I'm ready to go AMFA

[Bob Owens]

Negative. I go around explaining the truth. UA, WN, US, and CO have far less AMTs than AA even under the new language. You never tell the whole story Bob. You are quite alright with stepping over the bodies of overhaul AMT jobs that all those unions walked away from in BK except WN where AMFA is not willing to man up and fight to bring them in-house. You treat overhaul members like they are nothing but pawns to be sacrificed in your chess match. As long as Bob the King is left standing in JFK, that's a win to you.

Thats your position, you say fight to save jobs but we didnt fight, we rolled over. You obviously dont even know what fighting means.
Where is the language that keeps OH in houes? The fact is there isnt any.

You are weak and pathetic in the way you are willing to treat overhaul jobs as an acceptable casualty in your BS war for line AMTs only. I am a line AMT and I will NOT throw my fellow members away like they are cannon fodder. You want to be a bad ass and risk jobs, risk your own tough guy. You are wrapped in a seniority security blanket and know full well you will still be standing after abrogation. Letting others take the hit, that's not tough, that's weak.

You are so tough that you hide behind an alias and call others weak.

In three months or so the RIFs will start, so will our EOs, who are walking away with $40k or less, (UAL got $75k plus I believe all the guys got around $40k in BK to help kick off their 401ks.) well when that happens more than likely most of the guys who are still here will have voted NO, assuming that the EO provided the very narrow margin of victory for the ATD and the Company.

 

[Bob Owens]

They are fighting a battle that will end up with them getting it shoved up their tails. USAPA is still under a TRO from their job action. And it was made permanent. Nice win for labor. Set a great precedent for all other unions. Great job independent craft union!

http://online.wsj.co...2580880816.html

So you did not answer my question, what are the exclusions? Could it be small volume work where AA does not own the overhaul equipment. Spend millions of dollars on something that we do once in a while? And the expense is still part of the outsourcing formula isn't it? Did you ask? Do you know? You make accusations without facts all the time Bob.

If AA work done at TAESL is brought in-house it will be still be part of the 65%. Work done by AA for others, if it goes to some place like SAESL then the formula would need to be adjusted. Why? Because TWU workers are doing the work for other airlines. If RR pulls out of TAESL they signed the contracts with those airlines, not AA. So they would take the work and therefore those jobs. AA supplies the labor as part of the JV and the TWU CBA requires it be staffed with TWU members. Does ours or any other scope clause require their members to do work for another company? No.

Bob, this is where you clearly own why we are now making $33/hour. You and your vote no coalition. We HAD better than UA wages!!! In May 2010!!! You said vote no remember. BK was a scare tactic, there was more money on the table, etc... What a short term memory you have. Convenient. MCTs took their deal and the are STILL getting their wages and they get the pay raises on top of it. Smooth move EXLAX!

I did vote yes for May 2010 and this one. Your rhetoric was leading us to more carnage. The parts are included which makes sense if we are also doing the work.

Were they working under imposed terms?

Why hasn't AA filed?

When they accused us back in 2001 they filed before we even knew there was a supposed job action.

You have a twisted sense of logic, you vote YES for every concession but its the fault of those who say to vote NO that you have to live under those concessions. So if we had recieved those raises wouldnt that mean that we would have had to agree to even more Job cuts to make AA profitable? I mean you keep insisting that we have accept what we make because our low wages save jobs in OH, well if we were being paid as much, or more than United then either we would have had to take a bigger paycut or give up more heads right? Or are you admitting that the cuts we took were arbitrary and not really needed?



Keep lying about the 2010 agreement, maybe someday somebody will believe you.


Of course you agree with adding the parts, because thats what the company wanted.

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok. That was an extremely insightful response.

Did you think that voting no would have stopped outsourcing? AA would have seized on the opportunity to go crazy. The 3/22 term sheet would have allowed 40% outsourcing of work PLUS all existing outsourced work. Read the term sheet. That would have been the 10% that is TAESL, the 10% we currently outsource, plus...PLUS the 40% and that is 60% brother with NO cap on line outsourcing. Then after all the job loss carnage people with pre 1990 seniority might be able to get $42/hour. That's a win? Okay.

