I'm sure it was an Executive Commitee decision. So all of those guys are still around except for Carty and Jeff Campbell. Jeff Campbell the CFO at the time probably had ultimate responsibility for fuel hedging, he left for a job that paid him 4 times his AA salary so he made off pretty well.
AA "Why You Fly" TWU Style
- Thread starter Ken MacTiernan
- Start date
I'm sure it was an Executive Commitee decision. So all of those guys are still around except for Carty and Jeff Campbell. Jeff Campbell the CFO at the time probably had ultimate responsibility for fuel hedging, he left for a job that paid him 4 times his AA salary so he made off pretty well.
Oneflyer said:
Not sure about your math but I would be making just under $38 with premiums at SWA today, going up to close to $39 in August. My AA salary is $30.63 an hour with premiums going to $31.01. Add in the holiday pay, ot, profit sharing is said to be at 9% this year, they are much farther ahead. With Holiday pay it is closer to a 19k difference, with profit sharing it's over 25k. Now the odds that the current defined pension plan is still in place 10 years from now, slim to none. SWA is going to be around $10 an hour more than AA 2007 and they are the low cost carrier. Furthermore they will be doing 4 heavy checks a night in Dallas, new checks in Chicago and rumor of a hagar purchase in PHX. It's funny how the low cost carrier always makes the right moves; bringing the work back in-house with much higher wages, fuel hedging.
BTW...SWA 401k has many options, not just their stock. Also according to those who have worked for both companies, SWA medical is much better.
Oneflyer said:
So outside of the Fall Guy CAArty and one who found a "better deal," no one took the hit for this screw up. This reminds me of the Value Pricing fiasco, the more room fiasco, Canadian Airlines fiasco, for starters. No ones head ever rolled, in fact some moved up, all the way up. How are the workers suppose to have confidence in a management team that has squandered billions over the years and have never been held accountable for their actions.
Oneflyer,Mar 10 2005, 04:01 AM]
Both have profit sharing plans.
Yea but one actually pays out money, the other doesnt unless profits are over $500,000,000!!!!
AA has a defined benefit plan, while SW has a defined contribution plan matched by the company with SW stock. During a normal environment the DBP would probably be preferable to the DCP, assuming the company never goes into bankruptcy though having all your retirement in one stock is equally risky, ask an Enron employee.
Well isnt it true that only the companies match is in company stock? The rest is wherever the employee puts it right? And if you are earning $20,000 more a year then you have the ability to put a lot more away for retirement dont you? Plus the fact is that our pension is based on our pay, less pay, less pension.
AA does offer better healthcare benefits, current and retirement.
Are they worth $20,000/year less? Are they really better?
So lets see $5.50 an hour is roughly about $11k a year with benefits on the AA side being a bit better and a bit safer considering that a SW 401k is all in SW stock which can go to zero, while your pension is guaranteed, at least to some level.
While I'd definately agree that SW has a better deal, without going into the work rules details, I wouldn't say its that incredibly better.
Thats because you are undervalueing the difference. You left out the Holidays, worth $5000/year, and the vacation, $1500/yr and misc like OT, training, around another $3000 to $5,000/year. While AA claims to offer better medical the fact is that what they claim to offer and what they actually give are two different things. Sure you might actually get them to pay what they say they will but thats only if you are willing to fight on the phone with them for hours every time you visit the doctor or pharmacy. The time used there has to also be given a value.
So in the end our healthcare is not too good either. Its kind of like how you said "Both have profit sharing plans". On its face its correct, but when you get into the details and reality of it a whole different picture appears.
Both have profit sharing plans.
Yea but one actually pays out money, the other doesnt unless profits are over $500,000,000!!!!
AA has a defined benefit plan, while SW has a defined contribution plan matched by the company with SW stock. During a normal environment the DBP would probably be preferable to the DCP, assuming the company never goes into bankruptcy though having all your retirement in one stock is equally risky, ask an Enron employee.
Well isnt it true that only the companies match is in company stock? The rest is wherever the employee puts it right? And if you are earning $20,000 more a year then you have the ability to put a lot more away for retirement dont you? Plus the fact is that our pension is based on our pay, less pay, less pension.
AA does offer better healthcare benefits, current and retirement.
Are they worth $20,000/year less? Are they really better?
So lets see $5.50 an hour is roughly about $11k a year with benefits on the AA side being a bit better and a bit safer considering that a SW 401k is all in SW stock which can go to zero, while your pension is guaranteed, at least to some level.
While I'd definately agree that SW has a better deal, without going into the work rules details, I wouldn't say its that incredibly better.
