAMT

Advanced
Jun 12, 2010
238
41
Is it true ? Those experts made a huge miscalculation?
Did they forget to deduct the cost of outscourcing from the amount of financial concessions demanded of maintenance? How could that happen? .......just need the truth. Did they admit it in court?
Bob? Rumor control issue. TWU response?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Is it true ? Those experts made a huge miscalculation?
Did they forget to deduct the cost of outscourcing from the amount of financial concessions demanded of maintenance? How could that happen? .......just need the truth. Did they admit it in court?
Bob? Rumor control issue. TWU response?

Greed and manipulation has no limits.
Would it really shock you?

What will the vote yes team of "Hewitt and Mullings" say if that ever comes out?
 
What will the vote yes team of "Hewitt and Mullings" say if that ever comes out?



They can do that Brother...
 
Is it true ? Those experts made a huge miscalculation?
Did they forget to deduct the cost of outscourcing from the amount of financial concessions demanded of maintenance? How could that happen? .......just need the truth. Did they admit it in court?
Bob? Rumor control issue. TWU response?

A couple of things.
One. The company asked more from maintenance than they said they needed. Their reasoning was that since they were asking everyone else for 20% that we had to give 20% as well, although back in 2003 when we all had to give 25% they gave management a pass because they claimed that since they felt that management was below their peers they should not have to give as much. We are at the bottom of the industry yet they want 20% more from us.

The other thing is that AA wants to have labor costs that are "in line" with their competitors but they dont want to do it the same way their competitors did. When they compared costs they seperated them and refused to acknowledge the interaction between them. They claimed that it was their "labor Costs" that were the problem because they claimed that their non-labor CASMs were "in line" with the rest of the industry. Well we all know that AA does 90% of their maintenence in house, one would expect their labor costs to be higher, but one would expect their non-labor costs to be lower, not "in line". The fact that they are "in Line" shows that the problem is in their non-labor costs.

AA was saying to us that they needed us to cut total costs but was telling the Judge our "labor costs " were the problem. They were telling the Judge that AA had a $1.25 billion "Labor cost" problem, our share of the labor cost problem was $212 million but in their ask they switched that $212 to a total maintenence cost problem. They said that if we agreed to outsource work, as our competitors did to lower labor costs (which raised their non-labor costs) and there was no other possible way to come anywhere near the number unless we had no vacation, no holidays, no medical, no pension and slashed the wages even more, that we had to deduct what they said they would be paying a vendor to do that work, even though that would make the "Labor cost" savings much greater than $212 million. Lets say they figure that our 'cost" was $100hr and it cost $90/hr from the vendor, then outsourceing the job would be only be "worth" $10/hr in savings for a total of $20,800 towards the $212 million in annual savings they were demanding,, however their "labor savings from each job would have been $208,000. Their "labor cost" would go down dramatically more than $212 million, more than double. In court the company said that what airlines pay for outsourcing means nothing, that when competitors (who outsource) figure out their labor costs they do not factor in what they pay to vendors like TIMCO because thats like comparing Apples to Oranges, that none of AA's competitors (all of whom outsource a large percentage of their Maintenance) factor in what they pay vendors to do maintenance into their labor costs either therefore AA should not factor in what they do not pay vendors when they compare labor costs. They said they have to keep it an "apples to apples" comparasion when in reality due to the fact that AA insources so much more than their competitors that makes AA an orange and the others apples. You cant compare the two unless you include all the apples and all the oranges. My guess is they think the Judge was too dumb to see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Is it true ? Those experts made a huge miscalculation?
Did they forget to deduct the cost of outscourcing from the amount of financial concessions demanded of maintenance? How could that happen? .......just need the truth. Did they admit it in court?
Bob? Rumor control issue. TWU response?
AA Management Team:
JMHO,
B)
 
BTW, I dont think that they made an error, I think this is a deliberate attempt to decieve, not only us, but the judge as well. The fact that they were telling the Judge that they needed $212 million in labor savings after telling us we had to achieve $212 million in total savings, then misrepresenting what was going on with the non-labor costs only shows the pure arrogance of the people running this company. To me its criminal, its fraud. It falls right into the pattern we have seen over the years from "System Attrition, to the Me too Clause, to absconding the funds that employees contributed to supplimental medical we have seen such deceptive behavior repeatedly but this one is even bolder than all that came before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
BTW, I dont think that they made an error, I think this is a deliberate attempt to decieve, not only us, but the judge as well. The fact that they were telling the Judge that they needed $212 million in labor savings after telling us we had to achieve $212 million in total savings, then misrepresenting what was going on with the non-labor costs only shows the pure arrogance of the people running this company. To me its criminal, its fraud. It falls right into the pattern we have seen over the years from "System Attrition, to the Me too Clause, to absconding the funds that employees contributed to supplimental medical we have seen such deceptive behavior repeatedly but this one is even bolder than all that came before.

Bob, thank you for telling us the truth about what is going on behind closed doors!!!!!!!!

