Daddy, why do you work two jobs?

[Hopeful]

MCI will not be included. AFW and TUL will be gone and MCI will have the only AA AMT's. Sounds good to me.

You are truly misguided!
TULSA will do whatever it takes to keep the base open and the work coming in!

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

You are truly misguided!
TULSA will do whatever it takes to keep the base open and the work coming in!

everything except implementing the COLA

 

[FWAAA]

I don't think we need to make this a smear campaign against TULSA. We don't need to insult those who live and work there.
But, I think we need to accept the fact that there very affordable places to live in this country, and Tulsa happens to be one of them.
But to respond and say that we who live in high-cost area should just move to Tulsa is asinine. People have lives and families and it is not always a simple choice to just pick up and move.
I don't think that Tulsa mechanics should make less so the line guys should make more. I think that the high cost line stations should receive a line premium. That's all.

No one should be offended in any way, but is is a fact that the dollar goes a longer way in Tulsa than in LA, NY, Chicago, San Francisco and even Miami.

Maybe if we separated the line stations from the overhaul base namely by separate agreements, like we did when we separated from line cargo, we would not have this animosity towards one another.

Simply, we would not worry about what the "other" guy got!

Exactly. Guys who work at SAN, LAX, JFK, LGA, BOS, ORD, etc. should definitely make more $$$ than guys who work at TUL, MCI or AFW. No doubt about it.

Pre-concession, the approx. $72k mechanics salary (tos) was not enough in those high-cost areas. The $62k now after the concessions is an insult. But let's be realistic: $72k was far more money than it takes to convince guys to work at the overhaul bases in the low cost of living areas. Long ago, the line guys should have been placed on a different pay scale. Pre-concession, they should have made more like $82k or $92k and the guys at the overhaul bases should have been making $60k (or maybe even less).

There are many more overhaul mechanics at AA than line mechanics, so the higher line pay could have been paid for with relatively smaller reductions in the overhaul pay. Cut their pay some, and there's plenty of money to pay the line guys fairly.

That's the way things should have been done. That's the way things should be done now.

But thousands and thousands of guys who live in big houses on the prairie, drive big dually pickups, have boats and campers and toy haulers would scream bloody murder at the suggestion that they should have been paid less all along (and paid less now, too) so their brothers and sisters in the high-cost areas could be paid a fair wage.

Of all the things that you can blame management for, that's not one of them. Blame goes to a whole bunch of guys who think everybody in their classification should be paid the same, regardless of local costs.

 

[Garfield1966]

My factory builds widgets.

I only sell on line and I only mail to your billing address. If you live in NYC, LA, SFO.. etc it will cost you $X to by my widget but if you live in TUL, DFW, LEX .. it will only cost you $Y. Is that fair?

If you live in a city where the cost of living is high, then you can either move, get a higher paying job or work 2, 3 or how ever many jobs you need to work. Not sure why a company should be concerned about your standard of living. If I open up a base of operations in NYC and offer to my widget builders $Z an hour, I will see what I get. If I decide I want better quality folks to build my widgets then I will be forced to offer some sort of compensation that will attract the quality I want or relocate my operation to a location where I can get the quality of folks I want.

Can't survive on $72k a year in NYC or $62k a year? Then you have a decision to make. I am guessing that not everyone in NYC area makes $62 a year (I could be wrong). Maybe you should ask some folks less fortunate than your self (they do exist, trust me) how they manage to survive and raise a family.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

If everyone moves to a low cost area, who's gonna fix the airplanes in NYC,SFO,ORD,LAX,BOS etc. when they break down, Garfield?

 

[Hopeful]

My factory builds widgets.

I only sell on line and I only mail to your billing address. If you live in NYC, LA, SFO.. etc it will cost you $X to by my widget but if you live in TUL, DFW, LEX .. it will only cost you $Y. Is that fair?

If you live in a city where the cost of living is high, then you can either move, get a higher paying job or work 2, 3 or how ever many jobs you need to work. Not sure why a company should be concerned about your standard of living. If I open up a base of operations in NYC and offer to my widget builders $Z an hour, I will see what I get. If I decide I want better quality folks to build my widgets then I will be forced to offer some sort of compensation that will attract the quality I want or relocate my operation to a location where I can get the quality of folks I want.

Can't survive on $72k a year in NYC or $62k a year? Then you have a decision to make. I am guessing that not everyone in NYC area makes $62 a year (I could be wrong). Maybe you should ask some folks less fortunate than your self (they do exist, trust me) how they manage to survive and raise a family.

This argument of relocating due to the cost of living is getting preposterous. Do you think it is possible or even feasible for millions of people to move out of NY and its suburbs?
There are many companies who compensate employees based on location. Do you think that is fair?

We are speaking specifically about AA where salaries are consistent regardless of location. I am well aware there are people who dont make what we make as mechanics.

