Awesome "Live Webinar" Notification

[Anomaly]

LIES, LIES and yet again more LIES!!!
Actually you are correct about one thing. Yes we fired the teamsters and brought in AMFA, therfore, by law AMFA had to take over the exsisting contract.
Then you bash AMFA for only extending the 2004 contract. Yes this was the first contract for AMFA at SWA. It's also the first contract after 9-11. AMFA and SWA nego an extension. At the time it was the very best thing to do, period. No pay cuts, no bennie cuts, no cuts what so ever. Also NO LAY-OFFS, "ZERO" "NOTTA".
What did all the other airlines do? Huh? Answer that "Scab Supporter". Including your airline. They all cut everything. They all also had thousand upon thousands of LAY-OFFS and loss jobs, which your union "AGREED" to in 2003. It was "CONCESSIONS" that all the other unions at all the other carriers (except for cargo carriers) agreed to. AMFA did better than all the other unions combined, period. Especially for the first contract following 9-11.
It was NOT considered a failure, matter fact it was considered an improvement at a time when all the others were cutting, chopping, and putting hundreds of thousands of workers to the street, THIS IS FACT.
AMFA has been adding work as well as, as you put it, securities ever since that contract that you are talking about. You always try to make AMFA look bad, when in fact you are always making AMFA look great. I will take an extention anytime instead of concessions and lay-offs--anyday... If the members of AMFA vote in a contract extension then so be it, it was what the members wanted. At least AMFA is nego positive contracts instead of negative ones like the TWU does and is currently. As well as the teamsters nego negative contracts with lay-offs and pay cuts. Name me one other airline that has nego positive increases imeadiately following the 9-11 attacks. Here let me help you, NONE, NOTTA, Zilch. Only Alaska has been able to nego the #2 contract behind SWA and guess who nego that? Yup, your right, it too was AMFA. Carry on "SCAB SUPPORTER"

At year end in 2004 Southwest had 417 aircraft and provided service to 60 airports in 31 states and they were still growing. Operating revenues were up 10% over 2003 and SWA enjoyed a profit of $313 million for the year. Southwest had contractual obligations and commitments primarily with regard to future purchases of aircraft, payment of debt, and lease arrangements. Along with the receipt of 47 new 737-700 aircraft in 2004 (one of which was leased), the Company exercised its remaining options for aircraft to be delivered in 2005, and several more options for aircraft to be delivered in 2006.

The following two sites are WN's 2004 presentation to stockholders and employees and the second one is their actual 10K Securities Exchange Commission filings.

http://www.airtimes....t/ar/wn2004.pdf
http://www.getfiling...-05-002093.html

swamt, you were apparently mislead in to believing that amfa did something for you, but all along your airline was extending your contract so it could purchase more aircraft among other things.

In fourth quarter 2004, Southwest was selected as the winning bidder at a bankruptcy-court approved auction for certain ATA Airlines, Inc. (ATA) assets. As part of the transaction, which was approved in December 2004, Southwest agreed to pay $40 million for certain ATA assets, consisting of the rights to six of ATA’s leased Chicago Midway Airport gates and the rights to a leased aircraft maintenance hangar at Chicago Midway Airport. An initial payment of $34 million in December 2004 is classified as an intangible asset and is included in “Other assets” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In addition, Southwest provided ATA with $40 million in debtor-in-possession financing while ATA remains in bankruptcy, and has also guaranteed the repayment of an ATA construction loan to the City of Chicago for $7 million. And there is more...

Fuel hedging created a gain in 2004 of $455 million and there was a smaller gain of $13 million due to company reorganizing.

Do you want to know how much your officers, board of directors and CEO made during the year amfa extended your contract?

As for Alaska, they did negotiate the number two agreement....for about three months. Both CO and UA agreements are higher than them but still sets the mechanics on the top part of the middle for consideration with their mid term pay adjustment review which we will be hearing about any day now. The argument they have to find is one that overcomes their current position. Unless the AA mechanics can get a huge raise in the next few hours, I have my doubts for Alaska. Unfortunate. Alaska has some good mechanics.

Like my last post, this too is factual and verifiable. I even offer you the sites to check it out for yourself. Where is your proof that any of this is untrue?

 

[Anomaly]

And just when did AMFA EVER present a proposal to the UAL stewards/membership that they had already previously agreed to?



When the ALRs voted to remove LOA74-1 without a membership vote, it was wrong. As they freely told the membership when they did it, it WAS NOT Deceptive.

Additionaly, they stood accountable to the membership via recall, which one here in SFO was.



AMFA members were well aware of the companys last offer at NWA, which was WORSE than the previous they had voted down. No deception there.

I would've offered another "Nice Try" but your arguments are getting abit ridiculous.

