AA Pilot''s Pension - Value Summary Scared Cow

Folks, take a break. Look out the window. Look at the trees budding. The grass turning green. The flowers starting to bloom. Watch that bird build its nest as it plans for tomorrow. At the same time, think about the dark holes you have climbed out of in the past.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/17/2003 7:46:28 PM AAviator wrote:

Yep, RV4 you don't know what you're talking about.

Good day.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Yep, without a doubt AMR pension is not underfunded and NO changes need to be made to the plans. You are correct I don't know a thing.

Need a shovel to dig your head out?
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/15/2003 3:44:00 PM RV4 wrote:

And what is your lump sum worth pal?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Me personally? Not much, probably would be about 2-300K if I retired tomorrow (I don't work for AA). But, it really doesn't matter. Pilots get paid more because they are worth more. If its such an easy job to get, why aren't you a pilot? Do you even know what it took to get hired by a major airline?
 
I''m still trying to figure out why anyone worries what another group makes. It ain''t your business, you can''t change it, you don''t have a vote in it, and the other group thinks your just an a-s. A pilot makes what he makes. They don''t need to get the rest of the employees approval first. I''m sure all of us don''t want to start that kind of mess.
 
rampguy: True in what you say. But one has to wonder if one work group, be it union or management gets more of a benefit, pay raise, perk, etc. at the expense of another work group.
 
----------------
On 3/19/2003 7:54:56 AM Hopeful wrote:

rampguy: True in what you say. But one has to wonder if one work group, be it union or management gets more of a benefit, pay raise, perk, etc. at the expense of another work group.

----------------​
In reality, that will always be the case somewhat. Nothing is perfectly equal or balanced. Any group (and that includes groups within groups) can claim inequity. Some of it justified, some not. But some of what I read really becomes part jealousy and part selfishnish. The pilots negotiated their contract and now will re-negotiate that same contract for givebacks. It is their say, not anyone else''s.
 
----------------
On 3/19/2003 2:09:38 AM rampguy wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone worries what another group makes. It ain't your business, you can't change it, you don't have a vote in it, and the other group thinks your just an a-s. A pilot makes what he makes. They don't need to get the rest of the employees approval first. I'm sure all of us don't want to start that kind of mess.

----------------​
This could likely be caused by one union attempting to represent many interest. And also, because the pie is only so big, what others make matters. One group giveth and the other taketh away. Keeping score is a way of gauging your union's success. Needless to say our sucks big time!
 
I think everybody here is correct to a point.
It can easily be argued that if a company has an x amount of money
to spent on labor, and a certain work group succeeds in securing a
large percentage of that money , the remaining group or groups
have to divide the remaining of x.
One pie, many mouths.
This thinking assumes:
1. The company has a specific amount of money allocated to labor
expenses and is unwilling to go over that.
2.The company does not care how the money is divided among
the work groups.
At the same time I am sure that when the mechanics negotiate they
don’t ask themselves:
“Did we leave any money on the on the table for the FA’s and the Pilots?â€￾
I am not sure they would feel guilt if they succeeded in getting most of the money.
This does not make them “ bad guysâ€￾, and at the same time I can see where
the “good guysâ€￾ would be fighting to get a larger bite out of that pie.
Everybody is looking for better leverage.
A better education, a better negotiator (Union), and better market conditions will certainly help us all.
 
----------------
On 3/19/2003 6:36:16 PM limit wrote:

I think everybody here is correct to a point.
It can easily be argued that if a company has an x amount of money
to spent on labor, and a certain work group succeeds in securing a
large percentage of that money , the remaining group or groups
have to divide the remaining of x.
One pie, many mouths.
This thinking assumes:
1. The company has a specific amount of money allocated to labor
expenses and is unwilling to go over that.
2.The company does not care how the money is divided among
the work groups.

----------------​


I disagree with you. The company does care how it is allocated. In normal times, they have to be concerned with attracting and retaining quality people. Pay too much to one group and you impact your ability to get the type of employee you need in another group. You also impact employee relations if one group feels they are under paid relative to the remaining labor groups. So I do think management cares about how the money is allocated.
 
The "Pie Theory" just is a leftover relic of AMFa campaigns where they tried to tell mechanics that bag smashers were taking "Their" money in negotiations, and if we changed unions the company would be able to cut their pay and increase the mechanics because "they don''t care who gets the money. Its just a PIE to be cut up"!
 
michael707767

---------------------
"I disagree with you. The company does care how it is allocated. In normal times, they have to be concerned with attracting and retaining quality people. Pay too much to one group and you impact your ability to get the type of employee you need in another group. You also impact employee relations if one group feels they are under paid relative to the remaining labor groups. So I do think management cares about how the money is allocated."
--------------------

We are in agreement here.
I stated: "This thinking assumes" as a qualifier.
What I meant by that was that this train of thought
would only work if one subscribes to those notions.
I do not.