Negotiations News

[jersey777]

Well, just like in 1993 the company is issuing negotiations news in an attempt to put their spin on the proposals on the table and deal directly with the flight attendants. I for one am glad to finally see some specifics although Laura Glading and the negotiation team are angry that the company took this step without an agreement between the two parties. At least now we get to see the company spin machine at its best. They really are their own worst enemy. When you are ramming down concessions, it always amazes me how they can make it seem that you are really coming out ahead. For one, what company asks employees to not take a pay raise for 6 years? On top of that, take away retirement health benefits, triple current health care contributions, take away pensions for new hires, take away tafb for turnarounds, and the list goes on and on. So in 2014, we will be negotiating off the same pay scale that we had in 2008? I mean, come on AA. Do you think we are crazy?

And for all you company apologists and anti-worker republicans out there, don't try to tell me that we are paid well above the others now because if the company has its way, then we will be LAST by 2014 because Continental, United and USAir are all in negotiations now or soon will be.

 

[Bob Owens]

So in 2014, we will be negotiating off the same pay scale that we had in 2008? I mean, come on AA. Do you think we are crazy?

Check your numbers, its probably more like 1998.

In the TWU we have people who are working at rates they were paid two decades ago because of the paycut in 2003. The mechanics were the only group that recieved a substantial payraise in 2001 because AMFA had won a huge increase at NWA and the other Airlines were forced to match it but the stock clerks, baggage handlers and some other TWU members weren't as fortunate. When they took the paycuts in 2003 their wage was brought below what it was in the 1990s, when you factor in all the benifit and workrule changes it was brought even lower.

What you guys need to do is take your pay from 30 years ago and take inflation , figure out the difference between what your pay actually is and what it should be due to inflation and put it on a graph. For us (mechanics) we are around 40% below where we need to be. The companys offer would put us more than 50% below where we should be, in other words in real terms our pay would be cut in half. My guess is your numbers would tell a similar story. The graph is an easy you see powerful image.

 

[jersey777]

Believe me, I have done the math. You can pull up an inflation calculator on line. In 1987, the top pay for domestic was $34.42. In 2010 dollars, to remain even we would be making $64.41. We currently have a top pay of $46.00.

 

[Bob Owens]

Believe me, I have done the math. You can pull up an inflation calculator on line. In 1987, the top pay for domestic was $34.42. In 2010 dollars, to remain even we would be making $64.41. We currently have a top pay of $46.00.

Well then put it on a graph, everybody has Excell.

If you send me all the data I'll do it for you.

I'd also like to stress that the DOL data has been tampered with to under report inflation for political purposes. (SSI increases are tied to inflation) Real inflation would be considerably higher. Business practices called unbundling has also become popular, so now when you buy something you end up paying more even though the price is listed as lower. One example is the airlines, You want to go away for a week, thats $500 for the seat? Want a printed ticket? Pay a fee. Talk to an agent? Pay a fee. Check your bags? Pay a Fee. Get something to eat? Pay another fee. All these things were included in the price before but now they arent, so even though the ticket price may be $500, it may actually cost you $600 in the end to get from point A to point B. The CPI would just look at the $500 if it were part of the basket of goods.

So in the end if you negotiate to stay in line with the CPI you are still falling behind, just not as much.

 

[Veritas]

The company's version:

AANegotiations.com

APFA specific:

Flight Attendant Negotiations News

American Airlines Key Proposals and Tentative Agreements

 

[Large Grey]

Well then put it on a graph, everybody has Excell.

If you send me all the data I'll do it for you.

I'd also like to stress that the DOL data has been tampered with to under report inflation for political purposes. (SSI increases are tied to inflation) Real inflation would be considerably higher. Business practices called unbundling has also become popular, so now when you buy something you end up paying more even though the price is listed as lower. One example is the airlines, You want to go away for a week, thats $500 for the seat? Want a printed ticket? Pay a fee. Talk to an agent? Pay a fee. Check your bags? Pay a Fee. Get something to eat? Pay another fee. All these things were included in the price before but now they arent, so even though the ticket price may be $500, it may actually cost you $600 in the end to get from point A to point B. The CPI would just look at the $500 if it were part of the basket of goods.