No, my arguments are sound. You are comparing a local agreement for guidelines to language that caused many of our members and friends to be relocated 100's of miles away from where they could have bid just a short time before? Ask the guys with family in San Francisco who were relocated to Chicago if 1 recall made up for this?

This was one of the major reasons UA decided to dump amfa. You just continue to play it down.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

No, my arguments are sound. You are comparing a local agreement for guidelines to language that caused many of our members and friends to be relocated 100's of miles away from where they could have bid just a short time before? Ask the guys with family in San Francisco who were relocated to Chicago if 1 recall made up for this?

This was one of the major reasons UA decided to dump amfa. You just continue to play it down.

Your arguments are nonsense!

From above....

.....You are comparing a local agreement for guidelines to language that caused many of our members and friends to be relocated 100's of miles away........

I'm comparing???

Who brought LOA74-1M into this thread?

I DIDN'T!

YOU DID!

Yet now YOU try and attack me for the comparison subject that YOU introduced to the topic.

 

[Anomaly]

Your arguments are nonsense!

From above....



I'm comparing???

Who brought LOA74-1M into this thread?

I DIDN'T!

YOU DID!

Yet now YOU try and attack me for the comparison subject that YOU introduced to the topic.

Oh, quit yer bitchin'

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Oh, quit yer bitchin'

Exposing your nonsense isn't "bitchin" .....but nice try

 

[swamt]

Exposing your nonsense isn't "bitchin" .....but nice try

This is how he answers when he gets stumped or caught red handed.

 

[Anomaly]

This is how he answers when he gets stumped or caught red handed.

What have either of you exposed?

Lets start from the beginning;

amfa won WN representation in 2002 using, as part of their campaign, a promise to go hard on the company and negotiate "improvements" to their contract. The company proposes an extension with ZERO all around improvements and amfa rolled over on the members and took it. Your rebuttal to this was an apparent wage increase although you have never been clear about this or what the rate of increase was. This is, however, a contrast to what was written in the press.

DALLAS, Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) are proud to announce that the parties have reached a tentative agreement with a four-year term. The Company is pleased with this cost neutral contract which delivers raises in exchange for work rule improvements and contract flexibility. The current collective bargaining agreement became amendable on August 16, 2008.

If you are offered pay increases, but pay for those increases by giving up work rules and allowing greater contract flexibility, you have made ZERO improvements. You have only shifted and done so without the benefit of negotiating to provide the company with COST NEUTRAL options. How nice of amfa to take cars of the company like that.

As you correctly stated, several unions gave in to concessions during this time because the airlines were loosing money. No argument. However, you ignore the fact that Southwest Airline in 2004 made a profit of $373 million and amfa could not benefit from that. If you go into a new agreement term and have ZERO improvements, you have just made concessions. If you have just extended an agreement with a profitable company and gotten ZERO out of it, you have been screwed.

Again, my unanswered question; did amfa explain to the members that WN was profitable during a time they were essentially asking for concessions? Yes or No ?

My guess is NO. amfa did not.

Teamsters bring in leading and expert economists and actuaries to help sift through corporation financial reports during negotiations. In 2004, amfa had Kevin McCormick. real estate mogul turned union expert. He failed us at UAL in 2004 as well.

In November 2004, AMFA and UAL commenced concessionary bargaining. According to AMFA Administrator Kevin McCormick, "AMFA accepted as accurate the significant economic components (including, for instance, overtime factors and fringe benefit calculations) used by UAL's labor cost projection/model for purposes of obtaining concessions from each of the affected labor unions." The other unions challenged and made corrections to these numbers, McCormick did not. He accepted the numbers given to him by the company as face value, and amfa did what McCormick suggested.

As the appointed National Administrator, McCormick was directly involved in all amfa contracts and had the last word on financial matters involving contract negotiations....or extensions.

More about McCormick can be found on these sites.

http://www.businessw...ors-outside-man
http://encycl.opento...nal_Association
http://www.airlinecr...p/t-175303.html
http://workinglife.t...up_press_w.html
http://www.transform...01_archive.html
http://www.teamster....evealed2008.pdf

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

What have either of you exposed?

Lets start from the beginning;

What have I exposed? How about your twisted nonsensical reasoning.

YOU brought up LOA74-1M in a futile attempt at comparison to the UAL BAs deception on the IPTE guidelines, and when I exposed your flawed logic you then made a lame attempt to ridicule me for the comparison that YOU YOURSELF introduced to the thread.

I could comment on the rest but that was swamts baby and I'm not going to steal his thunder.

 

[TWU informer]

a·nom·a·ly
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy handed fool or idiot"

 

[Anomaly]

What have I exposed? How about your twisted nonsensical reasoning.

YOU brought up LOA74-1M in a futile attempt at comparison to the UAL BAs deception on the IPTE guidelines, and when I exposed your flawed logic you then made a lame attempt to ridicule me for the comparison that YOU YOURSELF introduced to the thread.

