Question Bob Owens

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Since the record is posted, then there is no need for geographical compensation for those in the large cities.

Is our union representing those you listed? I would not want to go at it non-union.........

The superior benefits make up for the geographical pay.
And yes the twu represents the NYCT AKA transit union our buses just have wings

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Another moron speaks!

When are you going to realize that the vote NO coalition will not be able deliver the 2001 contract!!!!

When are going to recognise that AA was not bluffing!!!!!

Quit your whining and either shut up or move on!

My bet is that you will not quit, but stay at AA because you don't have the conviction of your words.

The know it all thats been on this board for 3 years.
Im not asking for the 2001 contract. AA had to file there was never a bluff. They just werent going to get their demands unless they circumvented the due process of negotiating. So they will try to get what they want through the courts. The creditors arent banging on the doors plenty of plane orders on the horizon 4 billion in cash they just want to take more from me than Im willing to give so now let a judge mull it over. Never said I was going to leave another person had asked where else was there work where he could make the same money. i simply replied Jackass. So why dont you put your head back into the sand and let us fight your battles. Cause now its to late to vote YES 😛

 

[FWAAA]

I still say we should have had them go BK back in 2003. We gave them more outside of BK than they would have received in BK. Now after eight years of brutal, industry leading real time concessions the things we kept, which we would see way down the road, are under threat.

Someone's in serious denial. Had the company filed for Ch 11 in 2003, it is likely that AA would have taken more from you (the mechanics) and everyone else (pilots, FAs and fleet). I'm curious how you conclude that your negotiated concessions were worse than the concessions you would have faced in bankruptcy. AA said it would go for more had it filed in 2003. Oh, sure, you could have voted them down but the final Act of that play would have been a contract abrogation and I'm certain that AA would have imposed terms worse than the 2003 RSA.

"we still have oh"

In 2003 the union said cut the jobs and leave the pay, the company opted out. The company said they could not run their business if they cut that many heads. They cut them anyway along with capacity but have kept oh in house because AA already had low cost mechanics in place, our peers did not. AA enjoyed and most likely still enjoys an overall cost advantage by keeping this work in house. Despite the fact that we do nearly all our oh in house and Southwest outsourced most of theirs are labor costs per ASM are pretty close.

. We went through BK, already lost as much in value what we would have lost and now they may try and get those things we have paid for as well.

In 2010, AA mainline operated 153,241,000,000 ASMs and spent $6.227 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.04063534 per ASM. Let's just call it 4 cents per ASM. Now let's compare WN's labor costs.

In 2010, WN operated 98,437,092,000 ASMs and spent $3.704 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.03762809 per ASM. Let's call it 3.76 cents per ASM. That's not all that "pretty close."

Despite paying nearly every employee more per hour in every workgroup than does AA, WN employees cost their employer about a quarter cent less per ASM. If AA had exactly the same labor cost per ASM as does WN, AA would have saved $461 million dollars in 2010. That's substantial. If AA had the same labor costs as DL, it would have saved over $900 million in 2010.

If AA had the same labor costs as US (two trips thru Ch 11), AA would have saved $2.2 billion in 2010 and would have been wildly profitable. Your continuous claims that the 2003 concessions were worse are simply ignorant nonsense. Fortunately, some of your constituents aren't so blissfully ignorant and realize that they have had it much nicer than US employees for the past 8 years.

On the specific item of maintenance, AA has the highest maintenance costs per ASM of any airline according to the data filed with the BTS. WT has referenced these numbers in his prior posts. AA currently has more mechanics than it did in 1999 despite having a fleet substantially smaller than in 1999.

Should have filed for Ch 11 in 2003? If AA had, you would have been paid even less for the past 8 years and, because AA would have lowered its costs further, DL and NW (and maybe others) would have been forced to cut their wage expenses even further. AA might be facing the same cost disadvantages now, and might be going thru Bankruptcy #2, where it would seek even further cuts.

AA's mechanics desperately need a new union representing them. Unfortunately, there probably isn't enough time to replace the worthless union before the contract abrogation deadline that AA will impose. This is going to be a quick bankruptcy.

