Are NW mechanics happy with AMFA

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 9:37:36 AM TDR1502C wrote:


Sounds like you miss regulation and all the lay-offs that frequently occured as airlines tried to "right-size" to their routes. Some lay-offs were even seasonal, some were annual. Keep in mind we just passed through about fifteen years of unusually secure times for airline employees. I think the proof that AMFA is responsible for any airline woes will be to see if AMFA can run Southwest into the ground. If that happens I'll admit the union shares some of the blame.

NWA/AMT, good posts.


----------------​

Sorry, it sounds like the AMFA misses regulation since their solution is to lay off and downsize to protect wages and benefits. My point is, the airlines are very REACTIONARY right now...they need to either cut wages or "shrink to profitablity" in order to survive. How would AMFA have responded if an airline they represented was showing profits, but profits that were down over the previous year, and the airline managment was proactively trying to "plan for the bad times". Do you think that they might balk at having their members hit the street on a management edict, when the company is still showing a profit?

Bear in mind, the Southwest AMT's are working under a contract that was negotiated by the Teamsters union, not the AMFA. It will be interesting to see how AMFA negotiates. Southwest is perhaps the WORST example you can use to compare, since in these past couple of years, they have not asked the TWU, IAM, or Teamsters for any kind of concessionary agreement - yet the Teamsters were voted out after the last contract. I wonder, if times get any worse, if the AMFA will suggest "shrinking" to a company that has historically had zero layoffs - in good times or bad. Better yet, I wonder how their new members at SWA will react if this is any kind of potential "solution" offered by their new union.

If I recall correctly, about two years ago, you guys were ridiculing Southwest employees for lagging behind the industry. Seems to me that rather than demand "industry leading contracts", their union members worked with management toward a solution that would keep them fairly compensated while at the same time reducing costs for airline. Less than two years ago, the battle cry went up at at least one now bankrupt carrier for the demand for an "industry leading contract" for their union, which eventually managment agreed to. My contention is that THAT was a managment mistake. But could it also be considered a mistake on the part of the union????

 

[TDR1502C]

Sure are some interesting insights and opinions on how airlines and unions work you have there KCFlyer. Are you sure you''re not employed in a media function?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 12:43:51 PM TDR1502C wrote:

Sure are some interesting insights and opinions on how airlines and unions work you have there KCFlyer. Are you sure you''re not employed in a media function?

----------------​

Nope, no media function here. Just interested in the aviation industry.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 3:18:09 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/21/2003 12:43:51 PM TDR1502C wrote:

Sure are some interesting insights and opinions on how airlines and unions work you have there KCFlyer. Are you sure you''re not employed in a media function?

----------------​

Nope, no media function here. Just interested in the aviation industry.
----------------
​

You used to claim that you were a concerned customer. You are nothing more than an AFL-CIO Kool-Aid Drinker, Provider, and Pusher.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 608 AM RV4 wrote:

----------------
On 6/21/2003 3:18:09 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/21/2003 12:43:51 PM TDR1502C wrote:

Sure are some interesting insights and opinions on how airlines and unions work you have there KCFlyer. Are you sure you're not employed in a media function?

----------------​

Nope, no media function here. Just interested in the aviation industry.
----------------
​

You used to claim that you were a concerned customer. You are nothing more than an AFL-CIO Kool-Aid Drinker, Provider, and Pusher.

----------------​

Sorry Oliver, don't have anything to do with the AFL-CIO as I haven't been a member (or employee) of a union since 1981. I can't drink Kool-Aid as I am on the Atkins diet and sugar is verbotten. And is it not possible for a customer to be interested in the airline industry, or is employment in the industry a requirement? All I do is ask someone...ANYONE to address the potential negatives about the AMFA and the only thing I get from the most vocal spokesman is an accusation that I am a shill for the AFL-CIO. THis is quite odd as I am most often called a shill for mangement.

From reading your posts, it would appear that AMFA is all sunshine and happiness and the problems of the airline industry would all be cured if only the other airlines would vote in AMFA. And y'all point to Southwest as your example, conveniently overlooking the fact that the Teamsters union negotiated the mechanics contract. It just seems to me that AMFA will be in a bind, since their solution for the other airlines is to shrink to profitabilty, and Southwests philosophy is to avoid layoffs. Seems that if times get a bit tougher, AMFA will have a clash not only with the the companies that their members work for, but with their members themselves.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 712 AM KCFlyer wrote:

All I do is ask someone...ANYONE to address the potential negatives about the AMFA and the only thing I get from the most vocal spokesman is an accusation that I am a shill for the AFL-CIO. THis is quite odd as I am most often called a shill for mangement.

From reading your posts, it would appear that AMFA is all sunshine and happiness and the problems of the airline industry would all be cured if only the other airlines would vote in AMFA. And y'all point to Southwest as your example, conveniently overlooking the fact that the Teamsters union negotiated the mechanics contract. It just seems to me that AMFA will be in a bind, since their solution for the other airlines is to shrink to profitabilty, and Southwests philosophy is to avoid layoffs. Seems that if times get a bit tougher, AMFA will have a clash not only with the the companies that their members work for, but with their members themselves.
----------------​

Why do we have search and find negatives about AMFA to please you?

Why don't you research the facts yourself and develope your own opinion?

I am not your patsy, and neither is anyone else on this board to my knowledge.

You seem to have all the facts, except about any negatives regarding AMFA, maybe there is a good solid reason for this phenom?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:23:15 AM RV4 wrote:




Why do we have search and find negatives about AMFA to please you?

