Look out AA, the unions are mad!

[TWU informer]

<_< No Informer---- I'm not talking the seniority issue here! I'm just trying to point out a contrast that obviously your not aware of! First unlike Tulsa, we've been cut back, head count wise, to the point that we can barely service two 767 Air Canada's at the same time! Word has it that the ALCOA 757s will start to show up on, or about the 7th. of Feb., plus we're to do at least twenty five Saabs "C" Checks, return to lease! All sounds great, except management is insisting that there will be no recall! As for the "protection clause" I referred to, I was just pointing out how we here at MCI got to this point! "Our" work (737'S, and later the MD80's) were sent to Tulsa to keep your protected people working when they put the F-100 fleet on the ground! We were not protected, therefor we were the logical people to be let go! And were!

Don't fret there MCI you are still of value to AA management.

Tulsa Base V.P. uses you guys as threat bait.

He recently has been telling the city and state lawmakers that if he doesn't get X-Millions of dollars to build a new hangar then Tulsa will lose 600 jobs to Kansas City.

And you know what? I think they are falling for it and are going to give him his next corporate welfare handout.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< So they're trying it again! Do you have 600 "unprotected' jobs out there in Tulsa! If not, it's a hollow threat! Besides, I don't believe there's too many people there with enough seniority to hold MCI! And we have people out in the street that would have to be recalled before something like that could happen! Too bad the City hasn't figured that out yet!!! As for us being a threat to anyone, that's a joke! But I do believe we're getting a little tired of that type of management style!!! The "Ol" boys here don't have a whole lot to loss by just walking away from the whole mess!!!It seems Tulsa keeps sending us their management rejects.I've never seen such boneheads in all my life!!Frankly they're not doing too well! But yea! We are still hearing the threats here also! :down: Have you ever seen a person try and get a Missouri mule to go where it don't want too!!???

 

[TWU informer]

<_< So they're trying it again! Do you have 600 "unprotected' jobs out there in Tulsa! If not, it's a hollow threat! Besides, I don't believe there's too many people there with enough seniority to hold MCI! And we have people out in the street that would have to be recalled before something like that could happen! Too bad the City hasn't figured that out yet!!! As for us being a threat to anyone, that's a joke! But I do believe we're getting a little tired of that type of management style!!! The "Ol" boys here don't have a whole lot to loss by just walking away from the whole mess!!!It seems Tulsa keeps sending us their management rejects.I've never seen such boneheads in all my life!!Frankly they're not doing too well! But yea! We are still hearing the threats here also! :down: Have you ever seen a person try and get a Missouri mule to go where it don't want too!!???

Welcome to American Airlines...

...where if not for union concessions management mistakes would have taken this boat under.

 

[Skymess]

Welcome to American Airlines...

...where if not for union concessions management mistakes would have taken this boat under.

Informer do you do some of the heavy c work on the 777?

 

[eolesen]

The consumer seems to prefer the Toyota models.
I believe that to be a quality and reliability issue.

That's definitely a big part of the Big Three's ongoing problem. Foreign engineered cars are definitely percieved as being better quality and lasting longer.

I'm just as guilty -- we have a VW Jetta for that very reason, plus the fact that there isn't a single US designed sedan available with a small diesel engine (the closest would be Jeep's new offering of the Grand Cherokee and Liberty with a diesel, but they're not sedans).

That problem is becoming more and more specific to Ford and GM, now that Daimler engineering has been injected into most of the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep product lines.


But I'll remind you that GM has two retirees for every active employee, and has offered very rich retirement packages for its retirees, many of whom retired with full benefits between the ages of 48 and 52 (30 years = full retirement regardless of age).

So, while Toyota & VW command a revenue premium based on customer demand, they also keep more of that premium because they're not funding huge retirement liabilities.

 

[limit]

But I'll remind you that GM has two retirees for every active employee, and has offered very rich retirement packages for its retirees, many of whom retired with full benefits between the ages of 48 and 52 (30 years = full retirement regardless of age).

So, while Toyota & VW command a revenue premium based on customer demand, they also keep more of that premium because they're not funding huge retirement liabilities.

What you say is correct, but it needs some clarification.
It is true that GM has very large long term liability problem.
It is also true that only a small part of that liability is paid every year.
Pensions are largely paid from accounts already established.
The yearly obligations and contributions to retiree funds are a rather small part of year to year loses incurred by GM.
Am I wrong?
It is amazing that the big three chose to ignore the only solution that will solve their sales and pension problem.
Building, a better car.

 

[Bob Owens]

Former ModerAAtor'
I can't believe that you of all people would be saying "non-union EAL" knowing full well that EAL was still very much unionized when they filed for bankruptcy. I hold the unions as responsible for EAL's collapse moreso than Lorenzo, mainly because the financial damage was already done before Lorenzo took control. Had the unions played ball with Borman, EAL could have had a fighting chance at survival.