 

[Buck]

Someone's in serious denial. Had the company filed for Ch 11 in 2003, it is likely that AA would have taken more from you (the mechanics) and everyone else (pilots, FAs and fleet). I'm curious how you conclude that your negotiated concessions were worse than the concessions you would have faced in bankruptcy. AA said it would go for more had it filed in 2003. Oh, sure, you could have voted them down but the final Act of that play would have been a contract abrogation and I'm certain that AA would have imposed terms worse than the 2003 RSA.



In 2010, AA mainline operated 153,241,000,000 ASMs and spent $6.227 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.04063534 per ASM. Let's just call it 4 cents per ASM. Now let's compare WN's labor costs.

In 2010, WN operated 98,437,092,000 ASMs and spent $3.704 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.03762809 per ASM. Let's call it 3.76 cents per ASM. That's not all that "pretty close."

Despite paying nearly every employee more per hour in every workgroup than does AA, WN employees cost their employer about a quarter cent less per ASM. If AA had exactly the same labor cost per ASM as does WN, AA would have saved $461 million dollars in 2010. That's substantial. If AA had the same labor costs as DL, it would have saved over $900 million in 2010.

If AA had the same labor costs as US (two trips thru Ch 11), AA would have saved $2.2 billion in 2010 and would have been wildly profitable. Your continuous claims that the 2003 concessions were worse are simply ignorant nonsense. Fortunately, some of your constituents aren't so blissfully ignorant and realize that they have had it much nicer than US employees for the past 8 years.

On the specific item of maintenance, AA has the highest maintenance costs per ASM of any airline according to the data filed with the BTS. WT has referenced these numbers in his prior posts. AA currently has more mechanics than it did in 1999 despite having a fleet substantially smaller than in 1999.

Should have filed for Ch 11 in 2003? If AA had, you would have been paid even less for the past 8 years and, because AA would have lowered its costs further, DL and NW (and maybe others) would have been forced to cut their wage expenses even further. AA might be facing the same cost disadvantages now, and might be going thru Bankruptcy #2, where it would seek even further cuts.

AA's mechanics desperately need a new union representing them. Unfortunately, there probably isn't enough time to replace the worthless union before the contract abrogation deadline that AA will impose. This is going to be a quick bankruptcy.

Yes and the one factor that has kept other unions out is even more prevalent now, FEAR.

 

[Bob Owens]

Someone's in serious denial. Had the company filed for Ch 11 in 2003, it is likely that AA would have taken more from you (the mechanics) and everyone else (pilots, FAs and fleet). I'm curious how you conclude that your negotiated concessions were worse than the concessions you would have faced in bankruptcy. AA said it would go for more had it filed in 2003. Oh, sure, you could have voted them down but the final Act of that play would have been a contract abrogation and I'm certain that AA would have imposed terms worse than the 2003 RSA.

Ok smart guy, tell us what the courts would have imposed on us in May of 2003.

In 2010, AA mainline operated 153,241,000,000 ASMs and spent $6.227 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.04063534 per ASM. Let's just call it 4 cents per ASM. Now let's compare WN's labor costs.

In 2010, WN operated 98,437,092,000 ASMs and spent $3.704 billion on wages, salaries and benefits for a total labor cost of $0.03762809 per ASM. Let's call it 3.76 cents per ASM. That's not all that "pretty close."

If you are going to call the first number 4 cents then so is the second. 0.040 and 0.037 both round off to four.

Despite paying nearly every employee more per hour in every workgroup than does AA, WN employees cost their employer about a quarter cent less per ASM. If AA had exactly the same labor cost per ASM as does WN, AA would have saved $461 million dollars in 2010. That's substantial. If AA had the same labor costs as DL, it would have saved over $900 million in 2010.

Its also BS, because AA would have had to pay someone to overhaul all their airplanes, a figure that is part of AA labor butthat is not included in the SWA figure. AA's labor costs per hour (the units by which labor is sold) are much, much less than SWA. To claim that AA has higher labor costs is misleading at best.