Why don''t you research the facts yourself and develope your own opinion?

I am not your patsy, and neither is anyone else on this board to my knowledge.

You seem to have all the facts, except about any negatives regarding AMFA, maybe there is a good solid reason for this phenom?

----------------​

Oh, I''m well aware of the "facts"...including the negatives. That''s why I bring up a few of the negatives. I''m just wondering why you dodge answering anything that I bring up? Instead, when anyone posts anything that reveals some of the negatives, your immediate response is to call them a lapdog for the TWU (now the IAM on this board). Is there something you''re afraid to address? It appears that you want potential members to be informed...just not THAT informed

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:29:43 AM KCFlyer wrote:




Oh, I''m well aware of the "facts"...including the negatives. That''s why I bring up a few of the negatives. I''m just wondering why you dodge answering anything that I bring up? Instead, when anyone posts anything that reveals some of the negatives, your immediate response is to call them a lapdog for the TWU (now the IAM on this board). Is there something you''re afraid to address? It appears that you want potential members to be informed...just not THAT informed
----------------
​

I dont see you posting any facts!
All I see is anti-union rhetoric, and not just anti-AMFA union!

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 7:13:27 PM RV4 wrote:




I dont see you posting any facts!
All I see is anti-union rhetoric, and not just anti-AMFA union!

----------------​

Still dodging, eh Oliver? Why not point out the error in my misstatements?

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 8:00:05 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 7:13:27 PM RV4 wrote:




I dont see you posting any facts!
All I see is anti-union rhetoric, and not just anti-AMFA union!

----------------​

Still dodging, eh Oliver? Why not point out the error in my misstatements?
----------------
​

I did! You claim to have posted negative facts about AMFA, but I dont see them posted anywhere?

 

[KCFlyer]

Read closer then... You''re very good at dodging...do you drive a Dodge?

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 8:38:12 AM KCFlyer wrote:


RV4 - Congratulations on your new job. You said you had something in the works, and I think it's great that you hired on with the AMFA. I always said you should believe in the company you work for. Do you have to wear a suit at work, or are you lucky enough to have "business casual" most of the time?
----------------​

Don't work for AMFA, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

[tug_slug]

Don't work for AMFA, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

LMAO... Gawd that cracked me up!

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 712 AM KCFlyer wrote:




Sorry Oliver, don't have anything to do with the AFL-CIO as I haven't been a member (or employee) of a union since 1981. I can't drink Kool-Aid as I am on the Atkins diet and sugar is verbotten.

They do make sugar free Kool Aid, but surely you knew that.

And is it not possible for a customer to be interested in the airline industry, or is employment in the industry a requirement?

Sure its possible, weird, but possible.

All I do is ask someone...ANYONE to address the potential negatives about the AMFA and the only thing I get from the most vocal spokesman is an accusation that I am a shill for the AFL-CIO. THis is quite odd as I am most often called a shill for mangement.

You have to admit that your query into an issue that is so parochial, AMFA, a union that represents virtually unseen workers, mechanics and related, seems a bit unusual.

From reading your posts, it would appear that AMFA is all sunshine and happiness and the problems of the airline industry would all be cured if only the other airlines would vote in AMFA.

Well all organizations have their faults. I dont think that anyone claimed that if AMFA came in that the industries problems would be solved. I doubt that proponents of AMFA even consider that their goal, the goal is more confined to Aircraft mechanics and those other groups in that class and craft.

And y'all point to Southwest as your example, conveniently overlooking the fact that the Teamsters union negotiated the mechanics contract.

I think you brought this up before, but I will correct you once again. It was the company that kept comparing us with SWA. Mechanics at SWA make more than mechanics at AA. This is not the same with most other workers, including the executives.

It just seems to me that AMFA will be in a bind, since their solution for the other airlines is to shrink to profitabilty, and Southwests philosophy is to avoid layoffs. Seems that if times get a bit tougher, AMFA will have a clash not only with the the companies that their members work for, but with their members themselves.

Again, how did you come to this conclusion? Most unions would agree with a policy of no layoffs, including more than likely, AMFA. One of the proposals that I submitted to Jim Little, which was completely ignored because he obviously had other plans was allow workers to bid weeks off without pay as needed to reduce the man hours available and eliminate the need for layoffs. The senior man would pick when he wants off while the junior man would take off what was left. This way the company can reduce its payroll as needed but at the same time maintain is average manhour cost (layoffs usually raise manhour costs since the junior, least paid with the least benifits gets laid off first leaving only the highest paid with the highest benifits remaining)

I would rather take 7 weeks leave without pay than take a $20,000 per year pay cut with continuous work. If I'm going to make the same yearly amount either way I'd rather have the time off, this would give me the opportunity to do something else with that time, more time with the family, perhaps sell it somewhere else, use it to do home repairs etc.Im sure that productivity would be much higher if the company/union had taken this route, no bumps, no major disruptions to families, much less bitterness, less stress on the workforce etc. The disruptions, the anger, the bitterness of what they did will cost the company many times over what they think they are saving.
----------------
​

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 6:13:07 AM KCFlyer wrote:


Read closer then... You''re very good at dodging...do you drive a Dodge?

----------------​

KCFLYER, when discussing anything with RV4, you have to do the written equivalent of speaking slowly, and very specifically, he can''t read between the lines. Cut and paste from the dictionary is good too.

RV4 would make a great law clerk but not much of a diplomat, the innuendoes go right by past him.