American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

...and that's if your trying to please all in one union. Multiply that times infinity when trying to keep all members happy trying to merge two contracts. I think we see...

Actually I’m not going to say particularly what until we have a full TA that we’re going to vote on but in the Fleet proposal from the Company I will say that there are things that I do like, things that I don’t like and things I could learn to live with and adjust to.

Some of those things I don’t particularly like have been agreed to by all parties.

When the deals are ready I’ll ask what their thoughts were in striking those deals and see if I can understand the reasoning. They’re still going to be listed in my no column but if the yes column outweighs the no column then I’ll agree to the deal. (My one vote)

 

[WeAAsles]

Dude, the union asked the company to put its proposal out. Watch the town hall. Isom said 'sure'. And he did.

And I supported Brian Parker and Greg Cosey for pushing for that. I support the Company for obliging and I expect the Association to put out their proposals and positions next.

Are you having a difficulty understanding me?

 

[WeAAsles]

Here is the bigger problem now. In reality, the association should have brought the proposal out for a vote in February when it had it. The reason is simple. Since Parker's town hall, the IAM placed a $300 million fee on the company. This additional cost will now severely affect negotiations and may very well take the current proposal off the table with this severe impact.
I cut and pasted an article below of a company in a IAM Pension (Not the same one as ours) and it decided to withdraw because the surplus' were killing its ability to give out normal yearly wages. Mr Baskett said on his email that the company didn't calculate right and that the cost of the plan will be millions and millions more. The company is appreciative that the IAM did not sign the proposal since the proposal did not properly calculate the withdrawal fee. And the surplus will also add millions more. This will limit wages and or other benefits. Look how the other employer specifically said in this article how it was impacting wages.
https://nwlaborpress.org/2017/12/daimler-trucks-leaves-machinist-pension/

That is the fee and that fee is required by Law and is even on the PBGC Website.

That fee is to protect the benefits you have already accumulated.

To role reverse. You asking for the Company to be let off the hook for the fee would be comparable to me wanting to let the Company off the hook for the underfunding of my Defined Benefit Pension (Hell no) The Company will be making a $900 Million deposit on my DBP this year and that still doesn’t shore it up.

That fee last I heard for your IAMNPF was $320 Million. According to the PBGC Website the Company can mutually agree with the blessings of the Funds Board of Trustees to pay that out over a 20 year period. Now I doubt with a Company as wealthy as American Airlines that would be granted but I’m also sure if the Company wants out they won’t have to write a check on Friday for the full amount.

Your financial concerns for the Company is always puzzling Tim.

Do you realize that they have paid out $13 Billion for Share Buybacks in the last 5 years. Have you seen the New HQ that blinds drivers on the highway in DFW? You do realize that they still show Billions in Profit even after that and Parker has stated that the Company cash on hand will increase dramatically in 2020.

American Airlines is absolutely not in any immediate or forecasted financial distress.

 

[WeAAsles]

Here is the bigger problem now. In reality, the association should have brought the proposal out for a vote in February when it had it. The reason is simple. Since Parker's town hall, the IAM placed a $300 million fee on the company. This additional cost will now severely affect negotiations and may very well take the current proposal off the table with this severe impact.
I cut and pasted an article below of a company in a IAM Pension (Not the same one as ours) and it decided to withdraw because the surplus' were killing its ability to give out normal yearly wages. Mr Baskett said on his email that the company didn't calculate right and that the cost of the plan will be millions and millions more. The company is appreciative that the IAM did not sign the proposal since the proposal did not properly calculate the withdrawal fee. And the surplus will also add millions more. This will limit wages and or other benefits. Look how the other employer specifically said in this article how it was impacting wages.
https://nwlaborpress.org/2017/12/daimler-trucks-leaves-machinist-pension/

To quote the Article you posted.

“Under a 2006 federal law, if Daimler wants to withdraw from the pension plan, it must pay the unfunded liability for its employees who are in the plan, in order to ensure that they get the benefits they already earned. The actual dollar amount is considered private information between the pension trust and the company. One factor in the company’s decision to withdraw now may have been that under federal rules, the amount of its withdrawal liability is calculated using a 10-year “lookback period,” and the plant downsized in 2005.”

 

[Tim Nelson]

And I supported Brian Parker and Greg Cosey for pushing for that. I support the Company for obliging and I expect the Association to put out their proposals and positions next.

Are you having a difficulty understanding me?

