Honeymoon's over?

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
American's labor relations on the rocks over executive bonuses


FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Union leaders have many ways to vent their displeasure at corporate executives. They can file grievances, write letters or organize picketing.

Tommie Hutto-Blake showed a movie.

The president of the flight attendants' union at American Airlines wanted to tell Chief Executive Gerard Arpey that labor relations are rocky because American will give millions in bonuses to executives but not to rank-and-file workers.

Hutto-Blake says the bonuses - which will total an estimated $175 million for 1,000 managers - don't match Arpey's motto to labor: "Pull together, win together."

So at a meeting of about 20 labor leaders and top executives, including Arpey, Hutto-Blake showed "Collision Course," a 1980s documentary about the union-management strife that helped sink Eastern Airlines.

"Their slogan was 'Working together,"' Hutto-Blake said of Eastern. "Somebody else tried to do this before. It was so eerie. It's a difficult film because we all know the ending."

Hutto-Blake and other union leaders say that slogans aside, labor-management relations at the nation's largest airline are the worst since 2003, when Arpey replaced an unpopular CEO and saved the company from bankruptcy. And they point to those bonuses.

Arpey, who declined a bonus last year, will get about $7.6 million in stock at the current price for shares of American's parent, AMR Corp. The next two highest-ranking officers would get $8 million between them, according to union calculations.

The payments have been around for several years and used to be in cash, but in much smaller amounts. The payout this month would, at AMR's current share price, equal three-fourths of the company's $231 million profit for all of 2006.

As in past years, rank-and-file employees won't get them.

The payouts are pegged only to AMR's stock price from 2004 through 2006. In that time, the shares rose from $12.95 to $30.23, as AMR rebounded from near-bankruptcy to earn its first profit in six years.

American officials say executives are paid in the middle of the pack for comparable jobs inside and out of the airline business. They say Arpey's salary ($526,620 in 2005, the last figure available) is half the median of CEOs at companies of similar size.

And they defend the stock payouts, saying they account for up to one-fourth of managers' compensation and aren't guaranteed. If AMR stock falls, they don't get the "performance shares" - the term the company prefers to "bonuses."

But union officials say it was their members who made the payouts possible. In 2003, with AMR on the brink of bankruptcy, they took pay cuts of 15 to 23 percent, helping AMR cut its labor costs by $1.8 billion per year and recover from a recession, terror attacks and increased competition in the airline industry.

They bristle that while rivals Continental Airlines Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc. shared profits for 2006, AMR did not.

"There is no notion of shared rewards," said Ralph Hunter, president of the pilots union. He said employee sacrifices made it possible for AMR to earn a profit in 2006 after five straight money-losing years, while management took smaller pay cuts.

Company officials respond that AMR is on track to pay profit-sharing for 2007. And they say employees are already benefiting richly from the run-up in AMR's stock because they got options for 38 million shares back in 2003.

Those options carried a strike price of $5 a share, and half had been exercised by the end of 2006, officials said. On paper, they estimate that the options are worth $1 billion today.

In addition, AMR has kept its defined-benefit pension plan - unlike several carriers who filed for bankruptcy.

"Our employees by and large are still better off than if they had Continental's contract plus Continental's profit-sharing," said Mark Burdette, AMR's vice president of employee relations.

Union complaints over management bonuses are erupting just as the unions are beginning to bargain for new contracts to replace the concessionary deals they approved in 2003.

The pilots' union recently started negotiations on a new contract to take effect in May 2008. The Transport Workers Union, which represents mechanics and other ground workers, will begin bargaining this fall, to be followed early next year by the flight attendants.

Hutto-Blake said flight attendants want "considerable" restoration of wages and benefits to pre-2003 levels.

AMR tried to charge retirees more for using out-of-network doctors and to change drug coverage, but it backed down in February after the flight attendants protested, according to union and company officials.

Hutto-Blake figures the company will take another run at retiree health benefits during contract talks.

Hunter said the pilots haven't exchanged specific proposals with the company yet, but they want "a pretty significant recapturing of our purchasing power."

The negotiations will be watched closely on Wall Street as a test of American's ability to control costs. Philip Baggaley, an analyst with Standard & Poor's. said American has some leverage going into negotiations because other carriers have lowered their labor costs through the bankruptcy process.

"AMR currently has somewhat higher labor costs than the other legacy carriers, not to mention the low-cost carriers," Baggaley said. "Anything that further widens that gap would be a concern."

American endured a flight attendant strike in 1993, a pilot sickout in 1999 and an open revolt - over executive perks - in 2003. Just a few months ago, conflict between management and pilots helped scuttle American's bid for a new U.S.-China route.

