AA/APFA LBFO Poll

[care2purchasefood?]

How did you vote?

 

[nbmcg01]

Does it matter? The APFA will manipulate the vote to be "Yes".

 

[jimntx]

Actually, Nancy, I think it will pass honestly on the first ballot. The ones who will make the extreme effort to vote (no more than 50% of the eligibles, probably) will be the ones who always vote yes. Or, it will be people like me who realize that we are getting screwed either way; so, voting Yes is nothing more than giving the company permission to do it. I voted NO in full recognition that it is a symbolic gesture in the same class as most symbolic gestures--a total exercise in futility.

I'm fairly certain at this point that I will be retiring shortly after collecting my signing bonus.

 

[jimntx]

I guess it says something that in two days only 12 f/a members of this forum have voted in this poll. Not sure what, but it says something.

 

[eolesen]

It's probably not too far off the number of FA's who are active on the board, Jim.... Up to 15 by today.

 

[IORFA]

Just for a little back ground on people voting. At the roadshow it was asked and answered how many people owed dues and were unable to vote and the answer was around 3000. Shamefull as it is, they have till 5 days before the vote count to rectify that amount or have their vote not count. We are past the deadline for setting up a payment plan at this point. I should point out that they did say the amounts could be anywhere from $1 and up.

 

[ordcommuter]

I voted YES. I've looked at the comparison of the term sheet and the LBFO. The signing bonus of $1500, the 3% stack in the company, the larger raises at the beginning of the contract, the $40000 early out incentive, the sequence pay protection, the critical coverage pay and the added fact we will not reduce our E,F,and G time nor lose our ATC Hold/Code 59 pay. I don't like the fact out 8.59 duty aloft is being eliminated, but that will occur if we vote no too. If we vote it down, the only group that will be happy about it will be the company. They will be saving an additional $62 million if not more.

Jimntx - There will be no signing bonus to collect if it is voted down nor any early out packaged.

 

[jimntx]

Oh, gee. $1500 minus taxes. I'm not eligible for the early out which isn't quite the wonderful deal some people seem to think. I'm beginning to think that there won't be nearly as many people take the early out as the union or the company thinks.

 

[jason77]

Do people know that if we turn down the LBFO and the company gets there 1113 there is no 401k match,profit sharing or pay raise.

 

[jimntx]

And, you think that they are going to ever admit to a profit to share? Or, that the 401K match will last. I find that level of naivete refreshing in someone your age. And, if they impose the term sheet instead of the LBFO, there is most certainly a pay raise listed in the term sheet. Over 6 years it's a huge 1.5% less than the LBFO. 7.5% over 6 years instead of 9%. I guess you'll have to put the plans for the Caribbean villa on hold.

 

[jersey777]

The bottom line to this vote is whether you believe the judge will abrogate our contract or not. On Friday, AA stated that they intend to ask the judge to abrogate the contracts should their be a "no" vote and impose the 1113 term sheet. I would rather not take that risk because AA has not played nice up to now and there is no way they will in the future. There are enough incentives in this LBFO to have me vote "yes" even though I was holding my nose while doing so. Both futures suck, but the LBFO is the lesser of the evils.

 

[jimntx]

Both futures suck, but the LBFO is the lesser of the evils.

Unfortunately, such reasoning has also resulted in the election of Presidents like Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. You are right that neither choice is attractive, but voting Yes is giving the company permission to screw you over. It is saying, Yes please. May I have some more?

 

[IORFA]

Jim, a no vote equals NO pay raises, NO 401k match and NO profit sharing. You need to reread the term sheet, those money items all have an asterisk and the asterisk items only happen IF we vote yes. Not telling you what to do, just so you have correct info. P.S. if you didn't go to the roadshow, you should. There is still another in DFW if I am not mistaken.

 

[jimntx]

When no one at the union is willing to state that their "agreement" with the company regarding the number of early outs to be awarded is in writing (which means it is not) and the LBFO clearly states that the company reserves the right to limit both the number awarded AND the date of separation, I fail to see what else the union could tell me in its self-promotional meeting. If they had insisted on a "no bonusses for the executives" clause, I might have considered voting Yes. This is just 2003 redux.

And, a year down the road, everyone is going to be outraged at what the executives gave themselves and how horrible the LBFO is. Same song, 2nd verse. Could get better, but it's gonna get worse.

 

[IORFA]

Laura said it was in writing at the roadshow I went to, lawyer agreed as well. Either way you aren't eligible, so why all the bluster? But back to my earlier point. You stated that there would be raises if the term sheet was forced on us. That is false. If you reread the term sheet you will see the asterisks and the explanation of the asterisks. All form AA, not the union you love so much. It clearly says that there will be NO raises, NO profit sharing and NO 401k contributions and that is all I was trying to correct you on. There is waaaaaaaaay too much misinformation out there and it usually comes from people who never read the term sheets or went to any roadshow or worse, both.