On the specific item of maintenance, AA has the highest maintenance costs per ASM of any airline according to the data filed with the BTS. WT has referenced these numbers in his prior posts. AA currently has more mechanics than it did in 1999 despite having a fleet substantially smaller than in 1999.

Of course their maintenance costs are higher. When you dump your parts for pennies on the dollar and then buy them back for dollars on the penny, and do all sorts of mods, defer maintenance over a long period of time and operate a diversified older fleet of aircarft your costs will be higher. AA may have a smaller fleet as far as the number of aircraft but they have more and larger widebodies and as I said earlier the planes are older. Buying new aircraft may lower maintenance costs for a while but they add other costs. If AA had not sold off their parts their maintenance costs would be much lower, if they had a singular fleet type their costs would be much lower. Plus in real terms they are paying their mechanics 40% less than they were in 1999, do you honestly believe that we are going to work harder for less money?

Should have filed for Ch 11 in 2003? If AA had, you would have been paid even less for the past 8 years and, because AA would have lowered its costs further, DL and NW (and maybe others) would have been forced to cut their wage expenses even further. AA might be facing the same cost disadvantages now, and might be going thru Bankruptcy #2, where it would seek even further cuts.

Wrong, we arent making more than Delta, and UALs TA puts them way above us. Factor in that they still get more VC, Holidays, more pay for the Holidays , sick time and doubletime and they are making quite a bit more than us, and they both went through two rounds thanks to us. We gave up so much that UAL and USAIR had to go back for more. We already went through BK#1, we just skipped the legal fees.

This is going to be a quick bankruptcy.

I hope so, I need my money. They should have gotten rid of all those Fokker lease payments back in 2003. I'll bet the bank that owned them were happy to be collecting payments on old obsolete aircraft that werent even being flown. Maybe now we will see where else AA was burning cash, filling the coffers of banks, local governments,and other financial institutions by paying for things they did not need. How many hundreds of millions has AA dumped into things that it could have shed back then? Aircraft they did not fly, terminal space they did not use and hangars they did not need. Money that should have went to us in 2006 went to them instead. In the meantime they probably also saving more during those years by having us lobby to allow them to underfund the DB pension instead of contributing to a 401K match, instead rolling that debt up higher and higher with the intent of dumping that in the PBGC.

I think that AA has intended since 2003 to file, they just wanted to get more bites at the apple.

We should have said no in 2003. Now airline workers we find the scam of C-11 BK being used eight years later to try and get airlines what they could not get at the table in negotiations in the courtroom.

 

[787nightmare]

Yes and the one factor that has kept other unions out is even more prevalent now, FEAR.

EXACTLY.

 

[FWAAA]

Ok smart guy, tell us what the courts would have imposed on us in May of 2003.

Courts don't "impose" concessions in bankruptcy. The debtor and the employees negotiate and if they can't reach agreement, then the company files a motion to abrogate the contract and once that's approved, imposes its terms. I have no idea exactly how much worse the pay and benefits would have been under the Vermont plan, but you'd be delusional to believe that AA would agree to smaller concessions in bankruptcy than it demanded (and got) outside of Ch 11.

If you are going to call the first number 4 cents then so is the second. 0.040 and 0.037 both round off to four.

That's a convenient way to make $461 million in labor costs disappear. You should get a job in management - they've got nothing on you.

Its also BS, because AA would have had to pay someone to overhaul all their airplanes, a figure that is part of AA labor butthat is not included in the SWA figure. AA's labor costs per hour (the units by which labor is sold) are much, much less than SWA. To claim that AA has higher labor costs is misleading at best.

Overall, AA's labor costs are higher per ASM than WN. WN's hourly wages are higher. High wages do not necessarily equal high labor costs.

Wrong, we arent making more than Delta, and UALs TA puts them way above us. Factor in that they still get more VC, Holidays, more pay for the Holidays , sick time and doubletime and they are making quite a bit more than us, and they both went through two rounds thanks to us. We gave up so much that UAL and USAIR had to go back for more. We already went through BK#1, we just skipped the legal fees.