But there have also been several labor-management success stories on Arpey's watch.

First, AMR avoided bankruptcy, which would likely have wiped out employees' pensions. The company and the unions lobbied successfully in Washington for pension relief. The Transport Workers Union cooperated with the company to cut costs and attract outside work that might have saved a Tulsa, Okla., facility from shutting down.

Hunter said, however, that the bonuses have ended a period of relative labor harmony and "led to a shift back to a more traditional relationship - an adversarial bargaining relationship."

The pilots might even try to mimic the stock-based bonuses for management. Burdette said the union has asked about it in early negotiations sessions.

Burdette conceded that the stock payouts have affected morale at the 70,000-employee airline, "but they continue to come to work, do their jobs and do them well. They've been around a long time, and they know their future is tied to the success of American."
 
In Tulsa, the Overland Resource Group, along with the TWU and AA advocates are showing the documentary "Collision Course" as a fear tactic to propagate the "Working Together". The video is being shown as part of a "leadership training class".

The Tulsa crowd is too stupid to see who was really to blame for the demise at Eastern. Instead, the Eastern Video, is used to get nay-sayers of this Overland Program to fear not being involved.

Strange how one union uses this video to scare management, and the other uses it to scare members.

My personal opinion is the AA is about to suffer a major meltdown, both in the relationships with employees, customers, and the stock market. These idiots that have hired outside consultants to run the airline have now got themselves in a no win situation. And "they" deserve the bonuses so they don't leave the company? I say cancel the bonuses and fire their asses instead of fearing they might leave.
 
There are a number of ways Arpey & Co. can approach this, ever mindful that all the contracts are fast coming due, AND (IMHO)even more Importantly, soon to be announced new A/C purchases.

Though I hope this does'nt work out "this way", I Strongly believe AA will shift a significant amount of domestic main line, to A/E !(While continuing to grow International routes/flying !)

NO, I'm not suggesting that our passengers will be flying "needle nosed" EMB 145's from BWI/ORD.

But, whats to Prevent Gerard from buying a load of EMB 170's/190's ?? Under this scenario, the pasengers are happy, and AA reduces COST$, noticably !

I see the larger Embraers often, here in MHT, and they are not bad looking birds, PLUS AMR is "high" on Embraers list of customers.(Potential QUICK deliveries)

Does any of this sounds familiar ? Well it should, as far as AA is concerned.
We use to have a controvercial CEO, some years back, that PREDICTED AA would NOT spend a lot of money, chasing lower fares !

Hmmmmm.

NH/BB's
 
There are a number of ways Arpey & Co. can approach this, ever mindful that all the contracts are fast coming due, AND (IMHO)even more Importantly, soon to be announced new A/C purchases.

Though I hope this does'nt work out "this way", I Strongly believe AA will shift a significant amount of domestic main line, to A/E !(While continuing to grow International routes/flying !)

NO, I'm not suggesting that our passengers will be flying "needle nosed" EMB 145's from BWI/ORD.

But, whats to Prevent Gerard from buying a load of EMB 170's/190's ?? Under this scenario, the pasengers are happy, and AA reduces COST$, noticably !

I see the larger Embraers often, here in MHT, and they are not bad looking birds, PLUS AMR is "high" on Embraers list of customers.(Potential QUICK deliveries)

Does any of this sounds familiar ? Well it should, as far as AA is concerned.
We use to have a controvercial CEO, some years back, that PREDICTED AA would NOT spend a lot of money, chasing lower fares !

Hmmmmm.

NH/BB's
Well thats pretty much already happening. AA has around the same number of employees as it had 15 years ago, (so all the sacrifices for growth were for naught)however AE has more now than they did in the past.

Lets also not forget the deal AA has with AE. AA subsidizes AE by buying all its seats, thus guaranteeing that AE is profitable. This also increases AAs costs and makes it look like AAs costs are higher than carriers that dont subsidize other carriers.

As AE continues to grow and add more employees and equipement those costs will be end up being reflected on AAs bottom line. While it all gets added together with AMR it still impacts AAs costs and the company uses these distorted figures to try and get the unions to get workers at AA to make efforts to lower their costs to match so called "competitors".
 
Well thats pretty much already happening. AA has around the same number of employees as it had 15 years ago, (so all the sacrifices for growth were for naught)however AE has more now than they did in the past.

Lets also not forget the deal AA has with AE. AA subsidizes AE by buying all its seats, thus guaranteeing that AE is profitable. This also increases AAs costs and makes it look like AAs costs are higher than carriers that dont subsidize other carriers.