I could comment on the rest but that was swamts baby and I'm not going to steal his thunder.

a·nom·a·ly
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy handed fool or idiot"

OK, so you have exposed nothing..... Thanks

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

OK, so you have exposed nothing..... Thanks

So I guess you're the proof that common sense aint so common ... your posts are there for all to read ... you want to keep making a bigger fool of yourself with this inane crap, by all means continue.

 

[Anomaly]

What have either of you exposed?

Lets start from the beginning;

amfa won WN representation in 2002 using, as part of their campaign, a promise to go hard on the company and negotiate "improvements" to their contract. The company proposes an extension with ZERO all around improvements and amfa rolled over on the members and took it. Your rebuttal to this was an apparent wage increase although you have never been clear about this or what the rate of increase was. This is, however, a contrast to what was written in the press.

DALLAS, Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) are proud to announce that the parties have reached a tentative agreement with a four-year term. The Company is pleased with this cost neutral contract which delivers raises in exchange for work rule improvements and contract flexibility. The current collective bargaining agreement became amendable on August 16, 2008.

If you are offered pay increases, but pay for those increases by giving up work rules and allowing greater contract flexibility, you have made ZERO improvements. You have only shifted and done so without the benefit of negotiating to provide the company with COST NEUTRAL options. How nice of amfa to take cars of the company like that.

As you correctly stated, several unions gave in to concessions during this time because the airlines were loosing money. No argument. However, you ignore the fact that Southwest Airline in 2004 made a profit of $373 million and amfa could not benefit from that. If you go into a new agreement term and have ZERO improvements, you have just made concessions. If you have just extended an agreement with a profitable company and gotten ZERO out of it, you have been screwed.

Again, my unanswered question; did amfa explain to the members that WN was profitable during a time they were essentially asking for concessions? Yes or No ?

My guess is NO. amfa did not.

Teamsters bring in leading and expert economists and actuaries to help sift through corporation financial reports during negotiations. In 2004, amfa had Kevin McCormick. real estate mogul turned union expert. He failed us at UAL in 2004 as well.

In November 2004, AMFA and UAL commenced concessionary bargaining. According to AMFA Administrator Kevin McCormick, "AMFA accepted as accurate the significant economic components (including, for instance, overtime factors and fringe benefit calculations) used by UAL's labor cost projection/model for purposes of obtaining concessions from each of the affected labor unions." The other unions challenged and made corrections to these numbers, McCormick did not. He accepted the numbers given to him by the company as face value, and amfa did what McCormick suggested.

As the appointed National Administrator, McCormick was directly involved in all amfa contracts and had the last word on financial matters involving contract negotiations....or extensions.

More about McCormick can be found on these sites.

http://www.businessw...ors-outside-man
http://encycl.opento...nal_Association
http://www.airlinecr...p/t-175303.html
http://workinglife.t...up_press_w.html
http://www.transform...01_archive.html
http://www.teamster....evealed2008.pdf

So I guess you're the proof that common sense aint so common ... your posts are there for all to read ... you want to keep making a bigger fool of yourself with this inane crap, by all means continue.

Fine. Make a counter to the post above. I am waiting.

 

[Anomaly]

Tic Toc.....


............................Tic Toc



I bet this takes a while

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

And another text-book dodge attempt by the forum leader.

The post above WASN'T an exchange between you and me, and you're quite well aware of that.

I exposed your twisted reasoning on the subject of IPTE guidelines & teamster deception and your ridiculous attempt to try and introduce LOA74-1M and then turn around and try to cite me for the comparison.

Here is a little refresher for you....

Your response where YOU try and introduce LOA74-1M among other things .....

So by your explanation, each time amfa did that to us at UA, it was deception and not just poor leadership? Good to know.

When amfa chose to remove LOA 74-1M "Bumping rights of laid off Employees" from the UA agreement, this did affect contract language and the entire membership and caused significant distress to several of our members which still affects some. This change to the contract was done without a vote by the membership. Deceptive.

Do I have to mention again that under amfa NWA mechanics were sent out on strike without a look and vote on the companies last best and final offer? More deception.

YOU may be okay with that, others are not.

Nice try though...again

My response...

And just when did AMFA EVER present a proposal to the UAL stewards/membership that they had already previously agreed to?

When the ALRs voted to remove LOA74-1 without a membership vote, it was wrong. As they freely told the membership when they did it, it WAS NOT Deceptive.

Additionaly, they stood accountable to the membership via recall, which one here in SFO was.

AMFA members were well aware of the companys last offer at NWA, which was WORSE than the previous they had voted down. No deception there.

I would've offered another "Nice Try" but your arguments are getting abit ridiculous.