Really? Where would they have sent it? The company admitted that capacity was scarce, especially for NB, nobody wants the MD-80s. Why is it taking them till December just to ship out the 777 when wide body OH is the most plentiful? The first plan they showed us had the first RIFs in the Summer.

We gave them the ability to send any plane anywhere. United has restrictions on the NB, even WN has restrictions on overseas, we dont. We have restrictions on the percentage of spend, including parts, whether we install them or not. If parts equals labor costs then they can outsource 70% of the labor if they pay the same as in house, even more if they get it cheaper. Will they? Probably not, why bother if you can do it in house for less?

 

[Overspeed]

Were they working under imposed terms?

Why hasn't AA filed?

When they accused us back in 2001 they filed before we even knew there was a supposed job action.

You have a twisted sense of logic, you vote YES for every concession but its the fault of those who say to vote NO that you have to live under those concessions. So if we had recieved those raises wouldnt that mean that we would have had to agree to even more Job cuts to make AA profitable? I mean you keep insisting that we have accept what we make because our low wages save jobs in OH, well if we were being paid as much, or more than United then either we would have had to take a bigger paycut or give up more heads right? Or are you admitting that the cuts we took were arbitrary and not really needed?



Keep lying about the 2010 agreement, maybe someday somebody will believe you.


Of course you agree with adding the parts, because thats what the company wanted.

USAPA is working under a post-BK agreement. They went on a unauthorized job action and lost. Can a TRO be imposed and hold? Yes. Who cares about imposed terms or not. TRO's can be used to compel workers to stop a job action.

Why haven't they filed for a TRO? I don't know, they don't ask me.

More pay means more job cuts? Then you agree with the logic that to pay more you have to outsource more. Finally Bob, you are getting it now. But if we had been getting $38 and hired less for the last two years and absorbed the attrition we could have captured that value as productivity. Now you are crying about not getting UA wages now and you call the May 2010 CBA concessionary?

Lying about the 2010 CBA? What part of being number two in pay did you not understand. That means only WN was going to be ahead of us. With your "vote no until something good happens" strategy we now make the bottom. Great Bob, that's awesome and you blame me. Voting no would have handed us an abrogated agreement with the 3/22 term sheet and over 50% outsourcing and you would still be at the table. Fact is if we had accepted the 2010 deal we would have been making $38 for the last nearly 36 months. That's more than the $33 you make now and that's real money.

 

[lineguy43]

Negative. I go around explaining the truth. UA, WN, US, and CO have far less AMTs than AA even under the new language. You never tell the whole story Bob. You are quite alright with stepping over the bodies of overhaul AMT jobs that all those unions walked away from in BK except WN where AMFA is not willing to man up and fight to bring them in-house. You treat overhaul members like they are nothing but pawns to be sacrificed in your chess match. As long as Bob the King is left standing in JFK, that's a win to you.

You are weak and pathetic in the way you are willing to treat overhaul jobs as an acceptable casualty in your BS war for line AMTs only. I am a line AMT and I will NOT throw my fellow members away like they are cannon fodder. You want to be a bad ass and risk jobs, risk your own tough guy. You are wrapped in a seniority security blanket and know full well you will still be standing after abrogation. Letting others take the hit, that's not tough, that's weak.

Well the reality is that all the airlines are outsourcing and none of the unions have been able to really stop it. The FAA is really weak in this area as well so what has all the union lobbying done for us? Not much. The union leaders have lined their pockets and the rank and file continue to make substandard wages..Hell the only reason that AMT's today make more than a couple of dollars over a ramp guy was because of AMFA. The whole time I was an AMT at NW under the Iam I made less than a ramp crew chief until my 5th year and even then I didn't make much more. If AMFA had not come along there would be no AMT today making more then 25 dollars an hour. You are not going to throw anyone under the bus cuz more than likely you are an overpaid flunky for the union the only people who actually make a decent wage certainly not the membership.