You have posted repeatedly that you blame AA's concessions for lowering the bar, causing others to go back for more concessions. Yet now you claim that other airlines would not have lowered their wages even further had AA imposed steeper concessions in bankruptcy. Of course you dispute whether AA could have increased the size of the concessions had it filed in 2003. Yes, today, some of the others have increased their hourly wages post-bankruptcy to exceed your current wage.

I hope so, I need my money. They should have gotten rid of all those Fokker lease payments back in 2003. I'll bet the bank that owned them were happy to be collecting payments on old obsolete aircraft that werent even being flown. Maybe now we will see where else AA was burning cash, filling the coffers of banks, local governments,and other financial institutions by paying for things they did not need. How many hundreds of millions has AA dumped into things that it could have shed back then? Aircraft they did not fly, terminal space they did not use and hangars they did not need. Money that should have went to us in 2006 went to them instead. In the meantime they probably also saving more during those years by having us lobby to allow them to underfund the DB pension instead of contributing to a 401K match, instead rolling that debt up higher and higher with the intent of dumping that in the PBGC.

Yes, the rent on those four F-100s is why AA is losing billions of dollars and can't afford to raise wages. Yes, AA should have filed Ch 11 in 2003 (and incurred the expense of bankruptcy) to rid itself of rent on four old Fokkers and the other misc leases and obligations that it will now reject.

I think that AA has intended since 2003 to file, they just wanted to get more bites at the apple.

We should have said no in 2003. Now airline workers we find the scam of C-11 BK being used eight years later to try and get airlines what they could not get at the table in negotiations in the courtroom.

Yet you have posted numerous times that you believe that the 2003 bankruptcy threat was an empty one and that you're certain that management was lying (recall your announcement that there are no steps at the NYC bankruptcy court and thus, they were lying when they said the lawyers were "on the courthouse steps"). At various times since 2003, you have posted your view that AA had no intention of filing in 2003. Now you're convinced that it was part of an eight year plan? Regardless, the reality is that AA has filed now and will seek to lower its wage expense further. My guess is that its offer will make last year's TA appear generous by comparison.

 

[Bob Owens]

Courts don't "impose" concessions in bankruptcy. The debtor and the employees negotiate and if they can't reach agreement, then the company files a motion to abrogate the contract and once that's approved, imposes its terms. I have no idea exactly how much worse the pay and benefits would have been under the Vermont plan, but you'd be delusional to believe that AA would agree to smaller concessions in bankruptcy than it demanded (and got) outside of Ch 11.

Delusional? All we have to do it look at what our peers got in round one. I know you are going to cite OH, but one thing that you conviently leave out, or are ignorant of, is that AA had something in OH that none of their competitors had, OSMs. This lowered the average hourly rate in OH to around $27/hr. There was no way competing carriers could take their $37/hr mechanics in the shops in places like SFO and expect to get anything out of them if they knocked them down to AAs OSM rates. So they shipped it out in order to try and narrow the gap. Indications are that it did not work, their costs went up but because they were able to shed huge amounts of paper debt they did it anyway.

Overall, AA's labor costs are higher per ASM than WN. WN's hourly wages are higher. High wages do not necessarily equal high labor costs.

And higher labor costs dont necessarily equate to a competative disadvantage. In fact if AA were to match labor costs they would have a huge advantage over all their competitors, even SWA, who lowered their labor costs through outsourcing.

Labor is not bought and paid for by ASMs, it is sold per hour. Comparing labor costs per ASM is not a valid comparasion but one that people like you dreamed up and created to support a weak and misleading arguement. Workers have almost zero control over the ASMs produced per hour of work. The fact is that SWA mechanics do not work differently than AA mechanics. They posess the same skills and carry the same qualifications and liablity as mechanics from AA, if anything they have a more limited skill base because they are only qualified to work one fleet type yet their hourly rates are much higher.