As AE continues to grow and add more employees and equipement those costs will be end up being reflected on AAs bottom line. While it all gets added together with AMR it still impacts AAs costs and the company uses these distorted figures to try and get the unions to get workers at AA to make efforts to lower their costs to match so called "competitors".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bob Owens, thanx for the info/updates !

I was checking out www.embraercommercialjets.com, and I must say, that because AMR will never buy another Airbii, the cost, and wait time for 737's, the great relationship between Embraer and AA, the Emb 190/195's could be a "no brainer" for AMR.
What really struck me, was in the range charts(for these birds), the ONLY US city chart was...(You guessed it)..."DFW" !

Crandall's prophesy(SP?)15 years ago, of less and less AA domestic flying, is down right SCARY.

US air has'nt done virtually anything right(from a business standpoint), with the lone exception of buying the EMB 170/175's, and everything that is business wise($$) associated with it.

AA/AMR's COZY relationship with the Brazilian government, does'nt hurt, either.

NH/BB's
 
But, whats to Prevent Gerard from buying a load of EMB 170's/190's ?? Under this scenario, the pasengers are happy, and AA reduces COST$, noticably !

What's stopping him? The fact that the APA scope clause requires that APA members have to fly them, that's what.

Or are you suggesting that the APA would roll over and relax its restrictions on large RJs like the 175/190/195? Or do you think Arpey is gonna pay mainline pilots to fly them? If so, what "lower costs" are we talking about?

As it is, AMR can fly a grand total of 67 airplanes that exceed 50 seats, and when you add the 42 (currently 41) Super ATRs and the 25 CRJ-700s, you get, yep - 67. Eagle is currently flying all the large RJs and turboprops that it's allowed to fly. The 2003 APA concessions allowed Eagle to fly about 500-600 50 seaters, but those days are over. Like you said, customers really like the large Embraers if they can't get a 737, and they won't put up with more 50 seaters. Arpey canceled the final 18 orders for 145s about two or three years ago.

I agree that AA needs the 80-110 seat option. Needs a couple hundred of them (in part, to replace MD-80s). Dunno if it should be flown by Eagle or mainline. But if flown at mainline, Arpey is gonna demand much lower rates than the former F-100 rates, and if flown at Eagle, the APA is gonna demand restoration of all they lost in 2003 and then some. Dunno how APA and Arpey are gonna solve this one.

Well thats pretty much already happening. AA has around the same number of employees as it had 15 years ago, (so all the sacrifices for growth were for naught)however AE has more now than they did in the past.

Well, a lot of things happened in those intervening 15 years, and you know all about the best laid plans . . .

Lets also not forget the deal AA has with AE. AA subsidizes AE by buying all its seats, thus guaranteeing that AE is profitable. This also increases AAs costs and makes it look like AAs costs are higher than carriers that dont subsidize other carriers.

If this paragraph is representative of the level of employee understanding of the capacity purchase agreement between AA and Eagle (or the finances of AMR and AA and Eagle in general), it's little wonder the company has run roughshod over y'all for the last 25 years.

As AE continues to grow and add more employees and equipement those costs will be end up being reflected on AAs bottom line. While it all gets added together with AMR it still impacts AAs costs and the company uses these distorted figures to try and get the unions to get workers at AA to make efforts to lower their costs to match so called "competitors".

Oh, so there is a glimmer of understanding in there after all. Sounds like what you need to do is better edumacate your fellow workers so they aren't so fixated on AA's income and expenses and focus instead on AMR's bottom lines. Like you yourself point out - it doesn't matter what AA pays Eagle or what Eagle charges AA: financially, it's like you charging your kids a billion dollars of rent and then offsetting their billion dollar allowance. Neither transaction makes either of you better or worse off.
 
American's labor relations on the rocks over executive bonuses
The Transport Workers Union cooperated with the company to cut costs and attract outside work that might have saved a Tulsa, Okla., facility from shutting down.

Hunter said, however, that the bonuses have ended a period of relative labor harmony and "led to a shift back to a more traditional relationship - an adversarial bargaining relationship."
I see the twu has once again refused to comment. At least Ralph Hunter comes close to commenting on behalf of the twu, or maybe an just editorial coincidence. But none-the-less, thank you Ralph for speaking on behalf of the twu membership, something they are uncapable of doing.