 

[Bob Owens]

[font=Tahoma']Who cares about imposed terms or not.[/font]

[font=Tahoma']You were singing a different tune a few months back.[/font]

[font=Tahoma']TRO's can be used to compel workers to stop a job action.[/font]

[font=Tahoma']If they can prove a Job action the TRO may become a permanent injunction. Telling licensed Airmen to not work to rule is unenforceable.[/font]

Why haven't they filed for a TRO? I don't know, they don't ask me.

[font=Tahoma']That’s right, the relationship the two of you have works the other way.[/font]

But if we had been getting $38 and hired less for the last two years and absorbed the attrition we could have captured that value as productivity.

[font=Tahoma']So you are saying that we took concessions to save jobs that never should have been created?[/font]

Lying about the 2010 CBA? What part of being number two in pay did you not understand.

[font=Tahoma']Who would have been number two? There was nearly a $5/hr difference in topped out pay within that contract. If one guy actually made it to that top rate (night shift within a much narrower window where the company could have 24 hour coverage without paying anyone the MRT) and the majority was making $5/hr less than that, and around $4/hr less than everyone else in the industry you would still be claiming that we are the highest paid. Well I think that’s at the very least misleading. [/font]

 

[Lloyd Grey]

I notice the one's who talk the toughest also seem to be the fastest pencil-whippers and early snorers.

 

[Overspeed]

[font=Tahoma']You were singing a different tune a few months back.[/font]




[font=Tahoma']If they can prove a Job action the TRO may become a permanent injunction. Telling licensed Airmen to not work to rule is unenforceable.[/font]






[font=Tahoma']That’s right, the relationship the two of you have works the other way.[/font]





[font=Tahoma']So you are saying that we took concessions to save jobs that never should have been created?[/font]





[font=Tahoma']Who would have been number two? There was nearly a $5/hr difference in topped out pay within that contract. If one guy actually made it to that top rate (night shift within a much narrower window where the company could have 24 hour coverage without paying anyone the MRT) and the majority was making $5/hr less than that, and around $4/hr less than everyone else in the industry you would still be claiming that we are the highest paid. Well I think that’s at the very least misleading. [/font]

The question was whether or not USAPA was working under imposed terms when the TRO was issued. I answered who cares because a TRO was issued anyways. I have no idea where you are going with this. The point is a TRO can be issued and made permanent.

Then test it Bob. You will be working the line on Dec 1st and you can lead the way on work to the rule. Show us Bob how it's done.

Yes management gives direction to labor. When I am assigned an AC I do the AC. Horton hasn't been in the break room recently to ask me my thoughts on how to run AA lately.

Top out was $38 and guess what, regardless of who or who was not going to get that, none of us are now. You sure are crying about not making $38 now though. You compare us to UA constantly but we had that Bob. You recommended a no vote on that deal remember. And you state that the majority would be making less than the $38, $4 less. If you are referring to the base then this is getting deep Bob. You are willing to risk overhaul jobs in abrogation but now you say you were against the deal because they would get paid less? Rich Bob, that is rich.

 

[Bob Owens]

The question was whether or not USAPA was working under imposed terms when the TRO was issued. I answered who cares because a TRO was issued anyways. I have no idea where you are going with this. The point is a TRO can be issued and made permanent.

The point is it does make a difference because it raises a different legal question under the RLA. If you have a Job action with an "agreement" in place then its illegal, if the company unilaterally imposes new terms then, under the RLA a job action is legal. C-1113 does not address the issue of post abrogation. There was a court decision, and that decision needs to be challenged but even in that decision they cite the RLA as the authority as far as self help. The courts conclusion in the NWA case was, not just IMO a bad one.The fact is that every other worker in this country is free to strike or engage in other forms of self help following abrogation.All creditors are allowed to withdraw and withhold their assetts upon abrogation-even if it means termination of operations for the company with one exception, and thats only since a ruling in 2007, and thats Unionized Airline Workers.

When I am assigned an AC I do the AC. Horton hasn't been in the break room recently to ask me my thoughts on how to run AA lately.