You have posted repeatedly that you blame AA's concessions for lowering the bar, causing others to go back for more concessions. Yet now you claim that other airlines would not have lowered their wages even further had AA imposed steeper concessions in bankruptcy. Of course you dispute whether AA could have increased the size of the concessions had it filed in 2003. Yes, today, some of the others have increased their hourly wages post-bankruptcy to exceed your current wage.

You claimed AA would have imposed steeper concessions, not me. The fact is we gave more than our peers without going BK. As you have often cited, there's more to labor costs than the hourly wage. We gave up more Vacation, Holidays, Sick Time and IOD time than out peers who went BK.

Yes, the rent on those four F-100s is why AA is losing billions of dollars and can't afford to raise wages. Yes, AA should have filed Ch 11 in 2003 (and incurred the expense of bankruptcy) to rid itself of rent on four old Fokkers and the other misc leases and obligations that it will now reject.

The four Folkers are but one example of the excessive waste that this company has continued to fund with our concessions. Surely you as the brilliant intellectual can understand the concept of "death by a thousand cuts". Did the four folkers lead to the billions in losses by themselves, no, but they contributed to it. How many years has it been since they have flown Folkers, or had a hub in RDU, or BNA? When is the last time they pulled a plane in MCI? And those 20 MD-80s and those 757s and 767s that are sitting in the desert. Then add in how they have been wasting money all over the place putting in the most expensive flooring they can find in terminals that may be headed towards demolition, so they can spend the money again. Then add in the new terminals, etc etc.

Yet you have posted numerous times that you believe that the 2003 bankruptcy threat was an empty one and that you're certain that management was lying (recall your announcement that there are no steps at the NYC bankruptcy court and thus, they were lying when they said the lawyers were "on the courthouse steps"). At various times since 2003, you have posted your view that AA had no intention of filing in 2003. Now you're convinced that it was part of an eight year plan? Regardless, the reality is that AA has filed now and will seek to lower its wage expense further. My guess is that its offer will make last year's TA appear generous by comparison.

Hindsight is 20/20. Its easier to say what happened than what will happen. However I still think that had we gone BK in 2003 we would be better off today because even though the company did not go BK the workers did. Who got saved? People like the owners of those Folkers and various Aiports who were paid money by AA for equipment and facilities AA no longer used. Our concessions in 2003 set the standard, both in cuts and duration. We gave more in real time concessions than our peers in order to keep things that would pay off in the long term. I didnt agree then and I dont today. Agreeing to give up $160,000 and counting in order to save a pension thats still to this day 15 years away for the average worker is not a good deal. If they had gone BK they may have been able to dump the Pension, but our peers who went through that got a 410K match. Thats cash the employer has to lay out in real time. AA saved money there because we lobbied to get AA an extension on fully funding their pension. Sure our pensions continued to build, but we funded that through less Vacation, Holidays and sick time, among other things. If we had gone BK then how likely is it that any carrier would have walked out of BK with long term contracts? Sure we could have ended up in a situation where everyone was under imposed contracts, and that would be the perfect setup for a General Strike. Once we settled on 2008 the others followed with long term deals. We all would have already gone through the process and would have started rebuilding 5 or six years ago instead of seeing the process start up again. Call me paranoid but I see this as bigger than AMR. If AMR can use BK to hold the line on wages, as usual, then their competitors will also benefit which in turn means more revenue to dispense to the banks,other financial institutions, government and other corporations that already get larger pieces of the ever growing pie while our portion continues to be less than what we used to get, both proportionately and by volume.

I would still like to hear what you say the company would have taken in BK other than "steeper".

 

[737823]

Bob, you've been saying that the company's threat of BK is a bluff and now you all know it is real. As the leader your local what commitment do you have to the membership throughout this long and painful process? While I feel this will position AA to compete more effectively in the future and employees will benefit with greater job security and opportunities there's no denying that some painful changes will be taking shape in the months ahead. I empathize for the workers and their families who will ultimately bear the brunt of these decisions.