But there is a big difference between an AA salaried employee living in Tulsa as opposed to someone making considerably less living there. Who do you think is less fortunate? The fact is that an AA employee making an AA salary living in Tulsa is way better off than an AA employee living in NY, LA, SAN, SFO. CHI, and MIA

 

[Vortilon]

My factory builds widgets.

I only sell on line and I only mail to your billing address. If you live in NYC, LA, SFO.. etc it will cost you $X to by my widget but if you live in TUL, DFW, LEX .. it will only cost you $Y. Is that fair?

If you live in a city where the cost of living is high, then you can either move, get a higher paying job or work 2, 3 or how ever many jobs you need to work. Not sure why a company should be concerned about your standard of living. If I open up a base of operations in NYC and offer to my widget builders $Z an hour, I will see what I get. If I decide I want better quality folks to build my widgets then I will be forced to offer some sort of compensation that will attract the quality I want or relocate my operation to a location where I can get the quality of folks I want.

Can't survive on $72k a year in NYC or $62k a year? Then you have a decision to make. I am guessing that not everyone in NYC area makes $62 a year (I could be wrong). Maybe you should ask some folks less fortunate than your self (they do exist, trust me) how they manage to survive and raise a family.

Well, well, here is a big surprise posting from the fat cat.
Truth is, the TWU is to blame. The concessions we took were negotiated by the TWU to preserve headcount, this in turn keeps the dues coming in from more heads on payroll. So, to save money - they carved up our benefits and pay, so we could make a charitable contribution (without the benefit of a write off) to keep as many heads on payroll as possible. The union should have said at the time "if you need to cut costs, then do a reduction in force". At least then, if and when there were recalls - people would come back to good pay and benefits.

Make no mistake, the TWU is in business for itself. The illusion the TWU creates is always just enough to convince some of the simpler minded ones to go with their recomendations. It is amazing to see, yet so predictable.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Of all the things that you can blame management for, that's not one of them. Blame goes to a whole bunch of guys who think everybody in their classification should be paid the same, regardless of local costs.

You are touching on the root of the problem with this union. The power within the M&R part of the union is with overhaul and an International who caters to overhaul. Issues like this will never be removed without removing the union because overhaul can pull a roll-call vote at negotiations, as they have in the past, to stop a COLA for the line. Of course you can't remove the union because the company wants it to remain. :rant: :rant:

 

[MCI transplant]

Well, well, here is a big surprise posting from the fat cat.
Truth is, the TWU is to blame. The concessions we took were negotiated by the TWU to preserve headcount, this in turn keeps the dues coming in from more heads on payroll. So, to save money - they carved up our benefits and pay, so we could make a charitable contribution (without the benefit of a write off) to keep as many heads on payroll as possible. The union should have said at the time "if you need to cut costs, then do a reduction in force". At least then, if and when there were recalls - people would come back to good pay and benefits.

Make no mistake, the TWU is in business for itself. The illusion the TWU creates is always just enough to convince some of the simpler minded ones to go with their recomendations. It is amazing to see, yet so predictable.

<_< ---- But it appears they're not smart enough to figure out that not only did we give them concessions in pay and benefits, we're also loosing head count through attrition!!

 

[Bob Owens]

I have said it a hundred times before.

At no cost to the company implement the COLA and save AA millions a year.

After the shock of trying to live on 15K-25K less a year in the low cost areas. Maybe they will wake up and get rid of the twu.

The only people who have been working for a substandard wage are the high cost of living areas. We have signed the cards all ready.

Actually in order for them to experience what we have to deal with their pay would have to be cut by 50%. There are various Cost of living websites that state that If you earn $60k in Tulsa you would need $120K in New York to maintain a similar lifestyle.

My factory builds widgets.

I only sell on line and I only mail to your billing address. If you live in NYC, LA, SFO.. etc it will cost you $X to by my widget but if you live in TUL, DFW, LEX .. it will only cost you $Y. Is that fair?

A lot of "If's" in there. The fact is there is more money to be made out of NYC or LA or SFO, etc for companies like AA than there is out of Tulsa. AA pays more for landing fees, terminal space, electricity, advertising etc in New York than Tulsa, why should Labor be any different? Most corporations and even the government pay higher wages in high cost areas, why shouldnt AA?

Of all the things that you can blame management for, that's not one of them.

Wrong, this union does what management tells them, therefore no regional cost adjustments because if the union got it for us the company would be pressured into doing the same for its non-union workers and lower management. The fact is that management chooses not to make adjustments for regional cost differences.

Blame goes to a whole bunch of guys who think everybody in their classification should be paid the same, regardless of local costs.

Yes and no. I have no problem with guys in Tulsa earning $72k, I have a problem with them telling me that since $62k is still pretty damn good in Tulsa that I should be willing to accept it in NY.