Be honest, neither have you.

Top out was $38 and guess what, regardless of who or who was not going to get that, none of us are now.

In other words "Dont pay any attention to that man behind the curtain the mighty OZ (or should I say OS) has spoken". You are finally coming close to admitting that the deal would not have put the overwhelming majority of us at number two in the industry and that as long as the company had the MRT on paper they could get away with keeping us at the bottom of the industry by as much as on average of $10,000 a year. You seem to forget that the company said that was a "cost neutral" contract, increases in one area were offset by concessions elsewhere.

 

[Overspeed]

The point is it does make a difference because it raises a different legal question under the RLA. If you have a Job action with an "agreement" in place then its illegal, if the company unilaterally imposes new terms then, under the RLA a job action is legal. C-1113 does not address the issue of post abrogation. There was a court decision, and that decision needs to be challenged but even in that decision they cite the RLA as the authority as far as self help. The courts conclusion in the NWA case was, not just IMO a bad one.The fact is that every other worker in this country is free to strike or engage in other forms of self help following abrogation.All creditors are allowed to withdraw and withhold their assetts upon abrogation-even if it means termination of operations for the company with one exception, and thats only since a ruling in 2007, and thats Unionized Airline Workers.



Be honest, neither have you.



In other words "Dont pay any attention to that man behind the curtain the mighty OZ (or should I say OS) has spoken". You are finally coming close to admitting that the deal would not have put the overwhelming majority of us at number two in the industry and that as long as the company had the MRT on paper they could get away with keeping us at the bottom of the industry by as much as on average of $10,000 a year. You seem to forget that the company said that was a "cost neutral" contract, increases in one area were offset by concessions elsewhere.

Reaching again Bob. It has been explained to you many times, you cannot go on strike even if your agreement is abrogated by 1113c. Your opinion means nothing but a court's does. The NW case is the precedent and all the legal experts agree. Only you and your buddies (who are also mechanics) agree with you. I'll take the lawyers who have a degree over you any day.

Your right, I am not in the break room since I work instead of hang out at the internet cafe.

Admitting we wouldn't be number two. First thing, on your "vote no until something good happens" plan we are now at the bottom. Regardless if you want to blame TUL you knew the odds and the structure you were operating in. We would be number two. While WN may have a four lines worth of airframe overhaul AMTs maybe 400 guys for just over 600 aircraft we have thousands for just over 600 aircraft. If WN used our scope language they would have thousands too. So you need to admit what you are saying, that you are willing to make thousands of AMTs in overhaul on the street so YOU can get number one in pay. Nice Bob, always cherry picking your facts. Why don't you walk in to TUL and tell them you are going to take a gamble here and risk THEIR jobs so YOU can get top wages? You won't because you talk tough surrounded by your cheerleaders but in TUL, you will get your ass handed to you once you tell them the truth.

Oh, and you can through out UA or CO if you want since you reference them now that you want to get at least UA wages. UA only has engine shop and CO only has NB overhaul. So to get at least UA/CO wages their scope clause puts all of airframe or all of engines and CRO will be gone either way. That's only a few thousand more put out of work.

Yes I'll admit it. Base would not make as much as the line but they would get a lot more than unemployment under the WN or UA/CO agreements. Tell the whole story Bob. It really is all about you when it comes to your arguments.

And "cost neutral" is in reference to AA's costs. Compared to the competition we were still higher on maintenance costs.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

As this topic is titled I wonder where the teamsters are? Let alone the twu appointed international officers are.

Teamsters are not welcomed at AA but with the AMFA "raid" where are all the appointed 3X our salary international officers? I know they are busy directing Local Presidents to hold Bad Standing trials for people who promote a craft, democratic union but couldn't they use some of their A5 passes to talk to the troops?

The only defense for the twu structure is from people using multiple aliases?

Go AMFA!

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Now that the TWU is doing away with our locals which will make it even harder to protect the membership, WHY haven't YOU signed an AMFA Card so we can Get RID of Them?