Why would they do that? Were the Clerks getting tired of 6 hours OT or 2nd day off OT in order to cover the holes?
AA would like to run this airline with zero employees. That's the only way we could compete with WN.
I sincerly beleive they don't have a clue what's going on in my dept. They make these stupid decesions and say do it with what you have. Yea I can load a 757 belly with one man, but guess what, it will take a lot more ground time. They have no clue... Why don't they just listen.
Instead of here's what you get. Why not "Let's sit down and discuss what and why you need"
They just don't have a clue...
It's because AA has lost total control of how many people they have laid off, who's bumping to what station, when their report date is at their new station,etc...as for the 77 recind's at DFW, I heard they are going to wait until we are at war,then let them go so the don't have to pay the 12,500 and moving expenses.
On 1/16/2003 10:08:08 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
When the Exxon Valdez ran aground, I believe it was the CAPTAIN that was held responsible !!
Of course, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, the other sailors on the ship hadn't welded the rudder full to port, forcing the ship aground. That's a case where there was clearly a single person who was ultimately responsible, and the accident wasn't the result of other people preventing him from doing his job.
With AA and other airlines, while management is making mistakes, its ability to react is also severely hindered by the other employees (or their contracts, more specifically). So blaming management alone is hardly fair. Hazelwood didn't have his First Officer trying to force the ship into the rocks. Comparing AA management to him is a false analogy...
Quote: "With AA and other airlines, while management is making mistakes, it's ability to react is so severely hindered by the other employees, OR THEIR "CONTRACTS" MORE SPECIFICALLY "
Ok lownslow, stay with me now, because you and I are going to examine your statement, under the microscope, and narrow in on the EXACT point.
"Or their C O N T R A C T S , more specifically"
I'm going to hope against ALL hope, that you are NOT a member of ANY union, because if you are, and your making a statement like that, then IMHO, you should be"(HYPOTHETICALLY) taken out back, and SHOT" !!!!!!!!!
NO ONE HELD A GUN TO AA's HEAD, AND "MADE" THEM SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So plz.,(lownslow), DON"T even mention the word CONTRACT, to me.
If you own a home, try going down to your friendly bank, and inform them that you NOW don't care for the mortgage(CONTRACT) THAT YOU SIGNED, and want to change it.
They will politely INFORM YOU, "to go SH*T in your fedora",
"A deal's a deal" "PERIOD" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Management has the ULTIMATE responsibility, to MANAGE, knowing full well what tools(CONTRACTS) they have to operate with. If they fail, then THEY take the blame 100% !!!
That's why THEY have provisions in the CONTRACT, to make adjustments, in case the (negative)"SH*T hits the fan", such as a real bad economy etc.
I see Carty trying to keep the "whole" operation together, while trying to impose give-backs, on "everyone".
So far, he has NOT even come close to making the LARGE reductions, that(sadly) may need to be made(like crandall DID, in the early 80's)
I have NO objection to Carty trying to get some work rule changes made, to try and turn things around.
IMHO, during these tough times, I don't think we should be flyind mainline jets, out of cities like BWI,RDU,BNA,just to name a few.
What you keep ignoring, however, is the power unions at airlines have over management in negotiations. Ford, GM, GE, Boeing, and many other large corporations can weather a strike of moderate length without severe long term impact. As a matter of fact, Ford, which has been much maligned of late, still has ~$26 billion in cash and marketable securities on hand. Even if all production stopped, there is still ~2 months of inventory on hand, therefore the company can withstand longer shutdowns without endangering its future.
Now look at an airline. If the unions strike, they still have to pay for all their leases and other fixed costs. Take a look at the profit margins in good times - even then, a month-long shutdown can easily wipe out a year's worth or profits, and that's assuming all the customers come back immediately (which does NOT happen). So given a choice, do you sign a contract that you know will lead to $1 billion in losses, or do you refuse, and weather a strike which will cost $2 billion? The choice is simple....
So did anyone hold a gun to management's head? No. But the effect isn't that different. Unions at airlines have a power that almost no other unions in any other industry have. They must learn to use that power responsibly. Plan for the worst, and hope for the best. There is nothing wrong with setting a contract that pays well, but also provides flexibility and keeps wages constrained enough to ensure minimal losses in a downturn. Then for the good times, have profit sharing to provide a return.
Am I a member of a union? Yes, but not of an airline union. Unions can serve a good purpose. Let's face it, though - very, very few workers are treated as poorly as those who formed the first unions. Many are out of control now and need a dose of reality (ie, its not uncommon for a forklift driver at an auto plant to be able to pull in near 6 figures with enough seniority and very minimal overtime)
This is a problem the unions and management are in TOGETHER. BOTH have helped lead to this problem, and it is the responsibility of BOTH to work TOGETHER to solve it.
On 1/21/2003 2:45:34 AM lownslow wrote:
Many are out of control now and need a dose of reality (ie, its not uncommon for a forklift driver at an auto plant to be able to pull in near 6 figures with enough seniority and very minimal overtime)
Having friends and neighbors who are autoworkers, I'm curious which union or auto company you have in mind with that statement. Six figures with living-in-the-plant type overtime is possible. Your statement sounds more like the $70,000/year ramper example at EAL. (The guy lived at the station and never said no.)
The problem is AA has never TRIED to negotiate a GOOD contract, in GOOD $$$ times.
Both sides "sign at your own risk"
Any judge in the land, will tell participants that "ignorance is NO excuse for the law"
I don't care how unique an upper hand(airlines unions have), again, "you sign at your own peril"
"BUYER BEWARE" !!!!!!
"It IS, what it IS" !!!!!!
Actually AA did , pretty much negotiate the last contract(the only one that I can remember), in good faith, and low and behold, they want to wiggle out of it.
I DON"T FEEL SORRY FOR THEM .
If they go ch-11, watch and see what a noticeable decline in productivity occurs.(This is NOT a threat , just a proven reality.)
If it becomes ch-7, then "it's full pay to the last day" !!
But I honestly DON'T think we'll see the "last" scenario" !!