Please spare us the drama. The fact is when EAL Liquidated it was after they busted the unions. So getting rid of the unions did not save EAL.

CO's second bankruptcy was triggered in part to financial fallout from Eastern's bankruptcy. IIRC, there was a lot of debt Texas Air was ultimately on the hook for after EAL's liquidation. Lorenzo was to blame there, and the employees didn't really suffer as much in that filing as with other airline filings.

No they were already suffering by working for half pay.

People Express didn't go bankrupt, contrary to popular belief.

The only thing that prevented that was the fact that they were aquired.The fact is the Peoples Express business plan failed.

Also, since you brought PE up, it's a strange twist of fate that the Continental which emerged from their second bankruptcy is actually People Express, Inc. renamed to Continental Air Holdings. So, they really didn't fail.

No they failed, if you eat a ham sandwich it doesnt make you a pig. The Peoples Expess plan is long gone, its assetts are part of Continental.

 

[eolesen]

Pensions are largely paid from accounts already established. The yearly obligations and contributions to retiree funds are a rather small part of year to year loses incurred by GM.
Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.

You're focusing on entirely on pensions. I don't know what their pension funding status is, but I can't imagine that they're anywhere near fully funded. Same with Ford.

But the bigger issue is health care. GM is a self-funded employer, so health care expenses for retirees and active employees alike are paid out of revenues. Some of that retiree expense gets picked up by Medicare, but the rest, including everything for retirees under the age of 65, gets picked up by GM.


Many GM employees started on the assembly line directly out of high school, worked their 30 years, and retire at 48 or so (depending on how long they were laid off in the 80's...).

Thus, they only have to live to be 78 in order to have as much time as a retiree as they did as an active employee. Living to be 78 isn't that uncommon now, but it was back in the 1975's when today's retirees were just starting their jobs at GM.

It is amazing that the big three chose to ignore the only solution that will solve their sales and pension problem.
Building, a better car.

In their defense, GM, Ford and Dodge do build decent trucks, and we truck owners pay a premium for them. The Nissan Titan half ton looks good, but it's too wimpy to pull my trailer or fifth wheel. Then again, it's probably just a matter of time before there is a Nissan dually available...

 

[limit]

Yes, you are.

You're focusing on entirely on pensions. I don't know what their pension funding status is, but I can't imagine that they're anywhere near fully funded. Same with Ford.

But the bigger issue is health care. GM is a self-funded employer, so health care expenses for retirees and active employees alike are paid out of revenues. Some of that retiree expense gets picked up by Medicare, but the rest, including everything for retirees under the age of 65, gets picked up by GM.
Many GM employees started on the assembly line directly out of high school, worked their 30 years, and retire at 48 or so (depending on how long they were laid off in the 80's...).

Thus, they only have to live to be 78 in order to have as much time as a retiree as they did as an active employee. Living to be 78 isn't that uncommon now, but it was back in the 1975's when today's retirees were just starting their jobs at GM.
In their defense, GM, Ford and Dodge do build decent trucks, and we truck owners pay a premium for them. The Nissan Titan half ton looks good, but it's too wimpy to pull my trailer or fifth wheel. Then again, it's probably just a matter of time before there is a Nissan dually available...

We are saying the same thing.
When I wrote obligations I was refering to medical expenses.I do not know the amount that medical and pension expences come up to, and this was what I was asking; if it is relatively small or not.

I do own a Mercury Truck (suv)and I agree with you on that point.

 

[Oneflyer]

I would galdly listen to your ideas on how to resolve these problems. I do know that arguments and blame on the interent bulletin board is not that answer.

I know this, there is no requirement in the labor agreement to allow any worker so sit on his ass in the smoke break area, but it happens daily. There is no provision in the labor agreement to allow workers to sit idle while our own work goes to outside vendors, but it happens daily. I know there is no labor agreement provision to have 300+ union workers pretending to be management and running to "working together" meetings instead of producing something in exchange for a paycheck, but it happens daily.

I just wonder though, who is responsible for those work force defects if there is no labor agreement requirement to allow them? Do you have that answer?

In my previous non-union job, management fired the worthless workers and reduced work force levels in tough times. In my previous non-union job, management insured that labor staffing was strictly matched to the work load brought in the door. Do think in a union shop, that is union officers job?

Looking forward to your opinion and ideas to solve this mystery.

I agree with much of what you have to say. Here would be a couple of ideas that I think would help out.

1. Eliminate the seniority system: It has to be the biggest productivity killer of all. Workers will be evaluated just like management employees.

2. Eliminate the grievance system: Part of the reason that union workers at AA can get away with sitting around is that getting rid of someone is so time consuming. It’s also very hit and miss, if someone from HR screws up the employee wins and the supervisor has egg all over his face.

