Company's Offer

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

No, just another falsehood. Fuel for road use has been heavily taxed in Europe forever. Jet Fuel has cost the same in Europe as it has in the USA. Which is about the same as it costs in Asia or Africa or S America. Not quite as funny as when NHBB kept on posting that there were gas stations in Ontario where gas was under a dollar a gallon (he didn't realize that it is priced in litres), but a good one nonetheless.

If jet fuel had cost $4/gal in Europe all these years, do you really believe that AA would have flown all those flights to London and the continent from JFK? If you look at the financials for BA or LH or AF, you'll find that they tend to pay almost exactly the same for jetA as AA. 10 years ago they paid a little more than $0.50, just like AA did and last year they paid over $2.00 just like AA did.

Then how come we "tanker' fuel to many destinations.

Because it cost more thats why
:huh:

 

[Bagbelt]

I can't speak for the Mta. The Twu isn't here. There is a shortage of guys to fix subway and diesel electric cars. The propulsion of a jetbridge is very similar to a electric train.

 

[FWAAA]

Then how come we "tanker' fuel to many destinations.

Because it cost more thats why
:huh:

Like I posted before - nonsense begets more nonsense.

Fuel is not tankered to London or any other European city on a routine basis. Fuel tankering has happened stateside on occasion when the price difference between hubs is particularly large (like between DFW and LAX).

In times of fuel shortage, AA has had to tanker some fuel into London, like two years ago when LHR's fuel farm exploded. Read about it here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1139360492...l?mod=googlewsj

Any evidence that jet fuel has always cost $4/gal in Europe like Bob Owens mistakenly asserted?

Last year, AA paid $2.20/gal for nearly 3 billion gallons of jetA, not counting hedging gains. For the 12 months ended 3/31/08, BA (BA uses a 3/31 fiscal year end) paid $2.45 for its jet fuel before hedging gains. That is more per gallon, but BA's numbers include the first quarter of this year, when the spot price of jetA has been near $3.50/gal worldwide. Doesn't look like $4/gal to me, and appears to be just about the same price as AA paid.

 

[TWU informer]

FWAAA, FrequentflierCA, and eoleson are all speaking from the same book/party line.

Each always says they "hope we get the best" but we are just wrong in our thinking. Then spew the corporate agenda or fear monegering BS.

I personally think the so-called customers that know about lean times, and the so-called previous management types all of which seem to now work for a consulting type of firm hired to attempt to influence the internet bulletin boards and blogs need to stay out of our negotiations and internal problems.

Go away, we are on to you. Not hard to see you are either all one in the same or well trained together in what coporate wants posted here.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Like I posted before - nonsense begets more nonsense.

Fuel is not tankered to London or any other European city on a routine basis. Fuel tankering has happened stateside on occasion when the price difference between hubs is particularly large (like between DFW and LAX).

In times of fuel shortage, AA has had to tanker some fuel into London, like two years ago when LHR's fuel farm exploded. Read about it here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1139360492...l?mod=googlewsj

Any evidence that jet fuel has always cost $4/gal in Europe like Bob Owens mistakenly asserted?

Last year, AA paid $2.20/gal for nearly 3 billion gallons of jetA, not counting hedging gains. For the 12 months ended 3/31/08, BA (BA uses a 3/31 fiscal year end) paid $2.45 for its jet fuel before hedging gains. That is more per gallon, but BA's numbers include the first quarter of this year, when the spot price of jetA has been near $3.50/gal worldwide. Doesn't look like $4/gal to me, and appears to be just about the same price as AA paid.

You are a liar
On more than one occasion particulary to South America fuel has been 'tankered'

And this has been done more as of lately.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

FWAAA, FrequentflierCA, and eoleson are all speaking from the same book/party line.

Each always says they "hope we get the best" but we are just wrong in our thinking. Then spew the corporate agenda or fear monegering BS.

I personally think the so-called customers that know about lean times, and the so-called previous management types all of which seem to now work for a consulting type of firm hired to attempt to influence the internet bulletin boards and blogs need to stay out of our negotiations and internal problems.