 

[Garfield1966]

I am feeling a sense of deja vu as far as dues are concerned. I fail to understand why you did not see that coming. A union is a business just like AMR, Xerox, Dell… or whom ever. Their goal is to make money. Since a union does not produce any goods or services, they rely on your dues. Why on earth would a corporation voluntarily reduce their income and as a result the union leaders wages when they can sell out their constituents? I cannot help but see the irony in the fact that you are getting rake over by both management and by your respective unions. The kicker is that you are paying the union extra to hose you. Given the fact that a vast majority of the countries labor goes to work each day with out the benefit of being controlled by a union, don’t you think we would be running for union control if we felt our work conditions were so horrible? Unions have a very bad reputation in the general public. You have a reputation of being thugs, protection for mediocrity, and corrupt. I was at a Ford dealer the other day with a friend who was looking for a car. A salesman and my self got to shooting the bull and he said told me that his dad (and entire family worked for GM). The son did not like GM (had nothing against them just really wanted a Mustang, liked them all his life). His dad would not let him park the car anywhere near his house. Told the son if he had 1 hour to pack his stuff up and move out when the father found out his son worked for Ford. That is the mentality that a vast majority of the US associated with unions. Fanatics who would place friendship and family below their union association. I could not even fathom the idea of kicking my son out of the house because he chose to work for Delta or United or South West or whom ever he chose to work for.

Thread after thread after thread is railing against the unions (all of them) or management. Seems to me that after close to 20 years of service at AA, I have not been screwed over nearly as much as you folks have been. We talk about it at work all the time and I don’t think there is a person on the floor who has indicated that they would want to be represented. You folks have a huge image problem. You come across as bullies. Look at the NWA threads and the “scab-mobileâ€￾ and the “scab of the weekâ€￾ garbage. Do you think that does any good for your image? Do you think that kind of mentality would want to make anyone come to work in a union?

 

[USCREW]

If you want to work in "flight or inflight", joining a union is automatic. Unless you choose the very few companies that are non-union.

 

[alfista]

Just an fyi, with no particular point (other than the obvious)...

I used to work for Boeing, in Wichita. When a Boeing employee transfers from Wichita to another Boeing location, there is a cost-of-living "bonus" paid, based on the location of the new domicile. It's one percentage going to Seattle/Renton, another to Long Beach (more than if going to Washington), and another to St. Louis (less than if going to Washington).

As I said, just an fyi. Now, having said that, let me throw a hint of balance out there, too: Boeing's retirement plan is considerablly less than AA's... believe it or not.

 

[Hopeful]

You folks have a huge image problem. You come across as bullies. Look at the NWA threads and the “scab-mobileâ€￾ and the “scab of the weekâ€￾ garbage. Do you think that does any good for your image? Do you think that kind of mentality would want to make anyone come to work in a union?

The image problem you refer to, yes, in part, is the union leadership's fault. But more of this image has been the result of management's anti-union smear campaign where we are portrayed as just a bunch of overpaid and underworked good for nothings. Management has used the media very effectively to get their message out!
I have a traditionally not anti-union but non union employed family. After they have witnessed what happen to me and airline workers since the PATCO strike, they are no big fans of executives either.
These greedy SOB's set out to destroy organized labor while exempting themsleves from any sacrifces.

"OH, WE NEED TO CUT LABOR COSTS OR WE CAN'T SURVIVE!"
BUT OUR EXECUTIVES NEED A 23% INCREASE IN SALARY BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE ANY OF THES KEY PEOPLE."

They have used the bankruptcy courts to break the unions and have used the same courts to pad their own pockets!

This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELONGING TO A UNION! IT IS ABOUT GREED AND THE GOOD OLD BOYS NETWORK!

 

[Bob Owens]

Given the fact that a vast majority of the countries labor goes to work each day with out the benefit of being controlled by a union, don’t you think we would be running for union control if we felt our work conditions were so horrible?

Well actually if not for the RLA more of AA would be unionized, even our Supervisors tried to unionize.

Unions have a very bad reputation in the general public. You have a reputation of being thugs, protection for mediocrity, and corrupt. I was at a Ford dealer the other day with a friend who was looking for a car. A salesman and my self got to shooting the bull and he said told me that his dad (and entire family worked for GM). The son did not like GM (had nothing against them just really wanted a Mustang, liked them all his life). His dad would not let him park the car anywhere near his house. Told the son if he had 1 hour to pack his stuff up and move out when the father found out his son worked for Ford. That is the mentality that a vast majority of the US associated with unions. Fanatics who would place friendship and family below their union association.

Ford is union so obviously there were other issues.

I could not even fathom the idea of kicking my son out of the house because he chose to work for Delta or United or South West or whom ever he chose to work for.

What if he went to work for Osama Bin Laden?

Seems to me that after close to 20 years of service at AA, I have not been screwed over nearly as much as you folks have been.

Thats because you live in a low cost area but you benifit from the fact that AA has operations in high cost areas.

We talk about it at work all the time and I don’t think there is a person on the floor who has indicated that they would want to be represented.

Probably not to you because they feel you would run to management and get them fired.