3. Get rid of the national union and make the union a non-profit lead by a rotating committee that is paid standard wages.

4. Eliminate the CC/management supervisor overlap. If a CC is going to lead then they should take on management responsibility and eliminate one layer of management, otherwise eliminate the CC position.

5. Attempt to keep staffing levels at a point where OT is about 20% of hours worked. It would allow those wanting OT to work it and is less expensive than hiring. This would probably require firing a lot of people.

6. Reward productivity. Bonus people based on something they control. Number of C checks per month, bags lost at your gate, number of snack boxes sold on flights worked, etc......

7. Cap sick time at 3 weeks.

8. Raise health care deductibles to discourage frivolous use, but provide funds for yearly check-ups, etc...

9. Raise wages to attract the best, most productive talent and ensure that you schedule that talent in the most efficient manner.

10. Raise line management wages so that they are higher than the highest paid line worker and encourage line workers to move into management positions. Have management training classes or help pay for worker's higher education.

11. Create a portable pension program.


There you have it, feel free to criticize.

 

[eolesen]

Rather than cap sick time, I'd combine sick time and vacation time into a "paid time off" bank, similar to what Jetblue and many other companies now due. It provides some of the flexibility that the current policy doesn't provide (i.e. the ability to stay home with a sick child/spouse/parent), while also not rewarding the employees who game the system to get an additional two weeks vacation.


Along the last point... set management base pay so that supervisors only make about 15-20% more than the people they supervise, and extend that all the way up into the VP ranks. Make up the difference for "market rate" with variable compensation tied to financial and operational controls which are entirely within the airline's control.

 

[aafsc]

I have to disagree with Oneflyer's suggestion to eliminate the grievance procedure. Because in the 15 years I have been with AA, I have had to work with about 5 or 6 supervisors that were/are total a$$holes (some of them were worthless and the laziest when they were unionized rampers). I am not one of those who try to get out of doing my work. Without these protections, these type of supervisors and managers would have fired people who did nothing wrong and whose only crime was that there was no work to be done at a certain point in time, which leads me to a second point. This second point is that MANAGEMENT allocates the work load. To give an example, at DFW most crews turn 8 flights in 8 hours. In other words, you are constantly working. I don't know where Oneflyer gets the idea that people sit around all day. But sometimes there is an inactive gate that is used as a spare in case an aircraft breaks down on it's gate. When this happens, the "inactive gate" becomes very active very quickly.

As for crew chiefs or supervisors, when I started at AA the crew chiefs ran everything and there was minimal management. That changed when Carty took over and at one time in DFW there were more supervisors and managers than there were crew chiefs. I don't know if that is still the case.

 

[Hopeful]

Oneflyer is typical pro company pro management kool aid drinker.

He likes to repeatedly claim all union people sit around and do nothing but drink coffee and smoke cigarettes. Pretty funny coming from a white collared yes man!

Don't waste your time responding to him.
He wants management to evaluate us and eliminate the seniority system. What a joke! He means management should take care of the butt kissing workers who would sell their mothers out for advancement and a raise.

He wants to eliminate the Crew Chief position!

He is not aware that the supervisors AA has hired can't spell the word aircraft, let alone know what makes it fly.


He advocates raising mangagement rates and encourage workers to go into management for the money!

yea right! Go into management have them tell you when and where to work. what days they will have week to week! No thanks. But he wants to eliminate the grievance system because it only benefits those who want to sit around and do nothing but smoke cigarettes and drink coffee.

He's an expert in aviation because he was a financial analyst at AA and left AA because AA would not get tough with the unions. So now he's in corporate real estate with the integrity of a used car salesman who preaches that unions are evil and are the cause of the destruction of the American economy.

But he will be the first one to get a lawyer and sue an airline when he loses a loved one in an aircraft crash and claim that lazy union workers were smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee instead of maintaining the aircraft his beloved aunt Mabel was flying on..


Oneflyer is a pro company, pro management crony!

 

[aafsc]

Couldn't have said it better. I have on numerous occasions invited Oneflyer to come to MIA and work the ramp for one day on the walk-a-mile program. That way this financial ANALyst can get an idea of what the job is like before he/she spews anti-union venom. Even if he/she did not want to fly to MIA, it is a 5 minute drive from HDQ to DFW; he/she could have done walk-a- mile there.

Since Oneflyer is a financial ANALyst, perhaps he/she can analyze the financial impact of Alaska Airlines' decision to fire it's union employees in SEA and replace them with a poverty wage paying contractor to AA's most senior cities like DFW and STL. All those damaged aircraft and lost bags at the hands non-union, low paid, high turnover replacements must be costing Alaska Air a pretty penny.

 

[B.O.B.]

POST DELETED BY MODERATOR