Vote No Video from Presidents

[737823]

Bob, I liked your composure in the July 2010 video more. What changed other than the contract offers?

Josh

 

[Overspeed]

How do you save jobs, when the LBO allows for a 35% increase in outsourced work, specifies the loss of 777,767,757 work, and then tops that with the "allow outsource of peak demand work"?

Meanwhile back at the Ranch, James C Little signs a term sheet with USairways that only assures the Tulsa Base and 4500 AMT's a two survival.

Are you stupid, or did I get some of that wrong?

Nope, not stupid in fact I am thinking it through. The situation is this, stating the LBO saves jobs is true when taken in the proper context. The assumption is that the 3/22 term sheet will be implemented after abrogation and 4,300 jobs will be eliminated compared to 2,000 in the LBO. That "saves" 2,300 jobs from elimination.

You are betting on the belief that we will get a better deal in court. Not likely given that out of 33 bankruptcy proceedings in the last decade, all 33 1113c motions were granted by the judge. Somehow the TWU is going to buck that trend. Really? And you call me stupid? Okay.

I don't like the new outsourcing language anymore than you however the term sheet ups that percentage to 40% and outsourcing more of overhaul and the line. How is abrogation better? It's not. You know that.

Maybe you want more overhaul to be outsourced in reality. Why? Because you know that all the airlines you reference that have higher wages have 35% or more outsourcing. The you will get what you want, higher pay for you but you will do it on top of the bodies of all those on the street. Nice. How are you better than the CEOs that raise their pay by outsourcing jobs to China, India, and Central America? Your not, you are just like them...you and Bob and everyone in that video. Your solution is pretty much a scorched earth policy.

 

[strikeforce]

Nope, not stupid in fact I am thinking it through. The situation is this, stating the LBO saves jobs is true when taken in the proper context. The assumption is that the 3/22 term sheet will be implemented after abrogation and 4,300 jobs will be eliminated compared to 2,000 in the LBO. That "saves" 2,300 jobs from elimination.

You are betting on the belief that we will get a better deal in court. Not likely given that out of 33 bankruptcy proceedings in the last decade, all 33 1113c motions were granted by the judge. Somehow the TWU is going to buck that trend. Really? And you call me stupid? Okay.

I don't like the new outsourcing language anymore than you however the term sheet ups that percentage to 40% and outsourcing more of overhaul and the line. How is abrogation better? It's not. You know that.

Maybe you want more overhaul to be outsourced in reality. Why? Because you know that all the airlines you reference that have higher wages have 35% or more outsourcing. The you will get what you want, higher pay for you but you will do it on top of the bodies of all those on the street. Nice. How are you better than the CEOs that raise their pay by outsourcing jobs to China, India, and Central America? Your not, you are just like them...you and Bob and everyone in that video. Your solution is pretty much a scorched earth policy.

Abrogation is not any better than the LBO. If you truly believe that 2300 jobs will be kept safe from layoff during the 6 year deal, then vote yes. With the language in place those 2300 jobs will be gone by the time AA exists BK. Show me where those 2300 jobs have protection from a rif? The scope language in the LBO has placed every single job at risk. Not saying the term sheet doesn't. With abrogation, negotiations start immediately. Let the company get it's relief, start making money and the union would be in a better position to negotiate when the company makes money. And, AA will make money......to the tune of at least $1.25B of additional revenue in the form of costs savings and their projected $1B in additional revenue.
If we're smart, the union should start battle plans for 2014 and beyond if the company balks at negotiating when they make money. At that time, the NMB either releases us or we shut the place down. If you allow the company to stall, like they've done over the past 4 years, that brings us to 2018 and then it's too late. In other words, if you lock yourself in for 6 years and the company makes money.....management will reap the rewards of the profits for several years, and then negotiations start in 2018. Or, Vote NO, let AA abrogate the contract, save billions, make billions, and by 2014, 2015, if the company fails to negotiate in good faith and start paying us back for the carnage.....SHUT THEM DOWN!!!!!!

 

[TWU informer]

snip
You are betting on the belief that we will get a better deal in court. Not likely given that out of 33 bankruptcy proceedings in the last decade, all 33 1113c motions were granted by the judge. Somehow the TWU is going to buck that trend. Really? And you call me stupid? Okay.

snip

You and James C Little have the same stats, and I am in agreement that abborgation will take place or at least that the chance is slim that Judge Lane will not grant the 1113 motion. But that must be the end of your thinking it through, what is that less than 30 days from today? That is the extent of your thinkng? What about the next 6 YEARS?