Got to laugh about Tulsa shutting down because of cutting costs. What the hell were the concessions for, oh that's right "concessions for bonuses," "cost cutting for jobs." :shock:
 
Most carriers have capacity purchasing agreements. Actually, when CO spun off ExpressJet they guaranteed a profit magin for each of the jets ExpressJet flies on CO's behalf. So, in short, the arguement Bob throws out there isn't very factual. It's why most regionals are so profitable.

This bonus flap is pretty bogus. Everyone got stock...everyone could exercise it. There's cash coming out of the till...
 
This bonus flap is pretty bogus. Everyone got stock...everyone could exercise it. There's cash coming out of the till...
Yeah right, like my couple of shares that I got in exchange for $125,000 and growing is equal (shared sacrifice) to the millions of shares that the so-called "top talent" gets. Once again, they've been reimbursed several times over for their alleged sacrifices, and I'll never be reimbursed for real sacrifices. So, there will never be peace with the labor groups with the current (same as always) management mentality, except pajama party peace with the current crop of twu leadership.
 
"...they've been reimbursed several times over..." Really? You can prove this. You can tell us what AMR stock would have been had 9/11 and the resulting downturn had not happened? That's pretty amazing. Given this ability it's amazing you're working at the airline at all. It would seem your investment knowledge should have paid off by now to the tune of millions. Or, maybe you're just overly bitter that you failed to put 2 & 2 together when mgmt took paycuts and would have an opportunity to recoup a portion of theirconcessions through their stock programs, much like you could.
 
"...they've been reimbursed several times over..." Really? You can prove this.
Do I need to write slower for you, maybe use pictures, or charts and graphs possibly? What part of the amount of money that they gave up has been reimbursed several times over do you not understand? What part of my stock options will never equal my concesions do you not understand? Are you considered "top talent," if so, that explains everything? ;)
 
Well, given that mgmt has always had a bonus program (previously a cash system that is now stock) you can't say it has fully reimbursed them. So, no, I don't need you to do anything different. You clearly don't understand how mgmt has been compensated previously and obviously won't accept that your union is blowing smoke where there is no fire...just bitterness of realizing that life isn't fair and not everyone is equal.

As for me, I left the airlines because of the concessions my company was asking of me with only a possible future payout. I was asked to stay and offered a promotion to do so, but with an impending paycut would have only been getting what I was already getting at a lower level job.
 
Well, given that mgmt has always had a bonus program (previously a cash system that is now stock) you can't say it has fully reimbursed them. So, no, I don't need you to do anything different. You clearly don't understand how mgmt has been compensated previously and obviously won't accept that your union is blowing smoke where there is no fire...just bitterness of realizing that life isn't fair and not everyone is equal.

As for me, I left the airlines because of the concessions my company was asking of me with only a possible future payout. I was asked to stay and offered a promotion to do so, but with an impending paycut would have only been getting what I was already getting at a lower level job.

That is a good example of management's ability to circumvent a concessionary agreement. Just change the title. Pay and job function remain the same. TWA was notorious for using that tactic.
 
As AE continues to grow and add more employees and equipement those costs will be end up being reflected on AAs bottom line. While it all gets added together with AMR it still impacts AAs costs and the company uses these distorted figures to try and get the unions to get workers at AA to make efforts to lower their costs to match so called "competitors".

Bob,

Eagle is no longer growing. They can't even get enough new hires to fill a class right now.

Sale Eagle off, and see what you get for it. It won't be enough. Who would by them?

Then see how much it really costs to have a real capacity purchase agreement with the lowest bidder. To boot AMR would lose all their intra-company charging tax loop hole benefits.

There is only one way to fix it. AA/APA recapture all AMR flying period.
 
As it is, AMR can fly a grand total of 67 airplanes that exceed 50 seats, and when you add the 42 (currently 41) Super ATRs and the 25 CRJ-700s, you get, yep - 67. Eagle is currently flying all the large RJs and turboprops that it's allowed to fly. The 2003 APA concessions allowed Eagle to fly about 500-600 50 seaters, but those days are over. Like you said, customers really like the large Embraers if they can't get a 737, and they won't put up with more 50 seaters. Arpey canceled the final 18 orders for 145s about two or three years ago.

FWAAA,

Your numbers are incorrect. The ATRs were grandfathered, and are not included. Eagle can still actually take delivery of 25 more remaining CRJ-700s that they continue to hold options on. Additionally they could have taking more EMB-145s. The reason they are not taking any more is because they are way too expensive to operate at the current fuel prices. They simply don't make economic sense any more. In fact they would like to sale some that they have if they could find a buyer.

Like I told Bob, AA/APA needs to recapture all AMR flying. If that means selling Eagle or parts of Eagle they should before their assets are worth even less.