HERE ARE THE PROPOSALS

Is it my poor math skills or did the Maintenance and Related Concession totals come up to over $420 Million of the $620 Million requested?
 
People,people! Didn't you see all those "and,or" this was supposed to be a "Menu" to choose what your to give up! You pick 1A, 2B, etc. As long as it all adds up to "X" amount of dollars! But what if you don't want to choose off their "Menu"? Then what????
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/7/2003 12:52:52 AM KC tirechanger wrote:

People,people! Didn't you see all those "and,or" this was supposed to be a "Menu" to choose what your to give up! You pick 1A, 2B, etc. As long as it all adds up to "X" amount of dollars! But what if you don't want to choose off their "Menu"? Then what????
----------------
[/blockquote]

According to company propaganda, time is short and a menu is not good business policy.

The Union requested a comprehensive proposal and got a wish list/menu.

The company must want to blame the union for Chapter 11, and the union wants to blame the company for the concession package.

This sounds like normal everyday AA operations to me and nothing has changed accept propaganda/rhetoric, the finger pointing/blame game is still getting us nowhere fast.

What do you think the Judge's name will be?
 
I would also like guarantees that if and when the company returns to profitablility and maintains an acceptable ROI, that as soon as the CEO and Upper Execs start receiving their "performance" bonuses, that the rest of the employees receive "bonuses" as well!

The reason I say this is because all the employees at AA are being asked, albeit with a gun to our heads, to make "permanent" concessions. What about the upper management team? We can foolishly believe their salaries will be cut, but what about "bonus" and stock options not considered basic compensation?
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/7/2003 5:34:35 AM RV4 wrote:

The Union requested a comprehensive proposal and got a wish list/menu.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I, for one, am glad that I am getting some input into the type of concessions that management will be making. I think by the time this is over, you'll be glad that you were given a broad list of alternatives as well.

$620 million is a lot of money, so you should expect that the changes to reach that goal would be pretty drastic. Don't let your shock over how drastic the changes need to be ruin your perspective on the whole process.

We need concessions now, so it is better to get all of the options on the table ASAP and go from there, rather than start with a very limited proposal by the company and piecemeal negotiate ourselves to the grave.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/6/2003 3:32:00 PM FA Mikey wrote:

Are these modifications permanent or temporary?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Knowing AA management, probably permanent.
 
Yes KC tirechanger we all know you get to pick your poison. Problem is, if you choose from this list, and it adds up to $620 million, you have effectively gutted our contract. With those kind of cuts, you may as well not be union at all.
The maintenance and related starts out saying they can sell or outsource any part of the operation they want. If you read between the lines, that means layoff about 2/3 or more of the workforce.
 
For those of you who think that you'll do better with a judge, I suggest that you go take a long, hard look at what happened with US Airways, and what is already in progress at United.

The only "victory" labor has seen so far in the two current bankruptcy proceedings is that US Airways pilots got additional time to negotiate the fate of their pensions.

Go ahead and take your chances, though...
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/7/2003 8:33:37 AM eolesen wrote:

For those of you who think that you'll do better with a judge, I suggest that you go take a long, hard look at what happened with US Airways, and what is already in progress at United.

The only "victory" labor has seen so far in the two current bankruptcy proceedings is that US Airways pilots got additional time to negotiate the fate of their pensions.

Go ahead and take your chances, though...
----------------
[/blockquote]


Yea, one concession after another layoffs and more layoffs and they still are in Bankruptcy, So what good are concessions/
Ask yourself that question....
 
eolesen:

The point of what's going on in the airline industry is that the airlines have finally arrived at the time economically and politically to "break the unions." This may meet your approval because you probably feel the airlines are in this mess because of union wages and workrules. What about managment's responsibility in all of this? When AA was the "ON TIME MACHINE" five years in a row 89-94, you could not find a supervisor(thanks to Crandall) In maintenance, it was a GF and a couple of crew chiefs running the operation. Now at JFK, the number of supervisor ratio is about 1:20 for amts. There are now 20 supervisors and 26 crew chiefs.

There are now 6 general foremen at JFK. For what? 60 flights a day? Since Carty, the number of GF's has doubled and the number of supervisors has tripled. They used to have 2 people in payroll handling all the time and attendance issues. They got rid of one, reassigned the other and now have the supervisors spending most of their time doing time and attendance.

Waste, wouldn't you say? Now they want to raise the CC/AMT ratio! What about Supervisor/AMT ratio? DOes AA need these "babysitters?"
 
The way I see it is they want 620 mil. If we agree to acticle 1 changes that makes 223.4 mil of it.If we agree to 5 sick days at 100% thats 5.5 mil of it. Don't be fooled by the 1% pay read the **.Its just means 1% equals 10 mil,so if your 50 mil short 5% pay cut.They also want to bring the osm back into the shops they were in prior to this last contract.They want to run it like McDonnell Douglas.A mod line shutsdown,out the door,we will call you.If you downgrade no pay increases no lic.prem.Its to bad the judge will probably shove this down our throats?
 
One should not complain about not being unionized. Especially when it is believed that the unionized work force has fared better.

The proposal if it were accepted would be far greater than 17%. The work rule changes, the elimination of complete work groups? This would eliminate many workers take home pay completely.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/7/2003 9:03:42 AM Hopeful wrote:

What about managment's responsibility in all of this?

----------------
[/blockquote]

That argument is about as effective as yelling at your spouse over last month's utility bill or higher insurance rates due to an accident they were involved in.

It won't change the fact that the bill is due in 30 days, and now in addition to having to find the money, you've pissed off the person you share a home with.

With just the proposed salary and benefits changes for my level of management, I'm looking at a 17% reduction in take-home pay, and that assumes I contribute nothing to a company match 401K.

It also assumes I have a job.

That 17% for me comes after not having seen a raise in three years. I'd gladly welcome offsetting that by half of what the union workgroups have seen in step raises and contractual raises over that same timeframe...

So, continue to whine about management's responsibility all you want to.

It won't do anything to reduce our daily cash burn, and you still won't feel better about it.

But keep whining...
 
I know everybody's upset about this, but that doesn't mean we have to be unprofessional about this discussion.

Nobody freaked out when they heard about the $620 million, but now that has been translated into what it really means to you, you're offended. That's understandable, but it doesn't get us any closer to $620 million. So which of the options on the menu will it be?