So in the end if you negotiate to stay in line with the CPI you are still falling behind, just not as much.

I am in the wrong line of work as an AMT.

 

[Bob Owens]

I am in the wrong line of work as an AMT.

No, you just need to realize that skill alone will not get you a good pay check, you have to be willing to fight for it.

 

[joanne]

The company's version:

AANegotiations.com

APFA specific:

Flight Attendant Negotiations News

American Airlines Key Proposals and Tentative Agreements

Just checked ot the E Jet and C Jet websites with regard to AA's proposal of changing APA's scope clause w/regard to A/E flying.
AA wants(exactly) 76/89,000 (max seats 76.............MGTOW 89,000 lbs.)
One and only one type/model fits these description(s) EXACTLY.................Embraer's..E-175 !

 

[Large Grey]

No, you just need to realize that skill alone will not get you a good pay check, you have to be willing to fight for it.

TWU won't fight and holds back skilled people. At AA if you sign off early and get to sleep, the company loves you, will not bother you, and will fluff your pillow. "Drive to succeed" occurs in a competitive environment, where skill and hard work are rewarded with higher remuneration.

 

[ual777fan]

Just checked ot the E Jet and C Jet websites with regard to AA's proposal of changing APA's scope clause w/regard to A/E flying.
AA wants(exactly) 76/89,000 (max seats 76.............MGTOW 89,000 lbs.)
One and only one type/model fits these description(s) EXACTLY.................Embraer's..E-175 !

The E-175 is a good jet. It's significantly smaller than the MD-80 and 737 and just a bit bigger than the CRJ-700. The chances of the E-175 replacing MD-80 flying is pretty small.

If the pilots union really wants to get a deal done, they should sign off on the scope clause concession for the E-175 and Q400's in exchange for a 110-130 seat plane for mainline to replace the MD-80. Maybe something like the 737-700 or, if AA's management can be interested in the NG narrowbodies, the Bombadier C130 - which looks like a great plane on paper.

Maybe something along the lines of "for every E175 purchased, a (737-700 or C130) must also be purchased." It's just an idea. AA gets larger, more comfortable, more economical regional jets. The pilots union gets an MD-80 replacement which allays their fears of large chunks of the domestic network being "expressed" (to borrow a United term) and everyone gets a plane that burns much less gas than the MD-80. That should be a win, win, win.

 

[Winglet]

The E-175 is a good jet. It's significantly smaller than the MD-80 and 737 and just a bit bigger than the CRJ-700. The chances of the E-175 replacing MD-80 flying is pretty small.

If the pilots union really wants to get a deal done, they should sign off on the scope clause concession for the E-175 and Q400's in exchange for a 110-130 seat plane for mainline to replace the MD-80. Maybe something like the 737-700 or, if AA's management can be interested in the NG narrowbodies, the Bombadier C130 - which looks like a great plane on paper.

Maybe something along the lines of "for every E175 purchased, a (737-700 or C130) must also be purchased." It's just an idea. AA gets larger, more comfortable, more economical regional jets. The pilots union gets an MD-80 replacement which allays their fears of large chunks of the domestic network being "expressed" (to borrow a United term) and everyone gets a plane that burns much less gas than the MD-80. That should be a win, win, win.

AA already has a replacement for the MD80s coming on line. It's called a 737-800. Giving away scope to AE in return for NOTHING is beyond stupid and sounds like something ALPA would do. Worked great for UA ALPA, didn't it. If AA wants a 100 seat airplane they can buy them today. CRJ-700s in the hands of low-paid labor WILL result in further chunks of the domestic network being outsourced, regardless of the real overall costs. The objective here is to break the AA unions, like those at UA and DAL were made into lapdogs.

AA would dismiss with contempt any suggestion that they have a 1 for 1 buy between the E-190 and some narrowbody.

They have not indicated that they are in the slightest interested in 100 seat airplanes and presently they only want a 1 for 1 swap between the obsolete 37-50 seat airplane and the 66 seat (configured) CRJ-700, which will further erode narrow body flying at AA. And they're not going to get it. This is a core strike issue. If they want it, I'll have to be in bankruptcy.