I thought you said that the company did this because it wanted to do the math on the support? The only indication as to why the company did this was because the union directly asked. You are a good backtracker weez, I'll give you points for that. But I was also glad that Brian asked.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That is the fee and that fee is required by Law and is even on the PBGC Website.

That fee is to protect the benefits you have already accumulated.

To role reverse. You asking for the Company to be let off the hook for the fee would be comparable to me wanting to let the Company off the hook for the underfunding of my Defined Benefit Pension (Hell no) The Company will be making a $900 Million deposit on my DBP this year and that still doesn’t shore it up.

That fee last I heard for your IAMNPF was $320 Million. According to the PBGC Website the Company can mutually agree with the blessings of the Funds Board of Trustees to pay that out over a 20 year period. Now I doubt with a Company as wealthy as American Airlines that would be granted but I’m also sure if the Company wants out they won’t have to write a check on Friday for the full amount.

Your financial concerns for the Company is always puzzling Tim.

Do you realize that they have paid out $13 Billion for Share Buybacks in the last 5 years. Have you seen the New HQ that blinds drivers on the highway in DFW? You do realize that they still show Billions in Profit even after that and Parker has stated that the Company cash on hand will increase dramatically in 2020.

American Airlines is absolutely not in any immediate or forecasted financial distress.

I'm not questioning the fee. I'm saying that the fee is substantial now and I'm also saying that the surplus is substantial now since I'm guessing they will pay part of the bill and let us pay the other part with a 39% reduction, if we keep this plan. But, no matter what, prior to Parker's town hall, he didn't have this info that he would be responsible for a surplus that will mean an extra price tag per year. This will have to be reconciled with his proposal.
What it will certainly mean is that it will not only be impossible to increase the offer, but it could decrease the offer if the additional cost are significant enough to place the extra burden on us. Certainly, I don't believe he will place this burden on shareholders.

In summation. There is no way out without a cost unless he can reduce the cost through arbitration or we could also whack the association and agree to the company proposal regarding retirement. The surplus' aren't statute. We can wipe those out with a new collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Talos]

...and that's if your trying to please all in one union. Multiply that times infinity when trying to keep all members happy trying to merge two contracts. I think we see...

Really a difficult task with the 2 contracts that are quite different. The IAM medical is a problem in that they would pay much more monthly. I don't know the amounts but the companies latest offer seemed shy of the mark. then the LAA guys still have bankruptcy stuff in the contract. You just get a feeling someones going to get bent over here. Maybe all of us. Hearing Fa say the NMB is siding with the company doesn't make you feel real good about a resolution.

 

[WeAAsles]

I thought you said that the company did this because it wanted to do the math on the support? The only indication as to why the company did this was because the union directly asked. You are a good backtracker weez, I'll give you points for that. But I was also glad that Brian asked.

Ultimately yes the only reason the Company put out their proposals was to gauge the pulse of the Membership. There really is no other reason to do so.

If the Membership read the offers and liked what they saw they would understandably put pressure on the Association to release the proposals for a vote.

If the Membership doesn’t like it they can collect the data to see where they have problems and maybe how they can modify those particular concerns to make it more palatable.

The Company motivation is to get contracts for as little they have to pay as possible. I can understand that premise. No one wants to overpay if they don’t have to.

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm not questioning the fee. I'm saying that the fee is substantial now and I'm also saying that the surplus is substantial now since I'm guessing they will pay part of the bill and let us pay the other part with a 39% reduction, if we keep this plan. But, no matter what, prior to Parker's town hall, he didn't have this info that he would be responsible for a surplus that will mean an extra price tag per year. This will have to be reconciled with his proposal.
What it will certainly mean is that it will not only be impossible to increase the offer, but it could decrease the offer if the additional cost are significant enough to place the extra burden on us. Certainly, I don't believe he will place this burden on shareholders.

In summation. There is no way out without a cost unless he can reduce the cost through arbitration or we could also whack the association and agree to the company proposal regarding retirement. The surplus' aren't statute. We can wipe those out with a new collective bargaining agreement.

This conversation leaves me scratching my head.

I do know that you really are someone who works on the Ramp with us and that you aren’t officially in Management so just insane how you have no problem wishing harm on your own retirement assets?

Our Pensions are both obviously underfunded. The LAA plans are underfunded by multiple $Billions and yours can have the door locked for only $320 Million.

You would like to help find a way for the Company to escape their liability to your retirement. Do you think you could find one LAA employee who would like to assist the Company to get out from under their obligations to shore up our DBP’s?