There is a need to get this information out to the members using all media like video, twitter, and facebook. Too many members have buried their heads into the sand, and need to be roused from their complacent trance. Those videos from the Local Presidents had a huge impact on the recent No Vote, and now we need more soon. We need to shout this from the rooftops. Yell loud enough and both judges will hear.

For those of us who voted NO: It took a lot of courage. Thank you to Pilots and thank you to Flight Attendants.
Now look at the results. The NO vote exposed the TRUTH. Lets hope our lawers will hammer the issue in negotiations on the 11th and 12th.

Then we can expect NO Abrogation, with a nice extension while the co. gets a new Walmart calculator, as the Judge orders the bean counters to attend new courses in business ethics and elementary 3rd grade math.

And I will take it one step further. AMFA gets a huge boost if TWU can't make this a huge issue.

Jim Little needs to get off his behind, and do some yelling into the microphone on the steps of the courthouse! If he can't do that, he might find himself shuffling down the sidewalk like Steve Martin in "The Jerk".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Bob, thank you for telling us the truth about what is going on behind closed doors!!!!!!!!

There is a need to get this information out to the members using all media like video, twitter, and facebook. Too many members have buried their heads into the sand, and need to be roused from their complacent trance. Those videos from the Local Presidents had a huge impact on the recent No Vote, and now we need more soon. We need to shout this from the rooftops. Yell loud enough and both judges will hear.

For those of us who voted NO: It took a lot of courage. Thank you to Pilots and thank you to Flight Attendants.
Now look at the results. The NO vote exposed the TRUTH. Lets hope our lawers will hammer the issue in negotiations on the 11th and 12th.

Then we can expect NO Abrogation, with a nice extension while the co. gets a new Walmart calculator, as the Judge orders the bean counters to attend new courses in business ethics and elementary 3rd grade math.

And I will take it one step further. AMFA gets a huge boost if TWU can't make this a huge issue.

Jim Little needs to get off his behind, and do some yelling into the microphone on the steps of the courthouse! If he can't do that, he might find himself shuffling down the sidewalk like Steve Martin in "The Jerk".

That all took place in court, with the doors open.

The companys Lawyer screwed up when he cited the $360million that would go to the unions in profit sharing, (guess they paid that firm a little more than they were worth) that made it public how much their business plan called for in Profits and its probably why they threw me out when they wanted to discuss "Confidential information".

Abrogation or not the company still wins. The only question is "To what degree?". By rights we should be looking at 4 years of Retro and an industry leading contract but by pulling this scam, even if the judge refuses to abrogate they have the membership so wound up that, even though they rejected the LBO, we may accept much less than we should. They have succeeded in lowering expectations even if they arent as low as they had hoped.

An extension simply gives them even more time locked in(with M&R) at the lowest rates in the industry, we need to push for a release either way. That said we probably would not be allowed to strike given the fact that there isnt really any excess capacity out there to absorb AA's passengers so we would likely be sent to a PEB. However none of that will happen if they all beleieve that we will continue to do as we have for the last 4 years. They have to believe that we will shut it down orcause massive disruptions without the legal green light. Lets face it, they know they are abusing the shyte out of us, they are just looking to see how far they can go.

The whole thing is a scam, how can something like the fact that they plan on making $3 billion in profits be kept from us when we are being told that since this is BK we have to look at it differently than regular sect 6 negotiations?

In other words, unknown to us, who were lead to believe that AA was in dire straits financially, we were being told to agree to concessions that would save them far in excess of $212 million in labor costs for SIX MORE YEARS so they could net $3 billion in profits. In other words by shedding leases on aircraft they did not fly, properties they did not use and other underwater items, under the current labor agreements, without touching our pensions, retiree medical and other concessions they still would be the most profitable carrier in the industry with around $1.75 billion in profits!!!

They even commented in court that their non-labor costs would be much lower after BK, in other words they kept all that stuff, making the banks very happy no doubt, to inflate their non-labor costs and keep them "in-line", thus when Analysts do their superficial look at AA they would look at the non-labor costs, (which should have been much lower due to fact they were not paying vendors for maintenance like competitors), and see that they are "in line" with competitors and instead focus all their attention on the labor costs which were of course much higher. The difference drew their attention, gave them a quick answer and they moved on, "since everything else is in line then labor costs must be the problem". They didnt realize that we were an orange and they were comparing us to apples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
That all took place in court, with the doors open.

The companys Lawyer screwed up when he cited the $360million that would go to the unions in profit sharing, (guess they paid that firm a little more than they were worth) that made it public how much their business plan called for in Profits and its probably why they threw me out when they wanted to discuss "Confidential information".

Abrogation or not the company still wins. The only question is "To what degree?". By rights we should be looking at 4 years of Retro and an industry leading contract but by pulling this scam, even if the judge refuses to abrogate they have the membership so wound up that, even though they rejected the LBO, we may accept much less than we should. They have succeeded in lowering expectations even if they arent as low as they had hoped.