Josh

 

[strikeforce]

Bob, you've been saying that the company's threat of BK is a bluff and now you all know it is real. As the leader your local what commitment do you have to the membership throughout this long and painful process? While I feel this will position AA to compete more effectively in the future and employees will benefit with greater job security and opportunities there's no denying that some painful changes will be taking shape in the months ahead. I empathize for the workers and their families who will ultimately bear the brunt of these decisions.

Josh

You're absolutely right, Josh, what commitment will Horton give the employees that management will change???? We don't only have to get rid of the slugs and TWU, but AA also has to get rid of their management team. If, and only when Horton cleans house and the employees see an efficient operation and accountability, then WE can all say BK was worth it, but I highly doubt it. If the only thing that changes in BK are labor costs.....nothing will change operationally and the same idiots will mis-manage this place to Chapter 7. You watch & see. We will be on this forum in the not too distance future talking about AA still losing money and not being competitive.

 

[Buck]

You're absolutely right, Josh, what commitment will Horton give the employees that management will change???? We don't only have to get rid of the slugs and TWU, but AA also has to get rid of their management team. If, and only when Horton cleans house and the employees see an efficient operation and accountability, then WE can all say BK was worth it, but I highly doubt it. If the only thing that changes in BK are labor costs.....nothing will change operationally and the same idiots will mis-manage this place to Chapter 7. You watch & see. We will be on this forum in the not too distance future talking about AA still losing money and not being competitive.

The company will not get rid of the the slugs because in their mind there are not any. Why would they want to rid themselves of the TWU? Even outside of bankruptcy the company could do anything it wanted. AA got rid of the management team as far as a change being made. If the BOD let the company finacial and structure problems go for so many years what makes you think that they will change the team.

Your are correct, we will be here on the boards, but I do not see chapter 7 in the future. Why do that when they can have a cost advantage in labor alone.

 

[Mr Red]

Bob, you've been saying that the company's threat of BK is a bluff and now you all know it is real. As the leader your local what commitment do you have to the membership throughout this long and painful process? While I feel this will position AA to compete more effectively in the future and employees will benefit with greater job security and opportunities there's no denying that some painful changes will be taking shape in the months ahead. I empathize for the workers and their families who will ultimately bear the brunt of these decisions.

Josh

Its been eight years of pain,we are used to it.We are the lowest of the low,take from employees to transfer to oil barons.
Economic Treason !!!

 

[Overspeed]

This lowered the average hourly rate in OH to around $27/hr.


And higher labor costs dont necessarily equate to a competative disadvantage.

Labor is not bought and paid for by ASMs, it is sold per hour. Comparing labor costs per ASM is not a valid comparasion but one that people like you dreamed up and created to support a weak and misleading argument.

You claimed AA would have imposed steeper concessions, not me. The fact is we gave more than our peers without going BK. As you have often cited, there's more to labor costs than the hourly wage. We gave up more Vacation, Holidays, Sick Time and IOD time than out peers who went BK.

The four Folkers are but one example of the excessive waste that this company has continued to fund with our concessions. Then add in how they have been wasting money all over the place putting in the most expensive flooring they can find in terminals that may be headed towards demolition, so they can spend the money again. Then add in the new terminals, etc etc.

Hindsight is 20/20. Its easier to say what happened than what will happen. However I still think that had we gone BK in 2003 we would be better off today because even though the company did not go BK the workers did. Who got saved? People like the owners of those Folkers and various Aiports who were paid money by AA for equipment and facilities AA no longer used. Our concessions in 2003 set the standard, both in cuts and duration. We gave more in real time concessions than our peers in order to keep things that would pay off in the long term.