Thats because you are undervalueing the difference. You left out the Holidays, worth $5000/year, and the vacation, $1500/yr and misc like OT, training, around another $3000 to $5,000/year. While AA claims to offer better medical the fact is that what they claim to offer and what they actually give are two different things. Sure you might actually get them to pay what they say they will but thats only if you are willing to fight on the phone with them for hours every time you visit the doctor or pharmacy. The time used there has to also be given a value.
So in the end our healthcare is not too good either. Its kind of like how you said "Both have profit sharing plans". On its face its correct, but when you get into the details and reality of it a whole different picture appears.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #66
Oneflyer said:
1 flyer, how do I know you even work for AA? Are you management or union? How much of a pay cut did you take? Did you vote yes knowing you were being lied to?
I understand the company asking for indications of interest but these two AMT CCs had seniority and should have been offered the 13 weeks pay.
Do I think you are a ####? Why should I? Don't preach to me about "never, ever complain about the company to a paying passenger.". Who the f#@k are you? Don't act like I'm all happy and will ever forget what was done to me and my profession. A comment like yours would make you seem like an ####.
I am not some junior sponge that believes everything AA and the twu speaks as Holy Script. You mean the airline has to make money if we are going to see raises? Please don't fix and rockets. What about when AA locked me in to a 6 year contract and told us that we had to wait till the 6 years was up before AA would give us any raise? But if AA should lose money it is OVER NIGHT that I am suppose to swallow your tripe?
Calling me stupid for stateing the facts about what is happening to my profession makes you look more like the #### you feel you are.
The thread is a good illustration of a couple of things that are broken in the airline industry:
1) Seniority systems don't allow employees to shop around their talent to other companies when they feel like they are undercompensated or unfairly treated.
2) Companies have little control over the image they present on the front line. This situation is exacerbated by organized labor because disgruntled employees tend to feel like the have broad consensus for their "cause" whether well-founded or not. It only takes a couple of like-minded employees to cause a scene.
If it were up to me, I would pay top-end compensation packages for employees who had the choice to leave the company if they were unhappy. That would leave me with an expensive yet happy workforce.
1) Seniority systems don't allow employees to shop around their talent to other companies when they feel like they are undercompensated or unfairly treated.
2) Companies have little control over the image they present on the front line. This situation is exacerbated by organized labor because disgruntled employees tend to feel like the have broad consensus for their "cause" whether well-founded or not. It only takes a couple of like-minded employees to cause a scene.
If it were up to me, I would pay top-end compensation packages for employees who had the choice to leave the company if they were unhappy. That would leave me with an expensive yet happy workforce.
Of course, the only problem with my idea is that it's worthless unless one or more other companies drop seniority systems from their labor contracts. A big problem, indeed.
That appears to be one of Bob's problems. He comes up with these lovely schemes that require huge conspiracies...and yet none of them come to fruition. Perhaps huge conspiracies are harder to maintain than he thinks...
Connected1 said:
Hmm, doesnt Delta have a seniority system? Instead of dropping it just make it universal!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #73
Connected1 said:
connectd1, companies have a lot of control over their image. If a company's employees are treated fairly and compensated equally for their skill level that company's image will be a positive one.
However, have a company that threatens to lay people off if concessions are not given while the same company sings "Shared sacrifice" only to be found out they were lieing will hurt their image. Have a company that strolls hand-in-hand with their unions to lie to their employees and that company's image will hurt.
" It only takes a couple of like-minded employees to cause a scene." What is it about the truth that you fear? What is your definition of a "scene"?
Why pay off unhappy employees? Why not simply address the concerns of these individuals? Oh, that's right. You would rather have a work force of mindless drones instead of skilled, intelligent professionals. Typical aa/twu mentality.
Hackman
Veteran
- Sep 30, 2003
- 3,997
- 898
Again, look at SWA. Fairly happy employees. Heavily unionized. Employees rewarded for their extra efforts. Management so far has made steady growth for years without buying out every failing airline in sight because they can. Happy employees, decent management=strong, profitable company.Connected1 said:
Now why is this? It gotta be the great management, of course. As the point has been made by the omnipotent management types here, those lazy, worthless, and greedy employees in the unions share no claim in any of SWA success. :huh:
Those union bastards.
Bob:
I'm agreeing with you. I said the SW contract was better. I was just questioning the dollar amount. I have also spoken with people at SW, living in Dallas I know several, and I got the impression that AA's plan was better.
I'm agreeing with you. I said the SW contract was better. I was just questioning the dollar amount. I have also spoken with people at SW, living in Dallas I know several, and I got the impression that AA's plan was better.