My “guess” though is that the Company will not ultimately seek to get out from under their obligations to the IAMNPF and you will continue with both that fund and a 401K contribution of some type.

I hope they do contribute to the “Preferred Plan” obviously but it would probably depend on what the extra added cost will be?

New hires will not come in to the IAMNPF as Schedule C would not be the most attractive enticement anyway.

 

[WeAAsles]

Really a difficult task with the 2 contracts that are quite different. The IAM medical is a problem in that they would pay much more monthly. I don't know the amounts but the companies latest offer seemed shy of the mark. then the LAA guys still have bankruptcy stuff in the contract. You just get a feeling someones going to get bent over here. Maybe all of us. Hearing Fa say the NMB is siding with the company doesn't make you feel real good about a resolution.

The NMB mediators only care about reaching a deal so there ultimately is no need to be concerned about disturbing interstate or in the case of AA, International commerce.

 

[WeAAsles]

An update from Dale Danker.

 

[Tim Nelson]

This conversation leaves me scratching my head.

I do know that you really are someone who works on the Ramp with us and that you aren’t officially in Management so just insane how you have no problem wishing harm on your own retirement assets?

Our Pensions are both obviously underfunded. The LAA plans are underfunded by multiple $Billions and yours can have the door locked for only $320 Million.

You would like to help find a way for the Company to escape their liability to your retirement. Do you think you could find one LAA employee who would like to assist the Company to get out from under their obligations to shore up our DBP’s?

My “guess” though is that the Company will not ultimately seek to get out from under their obligations to the IAMNPF and you will continue with both that fund and a 401K contribution of some type.

I hope they do contribute to the “Preferred Plan” obviously but it would probably depend on what the extra added cost will be?

New hires will not come in to the IAMNPF as Schedule C would not be the most attractive enticement anyway.

And that's a huge problem. While I agree new hires will not come in the plan, the plan is unsustainable, even after the latest slash because more members are retiring and less will be coming into the plan. This latest cut will no doubt leave ANY future employer refusing to get anywhere near this plan.

At any rate, the default schedule places my future benefits at $34 which is a 39% reduction. If the plan flops into the PBGC, the maximum guarantee is $35 so I would come out a buck ahead. So, by letting the plan go into the shitter, our members come out a buck better.

 

[Tim Nelson]

And our company may get an even bigger price tag if congress ups the rates on the employers who fund the pension plans. The PBGC for multi employer is not publicly funded. The company may very well want to negotiate the withdrawal liability as allowed under the statute including arbitration to dispute the price tag.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/articl...awmakers-tackle-multi-employer-plan-problems/

 

[WeAAsles]

And that's a huge problem. While I agree new hires will not come in the plan, the plan is unsustainable, even after the latest slash because more members are retiring and less will be coming into the plan. This latest cut will no doubt leave ANY future employer refusing to get anywhere near this plan.

At any rate, the default schedule places my future benefits at $34 which is a 39% reduction. If the plan flops into the PBGC, the maximum guarantee is $35 so I would come out a buck ahead. So, by letting the plan go into the shitter, our members come out a buck better.

Tim what you’re not seeming to understand is that the PPA was written by design to keep the liabilities for underfunded Multi Employer Pensions off the backs of the PBGC which itself is dramatically underfunded and may be looking for a Taxpayer bailout in the future.

Basically what I’m telling you is because of the PPA itself even if the Funds Trustees wanted to flush it onto the PBGC arbitrarily they don’t even have the ability to do so. And I’m sure that wouldn’t be their preferred course of action anyway.

You do remember perhaps that the PBGC Director during the AA Bankruptcy Josh Gotbaum fought like crazy not to have AA’s DBP obligations thrown on the backs of the Insurance Corporation.

Besides Tim despite how you sell it even with the coming cuts the IAMNPF is still 89% funded which does not constitute a catastrophe by any means.

But I can understand absolutely why you want to get out of it anyway and I do sympathize. Especially if the Company does option for the Default Plan Schedule.

 

[WeAAsles]

And our company may get an even bigger price tag if congress ups the rates on the employers who fund the pension plans. The PBGC for multi employer is not publicly funded. The company may very well want to negotiate the withdrawal liability as allowed under the statute including arbitration to dispute the price tag.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/articl...awmakers-tackle-multi-employer-plan-problems/

My cousin Sean who lives up in Maine with a still fairly young family was with Hostess and part of the Bakers Union.