Kinder, Gentler, APA?

[boston]

Yes you have a point, but since I've been able to go on strike, I differ on it, and make no mistake I'll do it again, and we may be the same work group to do one more time.

 

[FWAAA]

Another article on the new, kinder, gentler APA-AA labor relations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-union-leaders-at-American-apf-1078442190.html?x=0&.v=3

 

[frontline]

I have no problem with a bankruptcy. If they want a BK class contract, BRING IT ON!

I still think we have a lot more to lose in bankruptcy than we have to gain. If you think the deals we are voting on are concessionary, wait and see what a bk judge does to us. Look no further than United for examples of that. It's lose-lose.

On a more topical note, it looks like the new APA guys are off to a good start.

 

[Bob Owens]

BK isn't just bad for the execs, it's bad for everyone. I don't support pushing the company that direction for the simple reason that it will affect my own pocketbook. That raise and bonus TA will be gone and we'll get a pay cut from the court instead. No more how concessionary some of you argue the current deal is, a deal in bankruptcy is guaranteed to be worse. No one wins except the lawyers.

When all else fails throw out the Bankruptcy scam.
What makes you think the bankruptcy deals would be worse? We already gave AA more than the courts gave the BK carriers, we gave them a 7 year deal with massive cuts. Workers at carriers that went BK make more than we do.

This also brings up a point to Yes voters such as yourself, that is if you arent management.
Some people seem to think that voting YES is a safe vote, what they are forgetting is that we arent the only players here. The pilots could take this company into BK, or the Flight attendants, what good would your YES vote be then? Do you think that the courts would look more favorably on you because of your YES vote? No they wouldnt, the courts just want to help the company keep commerce moving, if you accepted this crappy deal then they would be inclined to think that you would accept even less, however if a union is more militant the courts wont be looking for a showdown because that could blow up in the Judges face. If the Judge sees the union and the membership as weak he will rule agressively against them, if he sees them as militant and strong he will proceed with caution because the last thing the courts want is to create martyrs that a public thats already disgusted with the abuses by the executive class can rally around.

The fact is that nobody, except AA management will bring this company into BK. Look at how much revenue has increased while labor costs have decreased. If the company chooses to not show a profit by burning off the capital even faster than is comes in we cant stop them, but we should not let them use the numbers that they control to control us.

 

[DallasConehead]

What makes you think the bankruptcy deals would be worse? We already gave AA more than the courts gave the BK carriers, we gave them a 7 year deal with massive cuts. Workers at carriers that went BK make more than we do.

I'm curious Bob because I don't know, what did the courts do to the pensions of the workers at the BK carriers?

 

[jimntx]

What happened to their pensions was they got turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Unless, you are eligible for a pension in excess of $45,000/yr (among the non-executives in the airline business, that would be pilots), you would have nothing to fear by a turnover to the PBGC. Itguarantees (see the G in PBGC) pensions to be paid as expected up to $45,000/yr.

Granted, the people who come behind us would not have a defined benefit pension plan, but I think that is going to happen anyway. In all major industries, not just aviation, companies are eliminating DBPs for new employees. They are being offered 401-K plans instead. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. It requires some responsibility on the part of the employee to actively participate in the management of the funds. If they are invested in a fund that is not doing well, it is up to the employee to move his/her money to something better.

By looking at what's going to happen financially in the future on a regular basis, maybe people making $40,000/yr won't be out buying $50,000 trucks/cars. In my field, maybe f/as who are going to be drawing $1500/mo in addition to their Social Security won't be shopping for $800 pairs of shoes and $1000 handbags when on layover in Paris.

Ok, now you to whom this applies can flame on about how it is your right to spend your money however you want to.

P.S. I agree, but then don't whine to me about how you can't afford to retire because the pension plan is so bad. No pension plan and no Social Security was ever intended to be your sole source of income in retirement. If you haven't saved a dime toward retirement, that is no one's fault but yours.

 

[Man of the People]

I really don't see Glading as all that "neutral". The "decline or resign" stuff and the constant saber-rattling over a strike isn't exactly what I'd call a neutral position. Of course it's her job to advocate APFA's interests, but I see her taking plays from the Lloyd Hill playbook routinely.

So what's wrong with taking plays from Lloyd Hill's playbook? APA members will regret the fact Mr. Hill is not there when they see what the new regime brings back. Then the new regime will throw it on the previous regime for their shortcomings at the table. The membership will pout, then take the deal. Happens all the time I'm sorry to say. Ms. Glading has done an admirable job, from an outsider's perspective. I wish her and her crew the best.