Now show me the statistics on how many of those agreements after the motion was granted were improved via negotiations that followed? Compared with some stats that show how many got worse than abrogation as negotations resumed.

My point is, you are looking only at the next 30 days, Even though Negotiations will indeed begin again.

Unless we vote YES, then we stand no chance to improve these conditions for 6 long years.

Again, you have the statisitcs that show numbers on motions granted, now show me that none of those contracts improved after abrogation in the negotiations that folllowed the granted motion and that those union members suffered 6 long years of the worst concessions ever in the industry.

Stop being so short sighted and look at the length of this DOG CRAP!

For the record, I am betting we can get a better deal in negotiations after aborgation, not in court. Stop placing words in my mouth.

 

[737823]

How does the Summer 2010 TA compare to the LBO? Everyone said reject the agreement, and now it appears you guys are worse off. Why not vote yes rather than have deeper cuts imposed by the courts?

Josh

 

[paul1]

its 6 years to long thats why, for one

 

[strikeforce]

How does the Summer 2010 TA compare to the LBO? Everyone said reject the agreement, and now it appears you guys are worse off. Why not vote yes rather than have deeper cuts imposed by the courts?

Josh

because the LBO and the term sheet the company wants to impose after rejection are one in the same. 99.5% of the language is the same. 35% vs. 40% farm outs are just numbers....the company controls the man-hours used in the outsourcing formula, does it not? so, what's the difference? The only notable difference between the two is the pension, frozen vs. terminated. Now, if AA does terminate the contract then AA will deal with PBGC, again. If you recall, the PBGC wanted access to the financials when AA threatened termination, and the company moved to FREEZE the pension because I'm absolutely SURE AA has some dirty laundry they didn't want the PBGC knowing about. I say, VOTE NO, and let the PBGC discover accounting irregularities in AA's books, and expose the company in BK court......maybe the creditors will force the company's hand and force a merger, fire management, or force management to move in a different direction.

 

[xUT]

its 6 years to long thats why, for one

The 'normal' used to be three years, then crept up to four. Six years sets a new industry standard. Next industry contract will be eight years, watch and see.
JMHO&PO,
B) xUT

 

[Vortilon]

Good video, and well timed. Wish Paul and Larry could have made it as well. There are plenty of AMTs that didn't fully understand the differences in the two agreements, and now do - they are NO voters. CIO and Overspeed are both tools of the TWU international and their communist overlords.

 

[Buck]

Bob represent the line, there is no secret about that, and we are proud of the job his doing for us. Where is OH representant? We should be together trying to stop this sell out.

Local 514 TUL is represented by Sam Cirri. You can, of course look it up, however you will find that he is not in Title 1 or 2.

 

[amtide]

Local 514 TUL is represented by Sam Cirri. You can, of course look it up, however you will find that he is not in Title 1 or 2.

I know exactly who is the 514 president. With so many AMT in TUL I was surprised that the station choose him but that is your choice and I respect that. When i said where is the OH representant? I mean where he is standing? Is he supporting this see out?

 

[strikeforce]

How does the Summer 2010 TA compare to the LBO? Everyone said reject the agreement, and now it appears you guys are worse off. Why not vote yes rather than have deeper cuts imposed by the courts?

Josh

I wanted to correct my earlier post regarding the notable differences. I said that with rejection of the cba "the pension would be terminated". That's incorrect. It would be frozen like the LBO. Therefore, there are no notable differences between the term sheet and LBO. Vote NO!

 

[Buck]

I know exactly who is the 514 president. With so many AMT in TUL I was surprised that the station choose him but that is your choice and I respect that. When i said where is the OH representant? I mean where he is standing? Is he supporting this see out?

I understand. As of this morning Local 514 and some others, are not indicating a position.

 

[Mr Red]

Wow the station that has the most to lose,has no position!

 

[Buck]

Wow the station that has the most to lose,has no position!

Not exactly Red. The largest station has a position whether it is Yes or No remains to be seen. It is the Union Local 514 that has no position.