Go away, we are on to you. Not hard to see you are either all one in the same or well trained together in what coporate wants posted here.

I love their take on our plight.
It just makes me want to run out there and give AA 110 prcent.
The more I hear about how lucky we are to have a job the more it reflects in my job performance.
Like I said the only people who will continue to suffer are the flying public.

Call it spite call it being disgruntled call it whatever you want.
I will call it satisfaction
Have a nice flight and sorry for the cancelled flight and the 3 day delay but fixing things as of lately has become quite a chore. With the substandard wage and the executive payouts alot of people as of lately just dont seem to have as much enthusiam as they use to. As allways thank you for making AA your choice in air travel.

 

[FWAAA]

You are a liar
On more than one occasion particulary to South America fuel has been 'tankered'

And this has been done more as of lately.

You have no idea what you're talking about. But you do have a lot of class, I'll grant you that.

 

[FWAAA]

FWAAA, FrequentflierCA, and eoleson are all speaking from the same book/party line.

Each always says they "hope we get the best" but we are just wrong in our thinking. Then spew the corporate agenda or fear monegering BS.

I personally think the so-called customers that know about lean times, and the so-called previous management types all of which seem to now work for a consulting type of firm hired to attempt to influence the internet bulletin boards and blogs need to stay out of our negotiations and internal problems.

Go away, we are on to you. Not hard to see you are either all one in the same or well trained together in what coporate wants posted here.

Tinfoil hats must sell at a real premium in your part of Tulsa. 😀

As usual, you discuss the other people who post here (the ones with whom you disagree) instead of sticking to the actual topic - which is the Company's Offer. Predictable, since you've perfected it so many times before.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

I big apology if this has already been posted in this form.

I know a lot of agents that would be extremely happy with this proposal. Unfortunately, in order for the company to pay this out, they'll have to get it from somewhere else - most likely, from the agent group:

Two years – with the option to open early six months prior to the amendable date
Pay:

Lump sum payments as follows:
Five percent (5%) on date of signing
Three and one half percent (3.5%) one year after date of signing
Commitment to explore a performance-based variable compensation plan, which is tied to corporate and local business results.
Holidays:

One additional holiday in 2008 (Day after Thanksgiving)
Two additional holidays in 2009 (MLK Day and Memorial Day, in addition to the Day after Thanksgiving)
Increase holiday rate of pay to double time from time and a half
Sick Leave:

Increase sick leave accrual rate to six (6) days in 2008
Increase sick leave accrual rate to eight (8) days in 2009
Full pay for sick leave
Vacation:

Three additional Day-at-a-Time (DAT) Personal Days per year, effective 2009
Flexibility in choosing which days to take off, subject to operational requirements
Employees have the option of being paid in lieu for these
Health and Retirement Benefits/Pensions:

All benefits and pensions remain the same
Profit Sharing:

Adopt new profit sharing plan effective 2008 to be paid in 2009
Plan pays out at first dollar of profit
Plan accumulates as follows:
$1-$250 million = 30 percent
$250 million - $500 million = 25 percent
$500 million and above = 20 percent


SOURCE LINK


It's not everything that was taken, but it sounds like a decent start.

Thanks for your reading patience and again, apologies if this has already been posted in this form.

 

[FWAAA]

Wing: TWU has already told the company to shove it:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080517/american_ai...labor.html?.v=3

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Yes I know. Rather than "shove it" I think I would have used it as a base to counter. At least it is something to work with which is a helluva lot more than the pilots got so far.

 

[limit]

Yes I know. Rather than "shove it" I think I would have used it as a base to counter. At least it is something to work with which is a helluva lot more than the pilots got so far.

Regardless of what one thinks of the offer ,if you read the release it was pretty much a take it or leave it deal.

For me the money is not even close.
I can accept the vacation and sick time changes for now, and a twu VEBA is an absolute deal breaker for me.
The same goes for work rules.
I need to see them before I vote.

Performance-based variable compensation plan?
Show me the plan first, which must be in addition and not in lieu of traditional pay raises.

