Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

[TDR1502C]

----------------
On 7/13/2003 8:24:09 AM KCFlyer wrote:

Heck no...I''m still waiting for you to tell me how reregulating the airlines would help the employees.  There''s extra points if you''re able to do it without an insult.  Still waiting.

----------------​

By bringing back the original reason the CAB existed? I''ll skip on the extra points, though, as you don''t rate. Even CIO has credentials around here. You don''t. You don''t have a horse in this race.

 

[Buck]

But Buck - if it were not for deregulation, the vast majority of disgruntled airline workers who were hired after 1978 would not be working for the airlines today - there simply wouldn't have been the jobs created.

There may not have been the growth at American Airlines? But even I do not believe that. Growth was coming to the industry and if not American than a different one.

Why is it when someone has a complaint with the way they have been treated by the union and or the company, you claim they are disgruntled? It would appear that by your participation here that you have an inner fear of the employees who you claim to be disgruntled, might succeed in obtaining their goal. But of course I believe you do not have a clue as to what my or other mechanics goals are. As you have stated you have no real issues here. You are not an employee, you are not a union member and at most you might fly on American. So what is your real reason for being here? Are you afraid that my attempt at bettering myself might make your ticket price increase?

Reregulation? That might just prevent bankruptcy and might provide the ability for labor to gain a fair wage and benefit package across the country. But you must define what what is meant by regulation. AS a mechanic I am regulated by the FAA (licensed) and therefor I have a responsiblity to the customer to prevent their demise. Is this not important to you as a customer KCFlyer?

 

[RV4]

KCFlyer is more involved and responsible for our current demise than he will ever admit.


Isn't that right Jim?

I for one, am very disgruntled and don't mind admitting it, nor do I mind someone else claiming this to be the fact!

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/12/2003 4:34:01 PM KCFlyer wrote:




No...it also allowed airlines to grow and provide jobs to disgruntled welders.

----------------​

WRONG!
Demand creates jobs not cheap wages. In order for demand to continue people have to have the ability and desire to buy. The fact is that job growth in the airline industry has not outpaced job growth throughout the economy as a whole. While some airlines have increased in size the fact is there are less airlines.

Deregulation did not help job growth. The trend for overall job growth in the airlines did not see a rapid increase with the advent of deregulation, in the early years it went down, at best it was a continuation of the trend it had been following since the beginning of the industry.

The myth of deregulation, and concesionary contracts helping to generate job growth was one of Koziateks cop out excuses for doing a lousy job representing members. In fact he laid that one on me a couple of years back with Jim Little present. (Obviously Jim is following in his predecessors footsteps, with a vengence).With unions putting forth such lame excusese for concessionary contracts one has to wonder if union representation is needed, hell isnt that what the companies have been saying for years? Why should we pay these guys to just agree that we should work for less in order to create more low paying jobs? Low wages for less unemployment? What ever happened to the idea of a shorter workweek for less unemployment? I dont mind making less money if I''m working less hours but working more hours for a lot less money while doing the same job is going backwards.Left in the hands of guys who make six figures a year without a timeclock I guess those ideas lose their allure.

What is particularly sad is that the union did all it could to eliminate jobs. By agreeing to give back a week of vacation it helped eliminate more jobs and kill morale and productivity.There are other options to layoffs. If they had offered to keep the heads but have everyone take a week or two off without pay it would have kept the least paid employees with the lowest benifits cost on payroll, avoided paying severance and lowered unit costs. It would have also kept these employees current and on hand for when the industry rebounds. Many of the younger workers will not come back. When you figure that the company invested at least $10,000 to $20,000 in training each and every one of them its a terrible waste. What they did was piss off everyone, they will never get the same productivity out of the guys after cutting their pay. But then again the bean counters dont know how to quantify morale. They may soon get the required information.

 

[RV4]

KCFlyer,

Er uh, Jim...

Where did you go?

 

[KCFlyer]

I''m still here Oliver - Although I am still trying to figure out how I am responsible for your demise - I have flown AA less than Southwest or Delta, yet I actually gave more of my money to American for the trips I had on the others as I paid the fully refundable,fully changeable fare. I''m also waiting to see how happy the UAL mechanics are when they find that the company really wasn''t lying to the IAM. Interesting days ahead, no doubt about that.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 7/15/2003 6:01:31 AM KCFlyer wrote:


I''m still here Oliver - Although I am still trying to figure out how I am responsible for your demise - I have flown AA less than Southwest or Delta, yet I actually gave more of my money to American for the trips I had on the others as I paid the fully refundable,fully changeable fare. I''m also waiting to see how happy the UAL mechanics are when they find that the company really wasn''t lying to the IAM. Interesting days ahead, no doubt about that.

----------------​

So you are admitting that it is the company and it''s fare rules and structures that cause you to fly other carrieres? Therefore it is not labor that is your problem. You attack labor with a vengence, yet you admit that it is management of the airline that really has you angry.

 

[Buck]

The quest for change for representation is older than the teenagers on airliners.net. Again you are at a disadvantage as to the things that have been going on inside the airline.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/15/2003 12:25:04 PM Buck wrote:


The quest for change for representation is older than the teenagers on airliners.net. Again you are at a disadvantage as to the things that have been going on inside the airline.

----------------

And again I ask - what will this change do to improve the situation at American Airlines? Apparently this quest for change in representaion has been going on for quite sometime, but times were good then. That would have been the best time for any change. But now that times are not so good, I don''t see how a change in representation is going to improve the situation of your employer. Other than "We''d be better off in bankruptcy" (you wouldn''t, IMHO), I haven''t seen any concrete suggestions on improving the situation at AA. What will you guys do when/if AMFA is voted in at American?