Your response, where after introducing LOA74-1M you try and cite me for a comparison YOU INTRODUCED...

No, my arguments are sound. You are comparing a local agreement for guidelines to language that caused many of our members and friends to be relocated 100's of miles away from where they could have bid just a short time before? Ask the guys with family in San Francisco who were relocated to Chicago if 1 recall made up for this?

This was one of the major reasons UA decided to dump amfa. You just continue to play it down.

And AGAIN my response exposing your nonsense....

Your arguments are nonsense!

From above....

Quote

.....You are comparing a local agreement for guidelines to language that caused many of our members and friends to be relocated 100's of miles away........

I'm comparing???

Who brought LOA74-1M into this thread?

I DIDN'T!

YOU DID!

Yet now YOU try and attack me for the comparison subject that YOU introduced to the topic.

After having been exposed yet again, you resort to the oh-so-typical teamster PR 101....telling me to "quit bitchin" ...It is at this point swamt enters our little back-n-forth with this post ...

This is how he answers when he gets stumped or caught red handed.

Now here is where in typical teamster fashion you try to tie me into his argument with you when you respond with .....

What have either of you exposed?

Lets start from the beginning;

amfa won WN representation in 2002 using, as part of their campaign, a promise to ....

You are clearly talking strictly about the campaign at SWA and you never even mention LO74-1M or the IPTE guidelines .....

I respond again, on the topic between YOU & ME .....NOT you & swamt

What have I exposed? How about your twisted nonsensical reasoning.

YOU brought up LOA74-1M in a futile attempt at comparison to the UAL BAs deception on the IPTE guidelines, and when I exposed your flawed logic you then made a lame attempt to ridicule me for the comparison that YOU YOURSELF introduced to the thread.

I could comment on the rest but that was swamts baby and I'm not going to steal his thunder.

Since at this point you cannot refute it, you simply and ridiculously try to deny it...

OK, so you have exposed nothing..... Thanks

This is where I comment on your obvious lack of common sense...

So I guess you're the proof that common sense aint so common ... your posts are there for all to read ... you want to keep making a bigger fool of yourself with this inane crap, by all means continue.

Which brings us back to the present....

Exposed yet again ..... and you asked for it!

 

[Anomaly]

Exactly.....

Still waiting......?

What have either of you exposed?

Lets start from the beginning;

amfa won WN representation in 2002 using, as part of their campaign, a promise to go hard on the company and negotiate "improvements" to their contract. The company proposes an extension with ZERO all around improvements and amfa rolled over on the members and took it. Your rebuttal to this was an apparent wage increase although you have never been clear about this or what the rate of increase was. This is, however, a contrast to what was written in the press.

DALLAS, Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) are proud to announce that the parties have reached a tentative agreement with a four-year term. The Company is pleased with this cost neutral contract which delivers raises in exchange for work rule improvements and contract flexibility. The current collective bargaining agreement became amendable on August 16, 2008.

If you are offered pay increases, but pay for those increases by giving up work rules and allowing greater contract flexibility, you have made ZERO improvements. You have only shifted and done so without the benefit of negotiating to provide the company with COST NEUTRAL options. How nice of amfa to take cars of the company like that.

As you correctly stated, several unions gave in to concessions during this time because the airlines were loosing money. No argument. However, you ignore the fact that Southwest Airline in 2004 made a profit of $373 million and amfa could not benefit from that. If you go into a new agreement term and have ZERO improvements, you have just made concessions. If you have just extended an agreement with a profitable company and gotten ZERO out of it, you have been screwed.

Again, my unanswered question; did amfa explain to the members that WN was profitable during a time they were essentially asking for concessions? Yes or No ?

My guess is NO. amfa did not.

Teamsters bring in leading and expert economists and actuaries to help sift through corporation financial reports during negotiations. In 2004, amfa had Kevin McCormick. real estate mogul turned union expert. He failed us at UAL in 2004 as well.

In November 2004, AMFA and UAL commenced concessionary bargaining. According to AMFA Administrator Kevin McCormick, "AMFA accepted as accurate the significant economic components (including, for instance, overtime factors and fringe benefit calculations) used by UAL's labor cost projection/model for purposes of obtaining concessions from each of the affected labor unions." The other unions challenged and made corrections to these numbers, McCormick did not. He accepted the numbers given to him by the company as face value, and amfa did what McCormick suggested.

As the appointed National Administrator, McCormick was directly involved in all amfa contracts and had the last word on financial matters involving contract negotiations....or extensions.

More about McCormick can be found on these sites.

http://www.businessw...ors-outside-man
http://encycl.opento...nal_Association
http://www.airlinecr...p/t-175303.html
http://workinglife.t...up_press_w.html
http://www.transform...01_archive.html
http://www.teamster....evealed2008.pdf