 

[DallasConehead]

I would have to say it was the worst agreement for us all. As far as being unskilled, you couldn't do my job without training and the time you put into your training is why you do make a higher salary. Personally I didn't want to work 15 or more yrs on midnights so I made my choice. So just because I'm in the fleet world, I do not love it. The deal sucks. I can take it or leave it. It's not much money. An insult?? It's around $7,500 or so and no changes in our benefits and pensions. I know that means something to our retirees. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had wanted money back and that would have been an insult. It might make since to put in an option to open earlier if economics improve. Better to have a contract if this whole thing craps out. Just an opinion. Like I said if this is the best offer from the company and it's going to go on for months and months. I'd rather be able to vote on it myself and maybe battle again in a year and half from now. We would not be the big losers if this craps out anyway. It's not my job they are looking to rape. My rock is very comfortable thank you and DOT testing ?? You know how many AMT's that I know have lost their jobs due to drugs and alcohol. Don't put yourself on any pedestal my friend. We all can have that problem. I've been around for over 25yrs at this company and have friends in all tile groups. I respect all groups around the system.

I wouldn't want to do your job. I went to college and got a degree, then the military for experience. I have more then 27 years experience on transport type aircraft. All of that equals training and skill. You sir are unskilled in my book.
Whats more, your pay rates are among the highest in the industry, its no surprise you would want to accept the offer.
As for aircraft maintenance we are among the lowest paid. Hence the reason why the offer is unacceptable.
IMO Fleet should take the money and run and leave Mechanic and Related to continue negotiating.
As far as DOT testing goes, Mr. I know what goes on out on the ramp among the rampers, it can be a very dangerous place for others.

Ledt me see in 2003 I lost my full time status, went to part time (only cities avialable, could not afford to live), plus took the pay cut, so I have been through it. It ended up costing me and my family 60%. Had to re-fi the house etc. etc.
So trust me I know what everyone went through, some worse than others.

As far as the scenario, that I typed, that is what almost happened in 2003. If some peep's here remember.
They wanted to out-scource every city that did not have at least 15 flights. The five dollars an hour was not part of it, of course.

People just see the dollar amount, and do not look at the ramifications that getting that money intails. The company, in no-way would give any work group that kind of money, with-out getting something in return.

In the long of it we would get that money back. But how many jobs and cities(out-scourced) would it cost. :angry:

It seems to me it's all about you, and if you want this agreement, you should have the ability to vote and accept it. As for me, our Title group should have our own perogative to reject it and go back to the table. Whatever gains we get should be independent of you and your title group.

Do me a favor ignore me. Your really becomming a pain in my arse.
And if you really feel the need to know who I am, I am a full time FSC in TUS. My employee number is 166024(look it up), I have three kids a wife and work my arse off for a living. Unlike you who has nothing good to say about anything that you do not agree with. The closest I have ever been involved with the union as far elected board, was I was a union steward for all of one year, but at that time I did not agree with the way our local was handling certain things and resigned. Now that you know my whole life story, give me yours, ooh wait I probably already know, you are probably a single divorced man who is pissed at the world because they all do not see thiongs the way you do. Grow up talk like a man, because right now you are ranting like a little kid, who's ball was taken from him

Again, it's all about you. Since you want to make accusations as to how someones life is, lets start with yours, probably in hock up to your arse living above your means, big house payment, car payments, credit card debt, very little liquid savings. Try acting your wage. Then you wouldn't be so quick to jump on the scraps they toss you.

 

[TWU informer]

It seems the VEBA TWU plan like the UAW/GM plan has vanished from the proposal.

At least the company version I received via e-mail doesn't mention the VEBA

 

[TWU informer]

Tinfoil hats must sell at a real premium in your part of Tulsa. 😀

As usual, you discuss the other people who post here (the ones with whom you disagree) instead of sticking to the actual topic - which is the Company's Offer. Predictable, since you've perfected it so many times before.

No I have a problem with those that have no stake in the situation claiming untruthfully as to who they are and what they are here for debating our futures.