Lot's of errors and misunderstandings of common business principles and practices. 1) OSMs did not lower labor hour costs, outsourcing did. OSMs were created to counter to labor cost advantage that outsourcers get from not paying as high of wages and the fact Part 145 shops, or 121 for that matter, require and A&P to work on all aspects of aircraft maintenance. And labor costs are based off more than what you pay them. If they do more and have better work rules - Southwest - you can do more with less people but pay them more. Does AA do that? Uh, no! 2) You busted my balls over using cost per flight hour as misleading in the past saying everyone uses CASMs as the industry standard and that AA says we have the lowest CASM, you even said AA gave you that number. Sounds like you cherry pick the numbers that suit the argument you are making at the time. 3) The Vermont Plan was clear that deeper concessions were going to be asked for. I will list them in a bit. 4) Fokkers were leased or purchased. If you buy a car and decide you don't want it anymore what do you do? You find another buyer or you return it but you are still on the hook for the outstanding lease or loan that is not paid. Try that with you wife's car and see how that works for you. I am sure nobody will say anything and your credit will remain perfect. 5) Are you saying that any floor or terminal must be built only once? That you should expect your customers to keep coming back if you have ratty furniture, dated terminals, and inferior amenities they will keep flying you and not your competitors? If you want to stay in business, a refresh from time to time is necessary and part of running a good viable business that exists to serve customers. Should we still be flying 707s, using 1960s terminal furniture, and walking on asbestos tile? 6) One look at the Vermont Plan and a lot of people got saved.

Below is a list of some of the labor items in the Vermont Plan.

Outsource all Title II work, ground A300s, TWA 757, and some MD80s, contract out all 737, 767, 777, and some MD80 LC and HC, contract out all widebody BC, outsource TUL shops - APU, Composites, TEO, LDG, Wheel & Brake, Support - AFW/TAESL, close SFO, DFW 1 & 2, MIA hangar, reduce maintenance at ORD, LAX, JFK, close AFW and MCI, contract out all Class IIs, and contract out all FSC jobs at stations with less than 25 departures daily.

New lowest occ seniority would be T1 May 1989, T2 all RIF'd, T3 May 1992, T4 all RIF'd, and T5 May 1996.

The pension would have been frozen and retiree medical gone as well.

Yeah, we would have been better off in BK in 2003...whatever.

 

[737823]

You're absolutely right, Josh, what commitment will Horton give the employees that management will change???? We don't only have to get rid of the slugs and TWU, but AA also has to get rid of their management team. If, and only when Horton cleans house and the employees see an efficient operation and accountability, then WE can all say BK was worth it, but I highly doubt it. If the only thing that changes in BK are labor costs.....nothing will change operationally and the same idiots will mis-manage this place to Chapter 7. You watch & see. We will be on this forum in the not too distance future talking about AA still losing money and not being competitive.

I don't know, the jury is probably still out on Horton since it's been less than one week since he assumed the role and there haven't been any drastic changes. Sadly, the employees who find themselves in this predicament through no fault of their own will bear brunt of mismanagement and incompetent union leadership. Some of you probably feel you are being squeezed on both ends right? Sure BK may be a good thing from a customers perspective and as an intermediate step it will be a very positive thing for AA. As a customer I won't overlook the sacrifices of the labor groups and drastic changes to your worklives that will be coming in the months ahead. Sure some of the suppliers, airports, and aircraft lessors may take a hit on their arrangements with AMR but it won't be as far reaching as for the employees.

I flew to LAX yesterday and the usual FAs on flight 25 were as cheerful and upbeat as usual. They greeted me by name, collected my jacket and performed the usual service. A couple hours into the flight I talked to the purser and she said its all out of their control and have been saving money and will hope for the best. It's an opportunity to start on a new page.

Josh

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you've been saying that the company's threat of BK is a bluff and now you all know it is real. As the leader your local what commitment do you have to the membership throughout this long and painful process? While I feel this will position AA to compete more effectively in the future and employees will benefit with greater job security and opportunities there's no denying that some painful changes will be taking shape in the months ahead. I empathize for the workers and their families who will ultimately bear the brunt of these decisions.

Josh

If there is any painful changes one thing you can be sure of is that you will get your share of pa in as well. We gave already, no more. We were told that AA pretty much restructured back in 2003 and that it wasn't only labor that was giving, well with all the revelations such as that AA has been paying for leases on aircraft they have not flown in years that apparently was not the case.