An extension simply gives them even more time locked in(with M&R) at the lowest rates in the industry, we need to push for a release either way. That said we probably would not be allowed to strike given the fact that there isnt really any excess capacity out there to absorb AA's passengers so we would likely be sent to a PEB. However none of that will happen if they all beleieve that we will continue to do as we have for the last 4 years. They have to believe that we will shut it down orcause massive disruptions without the legal green light. Lets face it, they know they are abusing the shyte out of us, they are just looking to see how far they can go.

The whole thing is a scam, how can something like the fact that they plan on making $3 billion in profits be kept from us when we are being told that since this is BK we have to look at it differently than regular sect 6 negotiations?

In other words, unknown to us, who were lead to believe that AA was in dire straits financially, we were being told to agree to concessions that would save them far in excess of $212 million in labor costs for SIX MORE YEARS so they could net $3 billion in profits. In other words by shedding leases on aircraft they did not fly, properties they did not use and other underwater items, under the current labor agreements, without touching our pensions, retiree medical and other concessions they still would be the most profitable carrier in the industry with around $1.75 billion in profits!!!

They even commented in court that their non-labor costs would be much lower after BK, in other words they kept all that stuff, making the banks very happy no doubt, to inflate their non-labor costs and keep them "in-line", thus when Analysts do their superficial look at AA they would look at the non-labor costs, (which should have been much lower due to fact they were not paying vendors for maintenance like competitors), and see that they are "in line" with competitors and instead focus all their attention on the labor costs which were of course much higher. The difference drew their attention, gave them a quick answer and they moved on, "since everything else is in line then labor costs must be the problem". They didnt realize that we were an orange and they were comparing us to apples.

Judge Lane thinks we don't have the right to strike, according to Ms Sharon L, TWU atty.

The scam is a huge blockbuster, and a perfect example of corporate greed conspiracy.

But what will Jimmy Little do with the info. Will atty Sharon L. make a dismissal motion based on the scam? Is there a limit on union funding for the attourney fees?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You have to remember that the right to strike was won by doing it. Under the RLA our right is delayed, but only as long as the status quo remains in effect. The rest is Judicial activism, in other words the Judges made it up as they went along. Some quack, who no doubt is on somebody other than the peoples payroll made up a whole scenario wher he decided that Airline workers, and airline workers alone would not have the right to strike upon the company unilaterally imposing new terms on us. The RLA is pretty clear that if we had a contract and that contract is violated as far as terms that constitute a Major Dispute we can resort to self help. Thats what we must do. Sure the lawyers will tell us how the court may look at it, its not uncommon for corrupt Institutions to try and expand their powers but then again if workers had listened to lawyers there never woulkd have been a labor movement because legally unions and collective action were viewed as illegal conspiracies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
That all took place in court, with the doors open.

The companys Lawyer screwed up when he cited the $360million that would go to the unions in profit sharing, (guess they paid that firm a little more than they were worth) that made it public how much their business plan called for in Profits and its probably why they threw me out when they wanted to discuss "Confidential information".

Abrogation or not the company still wins. The only question is "To what degree?". By rights we should be looking at 4 years of Retro and an industry leading contract but by pulling this scam, even if the judge refuses to abrogate they have the membership so wound up that, even though they rejected the LBO, we may accept much less than we should. They have succeeded in lowering expectations even if they arent as low as they had hoped.

An extension simply gives them even more time locked in(with M&R) at the lowest rates in the industry, we need to push for a release either way. That said we probably would not be allowed to strike given the fact that there isnt really any excess capacity out there to absorb AA's passengers so we would likely be sent to a PEB. However none of that will happen if they all beleieve that we will continue to do as we have for the last 4 years. They have to believe that we will shut it down orcause massive disruptions without the legal green light. Lets face it, they know they are abusing the shyte out of us, they are just looking to see how far they can go.

The whole thing is a scam, how can something like the fact that they plan on making $3 billion in profits be kept from us when we are being told that since this is BK we have to look at it differently than regular sect 6 negotiations?

In other words, unknown to us, who were lead to believe that AA was in dire straits financially, we were being told to agree to concessions that would save them far in excess of $212 million in labor costs for SIX MORE YEARS so they could net $3 billion in profits. In other words by shedding leases on aircraft they did not fly, properties they did not use and other underwater items, under the current labor agreements, without touching our pensions, retiree medical and other concessions they still would be the most profitable carrier in the industry with around $1.75 billion in profits!!!

They even commented in court that their non-labor costs would be much lower after BK, in other words they kept all that stuff, making the banks very happy no doubt, to inflate their non-labor costs and keep them "in-line", thus when Analysts do their superficial look at AA they would look at the non-labor costs, (which should have been much lower due to fact they were not paying vendors for maintenance like competitors), and see that they are "in line" with competitors and instead focus all their attention on the labor costs which were of course much higher. The difference drew their attention, gave them a quick answer and they moved on, "since everything else is in line then labor costs must be the problem". They didnt realize that we were an orange and they were comparing us to apples.

Were profits in the scamalone plan discussed in negotiations the 11th and 12th of June?
 
companys Lawyer screwed up when he cited the $360million that would go to the unions in profit sharing,

I am sure the union will enjoy sharing the profit with the membership.