 

[eolesen]

They have not indicated that they are in the slightest interested in 100 seat airplanes and presently they only want a 1 for 1 swap between the obsolete 37-50 seat airplane and the 66 seat (configured) CRJ-700, which will further erode narrow body flying at AA. And they're not going to get it. This is a core strike issue. If they want it, I'll have to be in bankruptcy.

How do you figure that a 1:1 replacement on the current jungle jets would erode mainline flying?

Seriously, the only way I see that happening is if there were a wholesale abandonment of the "branch line" markets currently served with 37-50 seat jets. I just don't see AA ceding all those small markets to Brand X, Y or Z...

 

[ual777fan]

AA already has a replacement for the MD80s coming on line. It's called a 737-800. Giving away scope to AE in return for NOTHING is beyond stupid and sounds like something ALPA would do. Worked great for UA ALPA, didn't it. If AA wants a 100 seat airplane they can buy them today. CRJ-700s in the hands of low-paid labor WILL result in further chunks of the domestic network being outsourced, regardless of the real overall costs. The objective here is to break the AA unions, like those at UA and DAL were made into lapdogs.

The 738 is as much a replacement for the MD-80 as the EMB175 is for the MD-80. Replacing a 120-130 seat jet with with a 150 seat jet doesn't make a ton of sense. It's too much capacity for a significant number of markets, and I think AA management is starting to figure this out.

On the other hand I think the threat of outsourcing mainline isn't as great as presented - UA's plan to pull down their 737's and replace them with largely express capacity took too many seats out of the system and has hamstrung their ability to feed their hubs and international routes. Which is another reason that I doubt AA management will outsource large amounts of the domestic network to AE, AA management has proved very adapt at aping other airlines and United has given the industry a case study in why this is a bad idea and even they are looking to reverse it.

AA would dismiss with contempt any suggestion that they have a 1 for 1 buy between the E-190 and some narrowbody.

Firstly, the plane in question is the E175 not the E190. There is a significant difference in the size of the planes. Secondly, getting a true - hyper fuel efficient - 120-130 seat plane to replace the MD-80 would reduce management's incentive to go straight to AE when looking to reduce capacity on a mainline route, since they could swap in a 120 seat plane for a 150 seat plane instead of having to drop from 150 seats to 75 seats. Thirdly, fuel is still the largest component cost for airlines today. Having a fuel efficient mainline aircraft will improve the mainline economics as compared to AE's economics, again reducing the rational to swap AA for AE metal.

They have not indicated that they are in the slightest interested in 100 seat airplanes and presently they only want a 1 for 1 swap between the obsolete 37-50 seat airplane and the 66 seat (configured) CRJ-700, which will further erode narrow body flying at AA. And they're not going to get it. This is a core strike issue. If they want it, I'll have to be in bankruptcy.

Replacing the MD-80's with a much more fuel efficient aircraft like the C130, would reduce mainline's overall cost (vis a via MD-80 costs) component between 12-15% (assuming fuel still accounts for about 25-30% of costs). That would amount to knocking almost a full cent off of CASM. I fail to see how demanding that AA's management buy planes that would substantially improve mainline's competitiveness in exchange for relaxing some scope restrictions for Eagle would generate this significant outsourcing scenario. If anything, it should prevent it by drastically reducing the cost gap between mainline and Eagle.

 

[Veritas]

The 738 is as much a replacement for the MD-80 as the EMB175 is for the MD-80. Replacing a 120-130 seat jet with with a 150 seat jet doesn't make a ton of sense. It's too much capacity for a significant number of markets, and I think AA management is starting to figure this out.

AA's reconfigured MD80s seat 140 (16F 124Y)

AA's older 738s seat 148 (16F 132Y).

The newer 738s have two additional rows of Y for a total seating capacity of 160.

 

[ual777fan]

AA's reconfigured MD80s seat 140 (16F 124Y)

AA's older 738s seat 148 (16F 132Y).

The newer 738s have two additional rows of Y for a total seating capacity of 160.

D'oh. I forgot about that.