BTW, my comment about teenagers on a.net was about as vicious a comment about managment as I could make...yet you still find me "anti labor"?​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/15/2003 1117 AM Buck wrote:

----------------
On 7/15/2003 6:01:31 AM KCFlyer wrote:


I''m still here Oliver - Although I am still trying to figure out how I am responsible for your demise - I have flown AA less than Southwest or Delta, yet I actually gave more of my money to American for the trips I had on the others as I paid the fully refundable,fully changeable fare. I''m also waiting to see how happy the UAL mechanics are when they find that the company really wasn''t lying to the IAM. Interesting days ahead, no doubt about that.

----------------​

So you are admitting that it is the company and it''s fare rules and structures that cause you to fly other carrieres? Therefore it is not labor that is your problem. You attack labor with a vengence, yet you admit that it is management of the airline that really has you angry.
----------------
​

Sorry Buck, I don''t "attack labor" as I have posted many many times that the revenue side needs to be looked at since labor concessions alone will never bring an airline to profitability. I''ve also posted many times that some teenagers on airliners.net could do a lot better job that some of the folks sitting in management at any airline. So I''m just as rough on managment as I am on labor. If by "anti-labor" you mean my questioning of all the focus of changing union representation when your airline is just steps away from the bankruptcy courts door, then I suppose I am anti labor. To me, fighting for different representation is like a condemned man fighting for the right to face a firing squad without his blindfold...if he wins, he still loses.

And yes, I actually paid AA''s full unrestricted airfares on several occasions when I had to fly on short notice. I suppose I could have opted to fly Southwest, but when your dad is dying, sometimes it''s worth the extra money to fly on the nonstop flight. My comment to RV4 was that if I am responsible for your demise, why did I opt to pay top dollar on your airline when cheaper alternatives were available? I might add that while on some of those flights, your FA''s were in some pretty tense negotiations. I chatted with them about that and left them by saying that I hope they were able to reach an agreement that was amenable to both parties, thanked them for their service, and wished them good luck.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 7/15/2003 12:39:16 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 7/15/2003 12:25:04 PM Buck wrote:


The quest for change for representation is older than the teenagers on airliners.net. Again you are at a disadvantage as to the things that have been going on inside the airline.

----------------

And again I ask - what will this change do to improve the situation at American Airlines? Apparently this quest for change in representaion has been going on for quite sometime, but times were good then. That would have been the best time for any change. But now that times are not so good, I don''t see how a change in representation is going to improve the situation of your employer. Other than "We''d be better off in bankruptcy" (you wouldn''t, IMHO), I haven''t seen any concrete suggestions on improving the situation at AA. What will you guys do when/if AMFA is voted in at American?

BTW, my comment about teenagers on a.net was about as vicious a comment about managment as I could make...yet you still find me "anti labor"?​

----------------​

When times are good the membership ignores the constitutional structure of both unions. It is only when times are tough that those who become personally affected, question the structure that brought the bad times. I am not interested in my union representation improving the condition of my employer. Although I am interested in improving the condition of that employer. The employer should show the same respect for me as a maintenance technician as I or we as technicians show them. Since you do not know or understand what happens on a daily basis it may be difficult for you to see why the mechanics would want to seperate themselves from the other workgroups. What will we do if AMFA is elected at AA. IT will be a change in the form of represention at the constitutional level. The member will have control. When an elected leader goes beyond his authority the membership has the right to remove that individual. AMFA will do nothing without participation from the membership. Because under AMFA it is the membership that is the union, not a non-affilated entity in another industry.

 

[RV4]

I was "informed" by an "imformer" today that the TWU is now "concerned" about the number of mechanics signing authorization cards. They passed out a survey and claim to now be ready to communicate with the members and "change" to meet the members needs. AMFA once again, creates a positive for the membership.

One worker asked when the next election for officers was to be held and the poor "informer" didn''t even know this information. It is sad that the TWU sends unsuspecting members unarmed into the shops and docks to be blasted with the frustrations created by the dictators. The dictators should be required to shoulder the blame for their own mess and not use scape goats as the targets.

I understand the TWU Tulsa Leadership has now acknowledged that the Line Mechanics are all favoring AMFA and that Tulsa is the last battleground.

There is only one way to resolve this dispute and unite as a union. Sign those cards, demand a debate, and vote for change. The TWU is once again attempting to decieve the members that change is in the air. Funny thing, the only time the TWU is ready to listen to the members is when AMFA is breathing down their necks.

Stop the charade, vote for real change, VOTE AMFA!

Ask your "informer", if the AMFA is doing such a poor job at NWA and the TWU is superior, then why is there NOT a TWU Card Drive occurring and NWA? Should the TWU be up there saving those members from themselves? Because the TWU "concessions jobs program" is not as popular as the TWU leaders want the Kool-Aid drinkers in Tulsa to believe!

 

[flaptrack]

$60,000 a year to cut Gill Liner? Upset? (no disrespect to a mech on the line that can troubleshoot a 777 and kick it out to LHR) You people just f#$king amaze me!

 

[j7915]

Dave, you know any line station that needs a welder?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/19/2003 2:07:56 AM j7915 wrote:

Dave, you know any line station that needs a welder?

----------------​

We have two but I''m sure that MGMT would not mind a third.

Hell if you and CIO were able to buy an A&P I''m sure he would have no problem.